CAR_Public/070315.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 15, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 53

                            Headlines


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Retirement Plan
AMERICAN FAMILY: To Appeal $17M Award in Mo. Car Insurance Suit
APACHE CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Add Firm as Defendant in "Comer"
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Denies Allegations in Calif. Labor Litigation
AQUILA INC: Dec. 2007 Trial Scheduled for ERISA Lawsuit in Mo.

AQUILA INC: Faces Shareholder Litigation in Mo. Over Merger
AQUILA INC: Settles NYMEX Gas Trading Lawsuit for $6.59M
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Recalls Dog Treats for Possible Contamination
BROADWING INC: Ohio Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
CENTURYTEL INC: Appeals Class Certification of "Beattie" Case

CHICAGO BOARD: Files Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit by CBOT Members
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Still Faces Antitrust Suits by Banana Buyers
COTT CORP: Dismissal of Suit Over Recycling Fees Under Appeal
CROSS COUNTRY: Calif. Court Grants Final OK to Labor Suit Deal
DIGIMARC CORP: Appeal in Ore. Securities Suit Dismissal Stayed

EQUIFAX CONSUMER: Settles CROA Violations Suit Over Score Power
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Millett Settlement Class Subsumed in Hillis
FEDEX GROUND/HOME: Class Certification Sought in Drivers' Suit
FLORA FOODS: Recalls Olives that are Potentially Contaminated
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Settles Ariz. Lawsuit Over Phelps Dodge Deal

IRWIN HOME: Dismissal of Calif. FCRA Lawsuit Still Under Appeal
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Told to Notify Public of Suit Over Service Fee
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Parties Settle Md. Consumer Act Violations Suit
IRWIN UNION: Pa. Court Stays Consolidated Suit Over CBNV Loans
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Amendment in Calif. Securities Suit Allowed

MEDICOR LTD: Founder Sued Over "Ponzi Scheme" in 1031 Exchange
NEW CENTURY: Lockridge Extends N.Y. Securities Suit Class Period
PREMIER FOOD: Hourly Workers Complain of Labor Law Violations
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over OxyContin CR Drug
QUANTUM SECURITIES: Faces Suit Over Endorsement of Westpoint

TATA AMERICA: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Tax Refunds Suit
TOYS R US: Recalls Toy Sets Containing High Levels of Lead
WAL-MART STORES: Ill. Court Denies Class Status for Labor Suit
WILLIAMS COS: Lawsuits Over Hurricane Damages in La. Dismissed
WILLIAMS COS: Settles Nev. Gas Pricing Lawsuit for $2.4M

WILLIAMS COS: Court Okays $15.6M Settlement of Gas Pricing Suit
WILLIAMS COS: Tenn. Court Dismisses Gas Purchasers Lawsuit
WILLIAMS COS: Okla. Court Approves $290M WilTel Securities Suit
WILLIAMS COS: Suit by Royalty Interest Owners in Col. Stayed
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Court Mulls Class Status for Natural Gas Suit

WCP (GENERATION): Ninth Circuit Mulls Appeal in Calif. Lawsuit
WCP (GENERATION): Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Gas Indexes Suit
WCP (GENERATION): Settles Several Antitrust Lawsuits in Calif.
WINCO FOODS: Recalls Bread Possibly Containing Wire Fragments

        
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NEW CENTURY: Murray, Frank & Sailer Files Securities Lawsuit
POWERWAVE TECH: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filings
WELLS REAL: Law Firms Announce Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Md.


                           *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Retirement Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. is seeking the dismissal of the purported
class action, "Paula Kritzman, et al. v. American Express
Retirement Plan et al.," which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiff alleges that when the calculation of benefits
under the company's Retirement Plan was converted effective July
1, 1995 from a final average pay formula to a "cash balance"
formula, the terms of the amended American Express Retirement
Plan (AXP) violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
as amended, in at least these ways:

      -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's prohibition on reducing
         rates of benefit accrual due to the increasing age of a
         plan participant;

      -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's prohibition on forfeiture
         of accrued benefits; and

      -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's present value calculation
         rules.

The plaintiff seeks, among other remedies, injunctive relief
entitling the plaintiff and the purported class to benefits that
are the greater of:

      -- the benefits to which the members of the class would
         have been entitled without regard to the conversion of
         the benefit payout formula of the AXP Plan to a cash
         balance formula; and

      -- the benefits under the AXP Plan with regard to the
         cash balance formula.

The plaintiff also seeks pre- and post-judgment interest and
attorneys fees and expenses.

American Express has filed a motion with the court seeking to
dismiss the complaint, according to the company's March 1 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Kritzman v. American Express Retirement Plan et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00233-LAK-HBP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan with referral to Judge Henry B. Pitman.

Representing the plaintiffs is Edward W. Ciolko of Schiffrin,
Barroway, Topaz, & Kessler, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,
Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610)-667-7706, Fax: (610)-667-7056, E-
mail: eciolko@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Jeremy P. Blumenfeld Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP, 1701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
Phone: (215)-963-5258, Fax: (215)-963-5001, E-mail:
jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com.


AMERICAN FAMILY: To Appeal $17M Award in Mo. Car Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Family Insurance Co. plans to appeal an award of more
than $17 million to a group of policyholders who are plaintiffs
in a state class action involving after-market auto parts,
BestWire reports.

Earlier, a Missouri jury awarded more than $17 million to
approximately 315,000 Missouri residents with claims for vehicle
repairs between May 1990 and December 2004 (Class Action
Reporter, March 13, 2007).

"We feel the specification of aftermarket parts was in our
customer's best interest.  Any time there is competition, that
lowers prices," said American Family spokesman Steve Witmer.  
"We guarantee the fit, finish and corrosion resistance of these
parts and any problems that may arise from them are fixed at no
cost to the customer."  Witmer pointed out that Missouri law
"explicitly allows for the use of aftermarket parts since the
1980s."

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

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

Further, it alleged that the use of aftermarket crash parts,
including fenders, doors, hoods and panels, were inferior to
original equipment and a potential safety hazard.

"American Family intends to appeal and we'll respond
accordingly," said Ted Pinta, an attorney with Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, who served as counsel for the
plaintiffs.  "I think it is a tremendous victory for insureds
throughout Missouri and it sends a clear message to companies
like American Family that continue to impose unfair claims
practices by demanding that insureds use aftermarket parts."

American Family is based in Madison, Wisconsin.

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


APACHE CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Add Firm as Defendant in "Comer"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Ned Comer, et al. v.
Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al.," seek to add Apache Corp. as a
defendant in the case, which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.  

Mississippi property owners whