CAR_Public/070314.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 14, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 52

                            Headlines


ADESA INC: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Planned KAR Merger
ADVANCED MICRO: Faces Suit by Graphics Processing Unit Buyers
AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Defers Ruling in IPO Suit Deal
ALLIED CAPITAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in D.C.
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Motion Seeking Dismissal of Pa. Suit Opposed

BABY BOTTLE MANUFACTURERS: Face Calif. Suit Over "Toxic" Bottles
BAUSCH & LOMB: Recalls ReNu MultiPlus for High Trace Iron Level
CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Faces Suit in Nigeria Over Accounting Scandal
CONAGRA FOODS: Extends Recall of Contaminated Peanut Butter
EASTMAN KODAK: No Appeal Filed Against Securities Suit Dismissal

EBAY INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Auction Payment Procedure
ECHOSTAR COMMS: No Trial Date Yet for Colo. Retailers' Lawsuit
EFUNDS CORP: To Settle Fla. DPPA Suit, Faces Similar Tex. Suits
EGL INC: Continues to Face "P&D" Drivers' Lawsuit in Calif.
EGL INC: Seeks Consolidation of Tex. Suits Over Crane Proposal

EL PASO: Continues to Face Colo. ERISA, Age Discrimination Suit
EL PASO: Formal Discovery Stayed in Tex. ERISA Violations Suit
EL PASO: Seeks Dismissal of Multiple Natural Gas Litigations
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Seeks Dismissal of Fla. Homeowners Litigation
EXXON MOBIL: Files Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Over MTBE Leak

FEDERAL RESERVE: Gets Summary Judgment in Discrimination Suit
FIRST HORIZON: $36M Loan Origination Fees Suit Settlement Okayed
FLORIDA: 11th Circuit Allows DPPA Violations Lawsuit to Proceed
INDIAN TRUST: "Cobell" Plaintiffs Reject $7B Settlement Proposal
ISRAEL: Lawyer Plans Suit Over Klebsiella Pneumoniae Outbreak

L-3 COMMS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Stock Options Litigation
MIDLAND CREDIT: Settles Labor-Related Litigation in Calif.
NETFLIX INC: Sued for Alleged Online DVD Rental Market Monopoly
OHIO CASUALTY: Continues to Face Suit Over Total Loss Valuation
OHIO CASUALTY: Continues to Face Ark. Suit Over Injury Payments

OIL COMPANIES: Utah Motorists File Lawsuit Over "Hot Gasoline"
OMNICOM GROUP: Discovery in N.Y. Securities Suit to End in H1
SAFEWAY INC: Recalls Bread Possibly Containing Wire Fragments
STATE FARM: "Scruggs" Katrina Group Asks $50M Suit Deal Scrapped
WELLPOINT HEALTH: Sued Over Suppression of Physicians' Payments

WILLIS GROUP: June Trial Set in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
WILLIS GROUP: Continues to Face RICO Act Violations Suit in N.J.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HCC INSURANCE: Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing in Tex.
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Lockridge Files Mo. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NUVELO INC: Felgoise Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Filing
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Felgoise Announces Securities Lawsuit


                           *********


ADESA INC: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Planned KAR Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADESA, Inc. reached an agreement in principle to settle a
putative stockholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery
of the state of Delaware against the company, its directors and
Equity Sponsors in relation to a proposed merger with KAR
Acquisition, Inc.

KAR Acquisition is an indirect subsidiary of KAR Holdings II,
LLC, an entity controlled by a group of private equity funds
consisting of Kelso & Co., GS Capital Partners VI, L.P., an
affiliate of Goldman Sachs & Co., ValueAct Capital Master Fund,
L.P. and Parthenon Investors II, L.P.

As part of the proposed settlement, ADESA has agreed to amend
and supplement its definitive proxy statement filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 16, 2007 to
include certain additional disclosure, which proxy supplement
will be mailed to stockholders of record.  The plaintiff's
counsel may petition the Delaware Court of Chancery for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by ADESA.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, ADESA or its
successor in interest has agreed to pay up to $340,000 for fees
and expenses, subject to the court's approval.

The settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including execution of a formal settlement agreement, court
approval following notice to members of the proposed settlement
class and consummation of the merger.

If finally approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery, the
settlement will resolve all of the claims that were or could
have been brought on behalf of the proposed settlement class in
the action being settled, including all claims relating to the
merger, the merger agreement and any disclosure made in
connection therewith.

ADESA and each of the Equity Sponsors have denied and continue
to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and are entering into a
settlement agreement solely because the proposed settlement
would eliminate the distraction, burden and expense of further
litigation.

The merger may be consummated prior to final court approval of
the settlement.  The proposed settlement of the lawsuit will not
affect the proposed merger consideration of $27.85 per share in
cash to be paid in the merger or any other terms of the merger.

As previously announced on Dec. 22, 2006, ADESA entered into a
definitive merger agreement relating to the acquisition.  
ADESA's board of directors unanimously (excluding the recused
directors Messrs. Gartzke David G. Gartzke and Angel Rodolfo
"A.R." Sales) approved the proposed merger and recommends that
all ADESA stockholders vote "FOR" the adoption and approval of
the merger agreement and the merger.

The special meeting of ADESA stockholders to consider and vote
upon the proposed merger is scheduled for March 28, 2007 at
10:00 a.m. local time at ADESA's executive offices located at
13085 Hamilton Crossing Blvd., Carmel, Indiana 46032.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, ADESA, Inc. --
http://www.adesainc.com-- is North America's largest publicly  
traded provider of wholesale vehicle auctions and used vehicle
dealer floorplan financing.  The company's operations span North
America with 54 ADESA used vehicle auction sites, 42 Impact
salvage vehicle auction sites and 85 AFC loan production
offices.

For more information, contact Jonathan Peisner, Analyst Contact
of ADESA, Inc., Phone: 317-249-4390, E-mail: jpeisner@adesa.com;
or Julie Vincent, ADESA Media Contact, Phone: 317-249-4233, E-
mail: jvincent@adesa.com.


ADVANCED MICRO: Faces Suit by Graphics Processing Unit Buyers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. was named as one of the defendants
in approximately 36 related antitrust actions related to its
pricing of graphics processing units (GPU) and cards.

The company, its recent acquisition ATI Technologies, Inc., and
Nvidia Corp., were named as defendants in such suits, which were
filed in the Northern District of California, the Central
District of California, the District of Massachusetts, the
Western District of Wisconsin, the District of South Carolina,
the District of Kansas and the District of Vermont.

According to the complaints, plaintiffs filed each of the
actions after reading press reports that the company and Nvidia
had received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division in connection with the DOJ's investigation
into potential antitrust violations related to graphics
processing units and cards.

All of the actions appear to allege that the defendants
conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of
graphics processing units and cards in violation of federal
antitrust law and/or state antitrust law.

Further, each of the complaints is styled as a putative class
action and alleges a class of plaintiffs (either indirect or
direct purchasers) who purportedly suffered injury as a result
of the defendants' alleged conduct.

The majority of the complaints propose a class period from
November or December 2002 to the present, according to the
company's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. on the Net: http://www.amd.com/.


AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Defers Ruling in IPO Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New York indicated
that it would defer consideration of final approval of a
settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class action
against Akamai Technologies, Inc.

Between July 2, 2001 and Nov. 7, 2001, purported class actions
seeking monetary damages were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the company as
well as against the underwriters of its Oct. 28, 1999 initial
public offering of common stock.  

The complaints were filed allegedly on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock during different time
periods, all beginning on Oct. 28, 1999 and ending on various
dates.  

The complaints are similar and allege violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 primarily based on the allegation that the
underwriters received undisclosed compensation in connection
with the company's initial public offering.

On April 19, 2002, a single consolidated amended complaint was
filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations contained in
the previously filed separate actions.  

The consolidated amended complaint defines the alleged class
period as Oct. 28, 1999 through Dec. 6, 2000.  A Special
Litigation Committee of Akamai's Board of Directors authorized
management to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims
substantially consistent with a Memorandum of Understanding that
was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.

The parties negotiated a settlement that is subject to approval
by the court.  

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued an Opinion and Order
preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.  

The parties agreed to a modification narrowing the scope of the
bar order and, on Aug. 31, 2005, and the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.

On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
overturned the District Court's certification of the class of
plaintiffs who are pursuing the claims that would be settled in
the settlement against the underwriter defendants.

Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
with the Second Circuit on Jan. 5 in response to the Second
Circuit's decision and have informed the District Court that
they would like to be heard as to whether the settlement might
still be approved even if the decision of the Court of Appeals
is not reversed.  

The District Court indicated that it would defer consideration
of final approval of the settlement pending plaintiffs' request
for further appellate review, according to the company's March 1
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


ALLIED CAPITAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
Allied Capital Corp. was named as a defendant in a purported
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.

On Feb. 26, Dana Ross filed a class action complaint in which
she alleges that the company and certain members of management
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  

The complaint, "Dana Ross v. Walton, et al., CV 00402," claims
that, between March 1, 2006, and Jan. 10, 2007, Allied Capital
either failed to disclose or misrepresented information
concerning the loan origination practices of Business Loan
Express, LLC, an Allied Capital portfolio company.

Dana Ross seeks unspecified compensatory and other damages, as
well as other relief, according to the company's Feb. 28 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Ross v. Walton, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00402-
EGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

Representing the plaintiffs is Steven Richard Freeman of
Freeman, Wolfe & Greenbaum, P.A., 409 Washington Avenue, Suite
300, Towson, MD 21204, Phone: (410) 321-8400, Fax: 410-321-8407,
E-mail: srf@fwglaw.com.


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Motion Seeking Dismissal of Pa. Suit Opposed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against ATI Technologies, Inc., an acquisition of Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., are opposing a motion seeking for the dismissal
of the case.

In August and September 2005, five class actions were filed
against ATI and certain of its directors and officers on behalf
of shareholders who purchased ATI common shares between Oct. 7,
2004 and on or about June 23, 2005.  

The claims allege that ATI and certain of its directors and
officers violated U.S. securities laws by failing to disclose
material facts and making statements that contained
misrepresentations about its business and future outlook.  

It is alleged that as a result of the failure to disclose
material facts and the alleged misrepresentations, ATI's common
stock traded at artificially inflated prices until the stock
price dropped on the news of ATI's third quarter results in June
2005.  

The claims further allege that while in possession of material
undisclosed information, certain of ATI's directors and officers
sold a portion of their common shares at inflated prices.  

On May 23, 2006, the court dismissed one of the five actions
because the plaintiff failed to serve the summons and complaint.
The remaining four lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action, and on Sept. 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

ATI filed its motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on Dec. 4, 2006.  On Jan. 25, class plaintiffs filed
their opposition to ATI's motion to dismiss, according to
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.'s March 1 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The consolidated suit is "Glass v. ATI Technologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04414-TON," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Thomas N. Oneill, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert P. Frutkin of The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross.
         P.C., 450 John Wanamaker Bldg., Juniper & Market Sts.,
         Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-561-3600, Fax: 215-
         561-3000, E-mail: rpf@bernardmgross.com; and

     (2) Trig Randall Smith of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
         San Diego, CA 92101, US, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail:
         TrigS@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Daniel Segal of Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin, One
         Logan Square, 27TH FL., Philadelphia, PA 19103-6933,
         Phone: 215-568-6200, E-mail: dsegal@hangley.com; and

    (ii) Brian H. Polovoy of Shearman & Sterling, 599 Lexington
         Ave., New York, NY 10022-6069, Phone: 212-848-4000, E-
         mail:, E-mail: bpolovoy@shearman.com.


BABY BOTTLE MANUFACTURERS: Face Calif. Suit Over "Toxic" Bottles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Robert Weiss filed a billion dollar class action in Los
Angeles Superior Court against five leading manufacturers of
baby bottles.

The suit was filed on behalf of the babies of California, who
may have been injured by drinking out of plastic bottles that
contain the toxic chemical Bisphenol-A, which is used in making
poly-carbonate plastic food and drink packaging.  BPA is known
to cause neurological and hormonal damage to lab animals.  

Five of the leading baby products manufacturers use BPA in the
production of making their plastic baby bottles:

     -- Gerber,
     -- Evenflo,
     -- Avent,
     -- Playtex, and
     -- Dr. Brown's baby bottles and sippy cups contain BPA.

Last week, scientists convened at the National Institutes of
Health in Washington, D.C. to discuss whether or not exposure to
this toxic chemical would cause long-term damage to these
infants.

The meeting had to be postponed due to all demands of the
consumer groups and the submission of more than 200 pieces of
evidence proving harm was being caused. "It became too
rancorous," Robert Weiss said.

Lab tests prove that when these bottles are heated, as many
parents do to warm formula or breast milk, potentially dangerous
levels of BPA leak into the liquid.  While industry leaders
continue to defend the use of BPA, environmental experts
question the possible link between BPA and early puberty, and
possibly autism.

"Currently manufacturers do not have to label their products
contain BPA," Mr. Weiss added. "We are going to change that.
Parents should know what they are putting in their baby's mouth.
This is disgraceful and we are going to force these
manufacturers to be held to a higher standard."

For more information, contact Robert Weiss of Robert H. Weiss &
Associates, PLLC, Mobile: 516-983-7560.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Recalls ReNu MultiPlus for High Trace Iron Level
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb initiated a limited voluntary recall from
distribution centers and retail shelves in the U.S. and specific
other countries of 12 lots of ReNu MultiPlus lens care solution
made at its plant in Greenville, South Carolina because they
contain an elevated level of trace iron.

This may result in discoloration of the solution in some
bottles, and the shelf life of the product may be shortened to
less than its two-year expiration date, due to a potential loss
of effectiveness over time.  

The company has received no reports of serious adverse events
associated with these lots and believes virtually all of the
affected product, manufactured about a year ago, has already
been used by consumers.  Bausch & Lomb has notified the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration of this voluntary action.

About a million bottles of solution from nine of the 12 lots
were originally distributed in the U.S.  Product from the 12
affected lots was also distributed in Canada, Latin America,
Korea and Taiwan, where it is also being recalled.

Lot numbers subject to recall:

      GC6030 - GC6037 - GC6038 - GC6045 - GC6048 - GC6052 -  
      GC6061 - GC6063 - GC6072 - GC6073 - GC6080 - GC6085

The company initiated an investigation after receiving three
customer reports of discolored solution.  The root cause of the
discoloration was determined to be an elevated level of trace
iron in a single batch of raw material sourced from an outside
supplier.  Iron is an element present at trace levels --
measured in parts per billion -- in many compounds used in
manufacturing food, drug, medical device and cosmetic products
for human use.  The elevated level of trace iron could combine
with other compounds in the solution to cause discoloration
which signals that the solution may be losing effectiveness over
time.

"We have always maintained that the health and safety of
consumers is our top priority," said Angela J. Panzarella, vice
president and head of Bausch & Lomb's global vision care
business.  "With detailed and specific information about the
distribution of the affected product, and good information about
consumer use patterns, we are highly confident that virtually
all of the affected product was used before it began to lose
effectiveness.  We're now in the process of confirming with
distributors and retailers that there is no product still
available for sale anywhere."

"We are confident we have identified the source of the problem
and we are taking appropriate measures designed to avoid a
recurrence," Ms. Panzarella said.

Bausch & Lomb does not expect the costs associated with this
limited recall will have a significant impact on its financial
results.

If consumers notice that their lens care solution appears to be
discolored, they should discard it, as it may be losing
effectiveness.  The recalled lots all carry the expiration date
"2008 - 03" on the bottle.  Consumers who have bottles from the
lot numbers listed should check the company's web site:
http://www.bausch.com/productrecallor call the consumer affairs  
line 1-866-259-8255 to arrange for a replacement.


CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Faces Suit in Nigeria Over Accounting Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than 300 Cadbury Schweppes plc shareholders have launched a
class action over an accounting scandal at the company's
Nigerian subsidiary.

Shareholders, joined by a Lagos-based stockbroking firm Maxifund
Investments and Securities Ltd., sued the company and its
auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, reports say.  They accused
defendants of negligence.  They allegedly "suffered a huge loss"
as a result of the overstatement of Cadbury Nigeria's financial
position and that the defendants failed to act in their
interest.

They are also suing for access to a review carried out by
PricewaterhouseCoopers.

In December 2006, Cadbury Schweppes said it discovered "a
significant and deliberate overstatement of Cadbury Nigeria
results, which had existed over a number of years."

The company fired Nigerian Chief Executive Bunmi Oni, named by
PricewaterhouseCoopers in September as Nigeria's "most respected
CEO," and Finance Director Ayo Akadiri.

The company restated its 2006 earnings by $102 million.


CONAGRA FOODS: Extends Recall of Contaminated Peanut Butter
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is informing consumers
that ConAgra Foods Inc. has extended their recall of all Peter
Pan peanut butter, and all Great Value peanut butter beginning
with product code 2111, including peanut butter toppings, back
to October 2004.  This information was obtained recently as part
of the ongoing investigation being conducted by FDA.

Consumers who have purchased any of the products since October
2004 should discard them.  FDA's advice to consumers continues
to be not to eat any Peter Pan peanut butter or any Great Value
peanut butter beginning with the 2111 product code.

FDA will provide updates on recalled products, including any
other products that may have been made with potentially
contaminated peanut butter and distributed to consumers.

Symptoms of food-borne illness caused by Salmonella include
fever, diarrhea and abdominal cramps.  In persons with poor
underlying health or weakened immune systems, Salmonella can
invade the bloodstream and cause life-threatening infections or
death.  Individuals who have recently eaten peanut butter-
containing products from these companies and who have
experienced any of these symptoms should contact their doctor or
health care provider immediately and report the illnesses to
their state or local health authorities.

Similarly, institutional food establishments and other food
service providers who have received reports of illness from
consumers after they consumed a product containing this peanut
butter are encouraged to share that information with their local
health department.

FDA is continuing to work closely with the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and with states and local officials to
identify how the contamination occurred in order to prevent
similar foodborne illness outbreaks.


EASTMAN KODAK: No Appeal Filed Against Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action filed
against Eastman Kodak Co. and two of its former executives did
not appeal the dismissal of their case before the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.

On June 13, 2005, a purported shareholder class action was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.   

On June 20, 2005 and Aug. 10, 2005, similar lawsuits were filed
against the same defendants in the U.S. District Court for the  
Western District of New York.  The cases have been consolidated
in the Western District of New York and the lead plaintiffs are
John Dudek and the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund.   

The complaints filed in each of these actions seek to allege
claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act on behalf of a
proposed class of persons who purchased securities of the
company between Apr. 23, 2003 and Sept. 25, 2003, inclusive.   

The substance of the complaints is that various press releases
and other public statements made by the company during the
proposed class period allegedly misrepresented the company's
financial condition and omitted material information regarding,
among other things, the state of the company's film and paper
business.   

An amended complaint was filed on Jan. 20, 2006, containing
essentially the same allegations as the original complaint but
adding an additional named defendant.

Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on Apr. 21, 2006.
Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition was filed on June 23, 2006
and the company's reply was filed on July 24, 2006.

Defendants' motion to dismiss was argued on Oct. 3, 2006, and
granted on Nov. 1, 2006.  The plaintiffs did not appeal,
according to the company's Mar. 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "McClain v. Eastman, Case No. 6:05-cv-06326-MAT,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York under Judge Michael A. Telesca.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

     (1) Stuart Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of  
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, US, Phone: 610-667-
         7706;  

     (2) Eugene Welch of Harris, Chesworth, O'Brien, Johnstone,  
         Welch & Leone, 300 Linden Oaks, Ste. 100, Rochester, NY  
         14625, Phone: 585-899-1400, Fax: 585-899-1426, E-mail:  
         ewelch@rochester.rr.com; and  

     (3) Samuel H. Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman  
         & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406,  
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Clinton  
         Square, P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY 14603, Phone:  
         (585) 263-1558, Fax: 866-947-0625, E-mail:  
         cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com; and  

    (ii) John C. Millian of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, 1050  
         Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036, Phone:  
         (202) 955-8213.


EBAY INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Auction Payment Procedure
-------------------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. faces an antitrust class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas accusing the company of
illegally tying and steering customers to use its wholly owned
subsidiary, PayPal Inc., to monopolize payments and unjustly
enrich itself, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all customer sellers
of eBay who are and have been required to honor all payment
methods encompassed by PayPal in respect of sales and purchases
on eBay.com since 2002.

Filed on March 8, the complaint alleges "sellers are forced to
accept a payment procedure that imposes upon them the obligation
to pay needless and supracompetitive fees to defendant."

It further contends that "sellers are forced to accept eBay's
payment process as a condition of being able to use the eBay
auction process."

Specifically, it alleges:

     (1) eBay leverages its monopoly in the on-line auction
         market by requiring that sellers utilize an on-line
         payment system that imposes needless and
         supracompetitive fees on them;

     (2) eBay has economic power in the on-line auction market
         sufficient to restrain competition in respect of
         payment methods;

     (3) eBay's coercion has achieved or has the dangerous
         probability of achieving monopoly power in the market
         for on-line payment systems for use in on-line
         auctions; and

     (4) the amount of commerce is substantial.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (a) the definition of the relevant product and geographic
         markets;

     (b) whether defendant has sufficient economic power in the
         tying market to restrain appreciably competition in the
         tied product market;

     (c) whether defendant uses coercion in the market for on-
         line auctions to monopolize (or attempt to monopolize)
         the market for on-line payment systems for use in on-
         line auctions;

     (d) whether the amount of commerce affected is substantial;

     (e) antitrust impact; and

     (f) whether the practices are ongoing.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other members of the
class, prays for judgment as follows:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure on behalf of the class, defined herein,
        declaring plaintiff to be an adequate representative of
        that class, declaring plaintiff's counsel to counsel to
        the class;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay illegally monopolized and maintained a monopoly in
        violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay illegally attempted to monopolize a market in
        violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade in
        violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay violated California Business and Profession Code
        Section 16720 et seq.;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay violated California Business and Professions Code
        Section 17200 et seq.;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay was unjustly enriched;

     -- awarding judgment against eBay, in an amount to be
        proved at trial, treble the amount of damages suffered
        by the members of the class to their business and
        property interests, plus attorneys' fees, costs, and
        interest as allowable by law, for eBay's violations of
        the Sherman Act and applicable California law;

     -- enjoining eBay from continuing with its anticompetitive
        behavior (including the tie and the monopoly maintenance
        of the on-line payment services market) in violation of
        the Sherman Act;

     -- granting plaintiff and the other members of the class
        such other relief that the court may consider necessary
        or appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the
        markets affected by eBay's unlawful conduct; and

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

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

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1b41

The suit is "Malone v. eBay Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-00174-LY,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas under Judge Lee Yeakel.

Representing plaintiffs is Joanne M. Cicala of Kirby McInerney &
Squire, LLP, 101 S. College St., Dripping Springs, TX 78620,
Phone: (512) 858-1800, Fax: (512) 858-1801.


ECHOSTAR COMMS: No Trial Date Yet for Colo. Retailers' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has yet to be set for a purported class action
filed by retailers against EchoStar Communications Corp. in the
Arapahoe County District Court, Colorado.

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Arapahoe County
and in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado,
attempting to certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of
the company's satellite hardware retailers.

The plaintiffs are requesting the courts declare certain
provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between the
company and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to
award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs,
and other compensation.  

The company is vigorously defending against the suits and has
asserted a variety of counterclaims.  The federal court action
has been stayed during the pendency of the state court action.

EchoStar Communications later filed a motion for summary
judgment on all counts and against all plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs
filed a motion for additional time to conduct discovery to
enable them to respond to the company's motion.

The court granted limited discovery, which ended during 2004.  
Plaintiffs claimed that the company did not provide adequate
disclosure during the discovery process.   The court agreed, and
recently denied the company's motion for summary judgment as a
result.  

A trial date has not been set, according to the company's March
1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

EchoStar Communications Corp. on the Net: www.echostar.com.


EFUNDS CORP: To Settle Fla. DPPA Suit, Faces Similar Tex. Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
eFunds Corp. is close to settling a purported class action in
Florida, which alleges violations of the federal Driver's
Privacy Protection Act, however it now faces similar litigation
in Texas.

Initially, the company along with seven others was named as a
defendant in a purported class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida over alleged
violations of DPPA.

The complaint in this action alleges that the company purchased
motor vehicle records from the State of Florida and used that
data for marketing and other purposes that are not permitted
under DPPA.

Plaintiffs were seeking liquidated damages of not less than
$2,500 for each affected member of a purported class, plus costs
and attorney's fees, and injunctive relief to prevent further
alleged violations of the Federal Act.

In March 2004, the company joined in a motion to dismiss this
case filed by a co-defendant and the company filed its own
further motion to dismiss a portion of this case and a motion
for summary judgment in June 2004.  

The company cannot predict whether the plaintiffs in this case
will be successful in certifying their complaint as a class
action.

Six of the eight defendants, including the company, have agreed
to a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs.  Under this
agreement, the settling defendants will receive a nationwide
release from all persons who had no actual damages as a result
of the alleged violations of the DPPA and consent to the entry
of an order for injunctive relief intended to enhance their data
management practices.  Counsel to the plaintiffs will receive
$25 million of attorney's fees.

The settling parties have submitted documentation regarding the
proposed settlement to the court, but no hearing to consider
this proposal has been scheduled.

The two non-settling defendants have opposed the proposed
settlement and a group of Texas drivers and motor vehicle record
holders filed a class action complaint in Texas alleging
violations of the DPPA against some of the settling defendants,
the company's subsidiary ChexSystems, Inc. and one non-settling
defendant in January 2007.  ChexSystems has not yet been served
with this complaint.

The Texas group moved to intervene in the Florida litigation,
oppose the proposed settlement as to the nationwide class, and
to stay the Florida litigation in favor of the Texas action as
to the claims asserted in the Texas action.  Plaintiffs and the
settling defendants have opposed the intervention motion and
motion to stay the Florida litigation.

The same group of Texas drivers and motor vehicle record holders
has subsequently filed other class actions in Texas alleging
that other entities have violated the DPPA.

One action, bearing the caption, "Sharon Taylor, et al. v.
Biometric Access Co., et al., Case No. 22-07CV-18," was filed on
Jan. 12.  It included ChexSystems as one of the 28 named
defendants in this action.  It has not yet been served with this
complaint.  

The complaint alleges violations of the DPPA that are similar to
those that are the subject of the proposed settlement in
Florida.

The company will continue to pursue approval of the proposed
settlement in Florida and will vigorously oppose the Texas DPPA
action on the grounds now that it is subject to the proposed
nationwide settlement in Florida.

Once proposed class action settlement in Florida is approved,
the company, and its subsidiaries, including ChexSystems, Inc.,
will be released from liability from any claims under the DPPA
by the nationwide class, 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.

eFunds Corp. on the Net: http://www.efunds.com/.


EGL INC: Continues to Face "P&D" Drivers' Lawsuit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
EGL Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action filed
by one former and two current independent contractor pickup and
delivery (P&D) drivers of the company on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated drivers in California.  

The suit alleges various causes of action based on their theory
that the drivers are employees and not independent contractors.  

Filed in California state court on Sept. 12, 2005, the complaint
requests:

      -- the matter be designated as a class action on behalf of
         all independent contractor P&D drivers working for EGL
         in California;

      -- a declaratory judgment that EGL has violated the law;

      -- an equitable accounting and an unspecified amount of
         damages; and

      -- restitution in the form of business expenses, unpaid
         overtime, meal period compensation, unlawful deductions
         from wages, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys'
         fees and costs.

The company removed the case to U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, and the parties agreed to focus
only on the individual claims of the three named defendants in
the first phase of the proceedings.  

In the event one or more of the plaintiffs' claims survive the
summary judgment phase, the next phase would focus on whether
the action is maintainable as a class action.  

EGL Inc. reported no material development on the case at its
March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Narayan et al. v. EGL, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:05-
cv-04181-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral
to Judge Howard R. Lloyd.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lorraine Grindstaff and Jules Sandford of Patten Faith
         and Sandford, 635 West Foothill Blvd., Monrovia, CA
         91016-2097, US, Phone: 626-359-9335, Fax: 626-303-2391,
         E-mail: lgrindstaff@pfslaw.com and
         jsandford@pfslaw.com; and

     (2) Aaron D. Kaufmann of Hinton, Alfert & Sumner, 1646 N.
         California Blvd., Suite 600, Walnut Creek, CA 94596,
         Phone: (925) 932-6006, Fax: (925) 932-3412, E-mail:
         kaufmann@hinton-law.com.

Representing the defendants is Karen J. Kubin of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 580 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94104-1036, Phone: 415-765-9522, Fax: 415-765-
9501, E-mail: kkubin@akingump.com.


EGL INC: Seeks Consolidation of Tex. Suits Over Crane Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
EGL, Inc. is seeking the consolidation of several purported
class actions that challenge the proposal made by James R.
Crane, the company's largest shareholder, and others to acquire
all outstanding equity interests of in the company.  

                      Golombuski Litigation

The first of these suits is "Vivian Golombuski v. EGL, Inc. et
al., Cause No. 2007-00139," which was filed in the 125th
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.  

Plaintiff filed the suit against EGL, all of its directors, and
equity sponsor General Atlantic, LLC, as a class action on
behalf of all EGL shareholders except those affiliated with any
of the defendants.

The suit alleges that the proposal is unfair and grossly
inadequate and that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the shareholders.  

Plaintiff alleges that General Atlantic aided and abetted the
director defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.  She thus seeks
to enjoin the defendants from effectuating the proposal.

                   Platinum PVA Fund Litigation

The second case is "Platinum PVA Fund v. Milton Carroll, et al.,
Cause No. 2007-00554," which was filed in the 151st Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas.  

Plaintiff filed this suit against EGL and all of its directors
on behalf of a class of all EGL shareholders except those
affiliated with any of the defendants.  

It alleges that the proposal offers grossly unfair compensation
to EGL's shareholders and that the director defendants must take
other measures to maximize value to shareholders.  

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Proposal and to recover damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

                        Roberts Litigation

The third case is "Jim Roberts v. EGL, Inc., et al., Cause No.
2007-05941," which was filed in the 281st Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas.  

Plaintiff filed the suit against EGL, all of its directors, and
General Atlantic LLC on behalf of a class of all EGL
shareholders except those affiliated with any of the defendants.  

The suit alleges that the proposal is unfair and grossly
inadequate, and that the individual defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties by not taking measures to ensure that the
interests of EGL's public shareholders are properly protected.
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Proposal.

EGL and the other defendants have filed a motion seeking to
consolidate these lawsuits, according to the company's March 1
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

EGL, Inc. on the Net: http://www.eaglegl.com/.


EL PASO: Continues to Face Colo. ERISA, Age Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for District of Colorado over
allegations of pension law violations.

The suit alleges violations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a
result of the company's change from a final average earnings
formula pension plan to a cash balance pension plan.

The company reported no development in this matter 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 "Tomlinson et al. v. El Paso Corp. et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-02686-WDM-OES," filed in the U.S. District Court in
Denver, Colorado under Judge Walker D. Miller.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen R. Bruce of Stephen R. Bruce, Law Offices, 805
         15th Street, NW #210, Washington, DC 20005, U.S.A.,
         Phone: 202-371-8013, Fax: 202-371-0121, E-mail:
         stephen.bruce@prodigy.net; and

     (2) Barry Douglas Roseman of Roseman & Kazmierski, LLC,
         1120 Lincoln Street #1607, Denver, CO 80203-2141,
         U.S.A, Phone: 303-839-1771, Fax: 861-9214, E-mail:
         broseman@nela.org.  

Representing the company are:

     (i) Raymond W. Martin of Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP, United
         States District Court Box 19, 1801 California Street
         #3600, Denver, CO 80202 U.S.A, Phone: 303-244-1863,
         Fax: 303-244-1879, E-mail: martin@wtklaw.com; and

    (ii) Christopher James Rillo of Sonnenschein, Nath &
         Rosenthal, 685 Market Street, Sixth Floor, San
         Francisco, CA 94105, U.S.A., Phone: 415-882-5000, Fax:
         543-5472.


EL PASO: Formal Discovery Stayed in Tex. ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Formal discovery is stayed in the class action, "William H.
Lewis, III v. El Paso Corp., et al.," which is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The suit was filed in December 2002, alleging generally that the
company's direct and indirect communications with participants
in the El Paso Corp. Retirement Savings Plan included
misrepresentations and omissions that caused members of the
class to hold and maintain investments in El Paso stock in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Formal discovery in this lawsuit is currently stayed, according
to the company's Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Lewis, et al. v. EL Paso Corp., et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-04860," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, under Judge Lynn N. Hughes.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner and Bilek LLP, 1000
         Louisiana, Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail:
         tbilek@hb-legal.com; and

     (2) Joseph H. Meltzer, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Three Bala
         Plz E., Ste. 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-
         667-7706.  

Representing the company is Stephen D. Susman of Susman Godfrey,
1000 Louisiana Ste 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096, Phone: 713-651-
9366, Fax: 713-654-6670, E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com.


EL PASO: Seeks Dismissal of Multiple Natural Gas Litigations
------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corp., and certain of its affiliates, along with other
energy firms, are seeking to dismiss several sets of lawsuits
accusing it of natural gas price manipulations, 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.

Beginning in August 2003, several lawsuits have been filed
against El Paso Marketing L.P. (EPM) that allege El Paso, EPM
and other energy companies conspired to manipulate the price of
natural gas by providing false price information to industry
trade publications that published gas indices.

The first cases have been consolidated in federal court in New
York for all pre-trial purposes under the caption, "In re: Gas
Commodity Litigation."

In September 2005, the court certified the class to include all
persons who purchased or sold NYMEX natural gas futures between
Jan. 1, 2000 and Dec. 31, 2002.  

The company has executed settlement an agreement with the
plaintiffs, which is subject to court approval.

The second set of cases, involving similar allegations on behalf
of commercial and residential customers, were transferred to a
multi-district litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court
for Nevada, under the caption, "In re Western States Wholesale
Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation," which was dismissed and has
now been appealed.

The third sets of cases also involve similar allegations on
behalf of certain purchasers of natural gas.  These include
purported class actions:

      -- "Leggett et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation et al."
         (filed in Chancery Court of Tennessee in January 2005);

      -- "Ever-Bloom Inc. v. AEP Energy Services Inc. et al."
         (filed in U.S. District for the Eastern District of
         California in June 2005);

      -- "Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Oneok Inc." (filed in
          state court in Wyandotte County, Kansas in July 2005);

      -- "Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok Inc." (filed in state court in
         Wyandotte County, Kansas in September 2005);

      -- "Breckenridge, et al v. Oneok Inc., et al." (filed in
         state court in Denver County, Colorado in May 2006);

      -- "Missouri Public Service Commission v. El Paso
         Corporation et al." (filed in the circuit court of
         Jackson County, Missouri at Kansas City in October
         2006); and

      -- "Arandell, et al v. Xcel Energy, et al." (filed in the
         Circuit court of Dane County, Wisconsin in December
         2006).  

The Leggett and Farmland cases have been dismissed.  The
Arandell and Missouri Public Service cases have been removed to
federal court.  

The remaining cases have all been transferred to the MDL
proceeding.  Similar motions to dismiss have either been filed
or are anticipated to be filed in these cases as well.

El Paso Corp. on the Net: http://www.elpaso.com/.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Seeks Dismissal of Fla. Homeowners Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a
complaint filed in Indian River County Circuit Court in Florida
on behalf of a purported class of homeowners at Countryside RV
Resort at Vero Beach.

The complaint was served on the company in Jan. 12, 2006.  It
includes counts for alleged violations of the Florida Mobile
Home Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

It also claims that the company required homeowners to pay water
and sewer impact fees, either to the company or to the County,
"as a condition of initial or continued occupancy in the Park,"
without properly disclosing the fees in advance and
notwithstanding the company's position that all such fees were
fully paid in connection with the settlement agreement described
above.

On Feb. 8, 2006, the company served its motion to dismiss the
complaint, which is currently pending, according to the
company's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


EXXON MOBIL: Files Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Over MTBE Leak
-----------------------------------------------------------
Exxon Mobil Corp. and Shell Oil Co. have asked Madison County
Circuit Judge David Hylla to dismiss a suit alleging that methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from gasoline storage tanks owned by
the companies have contaminated groundwater near Edwardsville.

The companies said plaintiffs Rhea McMannis and Howard Graham
have failed to allege any release of the gasoline additive near
their well, as well as injury suffered, The Madison County
Record reports.

Exxon Mobil attorney Edward Cohen and Shell Oil attorney Michael
Downey, both of St. Louis, wrote that plaintiffs simply alleged
they had wells within 3,000 feet of Shell or Exxon Mobil
gasoline stations, according to the report.

The original suit was filed by Christine Moody of Korein Tillery
in 2001.  Ms. Moody proposed to certify lead plaintiff Frances
Misukonis as representative of all owners of contaminated wells.  
In 2005, all defendants but Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil settled
with Korein Tillery.

The firm then filed an amended complaint asserting claims for
Ms. McMannis and Mr. Graham against Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil.  
The two proposed to represent all persons residing within 3,000
feet of an underground storage tank owned or operated by Shell
Oil or Exxon Mobil.

The companies removed the suit to U.S. District Court under the
Class Action Fairness Act.

Last October, U.S. District Judge Michael Reagan remanded it to
Madison County.  Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil had by then filed a
motion to dismiss in Madison County.  Circuit Judge Don Weber
passed the case to Judge Hylla after losing an election for a
full term on Nov. 9.  Judge Hylla has not set a hearing on the
motion to dismiss.


FEDERAL RESERVE: Gets Summary Judgment in Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 7th Circuit Court ruled that two remaining plaintiffs in a
race, sex and age discrimination class action against the
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago failed to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination based on the statistical evidence
provided by the expert for the class, according to CourtHouse
News Service.

Four years ago, the district court decertified the class and
allowed employees to pursue individual claims.  Only two remain
for resolution on the appeal.  The district court concluded that
these two had not established even a prima facie case of
discrimination and granted summary judgment to the bank.

The suit was filed by Eleanor Baylie and Frances L. Smith.  
Eleanor Baylie worked for the bank as secretary since 1964.  She
alleges she was continually passed over on promotions.  Frances
Smith began as staff assistant in 1977.  She was promoted
several times to "senior examiner," but was allegedly denied
further advancement.

A copy of the ruling is available for free at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1b4c

The case (No. 06-2213) is on appeal from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division under
Judge William J. Hibbler.


FIRST HORIZON: $36M Loan Origination Fees Suit Settlement Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson County (Kan.) Circuit Judge Vernon Scoville III has
given tentative approval to an agreement reached by First
Horizon National Corp., parent of First Horizon Home Loan Corp.,
to settle for $36.3 million a class action related to the
charging of certain loan origination fees to customers in
Missouri.

The suit was filed by two couples, Missouri residents Roger and
Eugenia Jones and David and Holly McLean.  Judge Scoville later
allowed it to proceed as a class action on behalf of all second-
mortgage borrowers of the companies during the specified period.

The case generally concerned the charging of certain loan
origination fees, including fees permitted by Kansas and federal
law but allegedly restricted or not permitted by Missouri law,
when First Horizon Home Loans or its predecessor, McGuire
Mortgage Co., made certain second-lien mortgage loans, most of
them in the Kansas City market, which straddles Kansas and
Missouri.

In 2006, First Horizon entered into a verbal agreement in
principle after a mediation, to settle the class action, which
has been pending against it since 2000.

Under the settlement, class members will receive between $250
and $54,162 each.  The settlement covers the claims of more than
4,000 homeowners who obtained second-mortgage loans from First
Horizon or McGuire Mortgage Co. between Nov. 16, 1994, and April
13, 2005.

According to The Kansas City Star, court documents estimate that
borrowers who received the loans before Jan. 1, 1999, will be
eligible for an average amount of $10,171, with payments ranging
from $339 to $54,162.  Borrowers who received the loans after
Jan. 1, 1999, will be eligible for an average amount of $773,
with payments ranging from $250 to $4,353.

Under the settlement, the firm will receive $12 million in legal
fees and $300,000 in expenses.  A fairness hearing is set for
June 7.

First Horizon, which continues to deny wrongdoing, said in
documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, it expected to record a $21 million charge in the
third quarter to reflect the settlement.

Representing the class is Michael Vaughan of Walters Bender
Strohbehn & Vaughan, On the Net:
http://www.wbsvlaw.com/practice.html.


FLORIDA: 11th Circuit Allows DPPA Violations Lawsuit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed in part,
reversed and remanded in part a suit filed against executive-
level officials at the Florida Department of Highway Safety &
Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) over alleged violation of the Driver
Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).

The suit was filed by Mary Ann Collier, Arthur L. Wallace, Roy
McGoldrick, Robert Pino against DHSMV executive-level officials:

     -- Fred O. Dickinson, III,
     -- Carl A. Ford,
     -- Sandra Lambert,
     -- Michael D. McCaskill,
     -- Boyd Walden,
     -- Phillip Shelton,
     -- David M. Perryman,
     -- Lawrence J. Bilbo, and
     -- the Florida Dept. of Financial Services

Plaintiffs alleged the defendants sold personal information that
plaintiffs provided to the DHSMV in order to obtain their
drivers' licenses and/or vehicle registrations to mass
marketers, in violation of DPPA.

In addition to a direct claim under the DPPA, Plaintiffs also
sued for relief under 42 U.S.C. SS1983, which imposes liability
on anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person "of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws."

Specifically, they alleged that the sale of personal information
violated their constitutional right to privacy, in addition to
their rights protected by the DPPA.  The U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida granted defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims in the complaint on the grounds that
defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

The plaintiffs as well as the putative class of all other
similarly situated individuals appealed the dismissal of their
Second Amended Complaint.

The court circuit court reviewed the district court's grant of a
motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity de novo and accept
well-pleaded allegations as true, construing facts in the light
most favorable to the plaintiffs.

Qualified immunity offers protection for government officials,
acting within their discretionary authority, who are sued in
their individual capacities as long as "their conduct does not
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
of which a reasonable person would have known."

In a Feb. 12 ruling, the court decided that defendants are not
entitled to qualified immunity on the portion of Count I that
asserts a violation of the DPPA, nor on Count II in its
entirety.

A copy of the ruling is available for free at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1b4b

The suit is Case No. 06-12614 (D.C. Docket No. 04-21351-CV-JEM)
on Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.


INDIAN TRUST: "Cobell" Plaintiffs Reject $7B Settlement Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Native American plaintiffs in the Indian Trust case "Cobell"
have rejected a new $7 billion settlement proposal from the U.S.
government, according to The Jurist.

Native plaintiffs consider the settlement as "pennies on the
dollar," according to the report.

Under the terms of the offer, the government would pay $7
billion over ten years, without interest in exchange for the
release of all tribal and individual mismanagement claims,
including future liabilities, against the government.

The proposal would also end, over a period of 10 years, most of
the government's responsibilities to manage Indian trust lands
and would consolidate ownership of Indian lands, which are now
often held by many people, according to Associated Press.

Associate Deputy Interior Secretary James Cason reportedly said
roughly half of the $7 billion would go toward settling
individual and tribal claims, with the remainder covering other
parts of the proposal.

                        Case Background

Elouise Pepion Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe in
Montana, filed the class action on June 10, 1996 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

It seeks to force the federal government to account for billions
of dollars belonging to approximately 500,000 American Indians
and their heirs, and held in trust since 1887.

Specifically, the case involves royalties for farming, grazing,
mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.  
It dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break
up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160
acres to some individual Native Americans.

Back then, the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber,
grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds
for Indians and their survivors.

Through document discovery and courtroom testimony, the case has
revealed mismanagement, ineptness, dishonesty and delay by
federal officials, which lead a federal judge to declare their
conduct "fiscal and governmental irresponsibility in its purest
form."

As the case moved on, new revelations of false testimony,
financial misconduct and bureaucratic retaliation continued to
surface.

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

      -- to force the government to account for the money, and

      -- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

In recent developments, the chairman of the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee said he will hold a hearing later this month
to provide administration officials, plaintiffs, and
representatives from other interested parties an opportunity to
testify publicly on the settlement offer.

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
under Judge Thomas F. Hogan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net;

     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com;

     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American
         Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org; and

     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:
         elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com.

Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-
0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov.

For more details, contact

     (i) Elouise Cobell, Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund,
         Inc., PO Box 3029, 101 Pata Street, Browning, MT 59417,
         E-mail: info@indiantrust.com, Web site:
         http://www.indiantrust.com.

    (ii) The Committee on Indian Affairs, Phone: 202-224-2251,
         Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and

   (iii) House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web
         site: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov.


ISRAEL: Lawyer Plans Suit Over Klebsiella Pneumoniae Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer David File is preparing a class action against agencies
that allegedly failed to stop the spreading of a deadly
bacterium that has infected hundreds of patients in Israeli
hospitals this past year, Ynetnews reports.  

Mr. File's office added that the Health Ministry is also at
fault for not allocating the necessary funds to prevent the
outbreak.

Among other things, the lawsuit will allege that "the outbreak,
which could have been prevented, apparently occurred due to the
fact doctors do not always wash their hands before and after
surgery and do not use disinfectant cloths on a regular basis."

The antibiotic-resistant bacterium Klebsiella pneumoniae has so
far infected some 400-500 people and caused over 120 deaths.

According to Mr. File, as opposed to other medical malpractice
cases, this lawsuit relates to the negligence in preventing the
outbreak of the virus due to the hospitals' failure to implement
hygienic regulations and standards that are commonplace in
hospitals all over the world.


L-3 COMMS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Stock Options Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action related to its stock options award practices that
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

On Nov. 20, 2006, Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund
IBEW filed a class action complaint in the Supreme Court of New
York, County of New York against the company and certain current
and former directors and officers.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with disclosures concerning the company's stock options award
practices.  It seeks monetary damages, rescission of the 2004
amendment to the 1999 Long Term Performance Plan, equitable
relief, and that fees and expenses be awarded.  

The company and other defendants filed a notice of removal of
the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on Jan. 9, and a motion to dismiss pursuant to the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act on Jan. 11.

The suit is "Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW
v. Millard et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00172-JGK," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge John G. Koeltl.

Representing the plaintiffs is Stuart M. Grant of Grant &
Eisenhofer, PA (DE), Chase Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market
Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone: (302) 622-7000, Fax: (302)
622-7100, E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Peter Eric Kazanoff of Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP (NY), 425 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY
10017, Phone: 2124552000, Fax: 2124552502, E-mail:
pkazanoff@stblaw.com.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Settles Labor-Related Litigation in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Midland Credit Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., settled for $1.1 million a purported
class action alleging violations of the California Labor Code.

On Feb. 9, Midland entered into a definitive joint stipulation
of settlement and release with the lead plaintiff in a proposed
class action filed against the company in the San Diego County
Superior Court.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the claims brought in the
proposed class action against Midland will be settled for a
maximum total payment (if all settlement class members submit
valid claims) of $1.1 million.

Of the amount, approximately $85,000 represents unpaid bonus
overtime compensation alleged to be owed to the approximately
400 members of the proposed class over a 4-year period,
including employer taxes and statutory interest on such amounts.

The balance represents a negotiated settlement of penalties
allegedly owed to the proposed class members under the
California law for the failure to pay the unpaid bonus overtime
compensation, plaintiff's attorney's fees, and the costs of
administering the settlement.

The settlement agreement is subject to the satisfaction of a
number of conditions, including final approval by the court,
according to Encore Capital Group, Inc.'s Feb. 28 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Encore Capital Group on the Net:
http://www.encorecapitalgroup.com.


NETFLIX INC: Sued for Alleged Online DVD Rental Market Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix Inc. was named defendant in a purported class action
filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California accusing the company of violating antitrust and
unfair competition laws.

The suit was filed by a customer, Dennis Dilbeck, on Jan. 31,
2007.  It alleges that the company violated antitrust and unfair
competition laws in seeking to enforce two of its patents
against Blockbuster, Inc. and other potential competitors, which
patents were allegedly obtained by deceiving the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.

It also alleges that the company's subscribers have paid
artificially inflated subscription prices because potential
competitors were allegedly deterred from entering the online DVD
rental market by the company's patents.

The suit purports to be on behalf of existing and past
subscribers who allegedly would have paid lower subscription
rates but for the alleged anticompetitive conduct.  

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution and damages in an
unspecified amount, according to the company's Feb. 28 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Dilbeck v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00643-
WHA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California under Judge William H. Alsup.

Representing the plaintiffs is Alan Himmelfarb of Law Offices of
Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb, 2757 Leonis Blvd., Vernon, CA 90058,
Phone: 323-585-8696, Fax: 323-8585-8198, E-mail:
Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net.

Representing the defendants is Keith E. Eggleton of Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
keggleton@wsgr.com.


OHIO CASUALTY: Continues to Face Suit Over Total Loss Valuation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. remains a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in the District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
over its valuation of total loss automobiles.

The lawsuit by Douglas and Carla Scott against The Ohio Casualty
Insurance Co., West American Insurance Co., American Fire and
Casualty Co., and Ohio Security Insurance Co. was served on Jan.
3, 2005.

The proceeding challenges the use of a certain vendor in valuing
total loss automobiles.  Plaintiff alleges that use of the
database results in valuations to the detriment of the insureds.

Plaintiff is seeking class status and alleges breach of
contract, fraud and bad faith.  The lawsuit is in its early
stages and will be vigorously defended.

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.


OHIO CASUALTY: Continues to Face Ark. Suit Over Injury Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. remains a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas in May
2005 over the way it compensates insureds for claims of bodily
injury.

The case is "Georgia Hensley, et al. v. Computer Science Corp.,
et al."  It was brought against several defendants, including
The Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., American Fire and Casualty Co.,
Ohio Casualty of New Jersey, Inc., Ohio Security Insurance Co.,
and West American Insurance Co.

The proceeding alleges the defendants improperly reduced
uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage payments to persons
insured under private passenger automobile insurance polices by
consulting a computer software program in determining the amount
of damages payable to the insured for bodily injury claims.
Plaintiff is seeking class status.

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.


OIL COMPANIES: Utah Motorists File Lawsuit Over "Hot Gasoline"
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeking class-action status on behalf of Utah drivers
who were allegedly overcharged for buying "hot gasoline" was
filed last week in the U.S. District Court for Utah, The Salt
Lake Tribune reports.

C. Val Morley, an attorney in American Fork, filed the proposed
class action on behalf of Max Paul Peterson.  The suit contends
that oil companies such as Flying J Inc., Sinclair Oil Corp.,
Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Shell Oil Co. and
ConocoPhillips are getting excess profits by selling "hot
gasoline."

A gallon of gasoline according to federal regulatory standards
is 231 cubic inches of fuel measured at 60 degrees Fahrenheit.  
However, temperature increases during hotter days result to
expansion of the volume of the fuel, and thus lesser energy for
the same price paid on days when the temperature is lower.  

The proposed Utah class action wants the oil companies to
install temperature-correcting equipment on their retail motor
fuel pumps or post notices to consumers that the energy of the
fuel they are buying varies due to temperature, according to the
report.

It also asks the court to award each class member the amount of
actual damages they suffered or $2,000, which ever is greater.

The suit is "Peterson v. Exxon Mobile Corp. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-00130-DAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
U.S. District Court of Utah under Judge Dale A. Kimbal.

Representing the plaintiff is C. Val Morley at Witt Morley &
Anderson, 306 W Main, American Fork, UT 84003, Phone:(801)756-
7658, E-mail: jemamorley@hotmail.com.


OMNICOM GROUP: Discovery in N.Y. Securities Suit to End in H1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in "In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation" is
currently expected to conclude in the first half of 2007,
according to the company's form 10-k filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

Beginning on June 13, 2002, several putative class actions were
filed against the company and certain senior executives in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The actions have since been consolidated under the caption "In
re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-4483
(RCC)," on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Feb. 20, 2001 and June 11, 2002.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
company's public filings and other public statements during that
period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to
state material information relating to:

     (1) the company's calculation of the organic growth
         component of period-to-period revenue growth;

     (2) the company's valuation of and accounting for certain
         internet investments made by the company's Communicade
         Group, which the company contributed to Seneca
         Investments LLC in 2001; and

     (3) the existence and amount of certain contingent future
         obligations in respect of acquisitions.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages plus costs and attorneys' fees.  

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and on March 28, 2005,
the court dismissed portions (1) and (3) of the complaint
detailed above.  The court's decision denying the defendants'
motion to dismiss the remainder of the complaint did not address
the ultimate merits of the case, but only the sufficiency of the
pleading.

Defendants have answered the complaint, and discovery is
currently expected to conclude in the first half of 2007.
Plaintiffs have moved to have the proposed class certified and
the defendants have opposed that motion, which is now fully
briefed.

The suit is "In Re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Richard C. Casey with referral to Michael
H. Dolinger.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Max W. Berger and Douglas M. McKeige of Bernstein,
         Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P., Phone: (212) 554-
         1400 and (212) 554-1481; and

     (2) David Avi Rosenfeld and Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach,
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58
         South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747,
         Phone: 631-367-7100 and 631-367-1173, E-mail:
         drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com and srudman@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are David Harold Braff and Stacey
Rubin Friedman of Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, 125 Broad Street,
NY, NY 10007, Phone: 212-558-4705 and 212-558-4000, Fax: 212-
558-3333 and 212-558-3588, E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com and
friedmans@sullcrom.com.


SAFEWAY INC: Recalls Bread Possibly Containing Wire Fragments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Safeway Inc. is voluntarily recalling several of its private
label bread products sold at Safeway and Pak 'n Save stores in
Northern California and Northwest Nevada.  The products may
contain wire fragments from production machinery, according to
the company.  The recall does not affect products sold at the
company's Vons or Pavilions stores.

The recall affects the following products with "Best Before"
dates up to and including March 17, 2007. (Example: Mar 17)

     Product                                UPC Code #

     Pak 'n Save Wheat Bread                113827210002

     Safeway Butter Top Wheat Bread         21130-18089

     Safeway Butter Top White Bread         21130-18088

     Safeway Crushed Wheat Bread            21130-18133

     Safeway Super Kids Bread               21130-18336

     Safeway Whole Grain Bread              21130-18147

     Safeway Premium White Bread            21130-18325

     Safeway Premium Wheat Bread            21130-18225

     Safeway Oven Joy White Bread           007989305190

     Safeway Oven Joy Wheat Bread           007989305191

     Safeway Texas Toast Bread              21130-18198

The recall also affects the following products with "Best
Before" dates up to and including March 15, 2007. (Example: Mar
15)

     Product                                UPC Code#

     Pak 'n Save White Bread                003827210001

     Safeway Premium White Sandwich Bread   21130-18330

     Safeway Pan  Blanco Bread              007989305010

     Safeway French Toasting Bread          21130-18199

     Safeway 100% Wheat Bread               21130-18207

The "Best Before" date can be found on the plastic closure.  The
UPC number can be found on the bottom panel of bread bag.  
Customers who purchased these products in Northern California or
Northwest Nevada can return the bread to their local store for a
full refund.


STATE FARM: "Scruggs" Katrina Group Asks $50M Suit Deal Scrapped
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the Scruggs Katrina Group filed a motion
requesting the withdrawal of the proposed $50 million settlement
in the case, "Dennis R. and S. Imani Woullard, et al. v. State
Farm," BestWire reports.

The withdrawal says the settlement process is at a "stalemate."  
It notes the court's "reluctance" to grant approval to the
settlement; and questions whether State Farm is "genuinely
amenable to address even its own (interpretations) of the
court's actions," according to the report.

However, the motion also states the plaintiffs are hopeful that
a new settlement proposal can be filed "once the court's
concerns are more fully understood."

Earlier, State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. informed U.S. District
Court L.T. Senter Jr. that it is committed to paying a minimum
aggregate amount of $50 million to settle the case (Class Action
Reporter, March 5, 2007).

The settlement is with approximately 36,200 homeowners, rental
and commercial policyholders in the coastal Mississippi counties
of Jackson, Harrison and Hancock.  It is being led by the law
firm of Pascagoula, Mississippi-based attorney Richard F.
Scruggs.

Attorneys for State Farm filed a memorandum to the federal court
in advance of a Feb. 28 hearing designed to clarify the terms of
the proposed settlement between State Farm Insurance and
Mississippi policyholders concerning disputed claims.

State Farm said the settlement is structured so that a majority
of lab cases (total payment including loss of use and contents
coverage) should equal 50% of the policyholder's limits on
structural coverage, less any previous private or federal flood
insurance payments, according to the report.  It did not provide
specifics on evaluating the proposed settlement against the
coverage limits of the policies in question.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood filed a motion to
intervene or participate in the Feb. 28 hearing on behalf of the
plaintiffs.  Mr. Hood contends State Farm failed to establish an
acceptable procedure for the re-evaluation of claims that could
be approved by the court.

Attempts made by BestWire to reach Scruggs Katrina Group and
State Farm for comment were not immediately successful.

The case is "Dennis R. and S. Imani Woullard, et al. v. State
Farm, Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-1057-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court of Southern Mississippi.

The Scruggs Law Firm, P.A. -- http://www.scruggskatrinagroup.com
-- is at 120A Courthouse Square, P.O. Box 1136, Oxford,
Mississippi 38655, Phone: 662-281-1212, Fax: 662-281-1312.


WELLPOINT HEALTH: Sued Over Suppression of Physicians' Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blecher & Collins, P.C., filed a purported class action in Los
Angeles Superior Court against Wellpoint Health Networks, its
wholly owned subsidiary Blue Cross of California, and the State
Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) over their alleged
withholding of payments to certain physicians.

The lawsuit alleges a deliberate and collaborate efforts of the
named defendants to suppress payments made to physicians -- for
services provided to workers' compensation patients -- to
artificial levels substantially below fair market value.  

The State of California and studies by private entities have
confirmed that physicians incur significantly increased costs
when treating workers' compensation patients.

As a result, the State of California adopted an Official Medical
Fee Schedule (OMFS) that accounts for these higher costs.  But,
the surgical rates in the OMFS have not been increased since
1985.

In fact, the rates in the OMFS were reduced across the board by
5% effective Jan. 1, 2004.  The present OMFS continues to under-
compensate physicians significantly even after the slight
increase in the rates for certain non-surgical procedures
effective mid-February 2007, Blecher & Collins said in a
statement.

At the beginning of 2005, SCIF directly operated its own network
of physicians to provide medical care to workers' compensation
patients of its insureds.  SCIF paid physicians in its network
in accordance with the OMFS.

In mid-2005, SCIF dissolved its network and required its member
physicians to contract with defendant Wellpoint, through its
wholly owned subsidiary and operating entity Blue Cross, in
order to continue to furnish medical services to workers'
compensation patients of SCIF's insureds.

Simultaneously, Blue Cross, which had earlier tried,
unsuccessfully, to create a workers' compensation provider
network, actively tied its insurance products by demanding that
physicians in its commercial (i.e., non-workers' compensation)
provider network also participate in its workers' compensation
provider network and, correspondingly, that physicians seeking
to participate solely in its workers' compensation provider
network also participate in its commercial provider network.

Blue Cross, as the operator of the largest preferred provider
network in California, has substantial market power, according
to the statement.  It allegedly exercises that power by, among
other matters, reimbursing participating physicians at deeply
discounted rates (Prudent Buyer Rates) for medical services
furnished to commercial patients.  The Prudent Buyer Rates
overall are substantially lower than the rates in the OMFS, the
statement said.  

However, Blue Cross reimburses physicians treating workers'
compensation patients, who also maintain commercial health
insurance coverage through Blue Cross or one of its more than
300 "affiliates," according to the Prudent Buyer Rates, and not
the OMFS or any other higher schedule.

The arrangements between Blue Cross and its 'affiliates'
constitute price fixing, according to the statement.  By locking
tens of thousands of California physicians into a provider
network and using their overwhelming market power to extract
below cost prices, defendants have created a tremendous barrier
for competing provider networks to furnish medical services to
workers' compensation patients, it said.

Accordingly, defendants have allegedly improperly amassed
substantial additional profits because their collective action,
coupled with Blue Cross' exercise of its market power, have
forced the physicians who provide a significant volume of
workers' compensation patient care in California to accept
clearly non-compensatory, below market reimbursement.

From a healthcare delivery standpoint, defendants will, by
artificially depressing reimbursement levels to some of the
lowest in the country, make it impracticable for a sufficient
number of physicians to treat injured workers and make it
difficult, if not impossible, to recruit a sufficient number of
new physicians to California, the statement said.

The complaint seeks treble damages under the California
Antitrust Laws and injunctive relief to rectify the unlawful
conduct.

For more details, contact Maxwell M. Blecher of Blecher &
Collins, 515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor, Los Angeles,
California 90071, Phone: 213-622-4222, Fax: 213-622-1656, Web
site: http://www.blechercollins.com/.


WILLIS GROUP: June Trial Set in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2007 trial is set in a nationwide gender discrimination
class action filed against Willis Group Holdings Ltd. in federal
district court.

The case was commenced in 2001 on behalf of an alleged
nationwide class of present and former female officer and
officer equivalent employees alleging that the company
discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and
seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.

The court has denied plaintiffs' motions to certify a nationwide
class or to grant nationwide discovery, but has certified a
class of female officers and officer equivalent employees based
in the company's Northeast (New York, New Jersey and
Massachusetts) offices.

The company believes that the purported class consists of
approximately 200 women.  It filed a petition for an immediate
appeal of the class certification ruling which was denied.

The parties participated in mediation before a court appointed
mediator which has not yet brought about a settlement.  The
trial in this matter has been scheduled in June 2007.

The company has filed a motion to decertify the class based on
new standards set by a recent 2nc Circuit opinion for
determining whether a class should be certified.  

A former female employee, whose motion to intervene in the class
action was denied, has filed a purported class action with
almost identical allegations as those contained in this suit,
except seeking a class period of 1998 to the time of trial.  


WILLIS GROUP: Continues to Face RICO Act Violations Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Ltd. remains a defendant in a consolidated
lawsuit pending in federal court in New Jersey alleging among
others, violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, according to the company's form 10-k filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

New Jersey

Since August 2004, various plaintiffs have filed purported class
actions, in:

     -- the U.S. District Court for the Southern
        District of New York,

     -- the Northern District of Illinois,

     -- the Northern District of California,

     -- the New Jersey District Court, and

     -- the Circuit Court for the 18th Judicial Circuit in and
        for Seminole County, Florida Civil Division,

under a variety of legal theories, including state tort,
contract, fiduciary duty and statutory theories, and federal
antitrust and RICO theories, and the company  anticipate that
further similar suits could be filed.

Other than a federal suit in Illinois that was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in May 2005, all of the federal
actions have been consolidated into two actions in federal court
in New Jersey.  One of the consolidated actions addresses
employee benefits, while the other consolidated action addresses
all other lines of insurance.

In addition to the two federal actions, the company was also
named as a defendant in purported class actions in the 18th
Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida Civil
Division and Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court
Department of the Trial Court.  In June 2006, the plaintiff in
the Massachusetts state action voluntarily dismissed its
complaint with prejudice.

Both the consolidated federal actions and the Florida state
action name various insurance carriers and insurance brokerage
firms, including us, as defendants.  

The complaints seek monetary damages and equitable relief and
make allegations regarding the practices and conduct that has
been the subject of the investigation of state attorneys general
and insurance commissioners, including allegations that the
brokers have breached their duties to their clients by entering
into contingent compensation agreements with either no
disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and entered into
other improper activities.

The complaints also allege the existence of a conspiracy among
the insurance carriers and brokers and the federal court
complaints allege violations of the federal RICO statue.  The
company disputes these allegations and intends to defend
ourselves vigorously against these actions.  The outcomes of
these lawsuits, however, including any losses or other payments
that may occur as a result, cannot be predicted at this time.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 17-19, 2007
Electronic Records Management and Digital Discovery: Practical
Considerations for Legal, Technical, and Operational Success

CM098
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HCC INSURANCE: Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a
securities class action has been commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
shareholders who acquired HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. (HCC)
securities between May 3, 2005 and Nov. 17, 2006, inclusive.

The action charges the company and certain key officers and
directors of violating the federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's securities.

For more information, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire of the
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., 261 Old York Road, Suite
423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900, E-
mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


NUVELO INC: Felgoise Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a
securities class action has been commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
shareholders who acquired NUVELO, NC. (NUVO) securities between
Jan. 5, 2006 and December 8, 2006, inclusive.

The action charges the company and certain key officers and
directors of violating the federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's securities.

For more information, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire of the
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., 261 Old York Road, Suite
423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900, E-
mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Felgoise Announces Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a
securities class action has been commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
securities between May 2, 2005 through Oct. 9, 2006, inclusive.

The action charges the company and certain key officers and
directors of violating the federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's securities.

For more information, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire, of the
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., 261 Old York Road, Suite
423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900, E-
mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.


                            *********


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  * * *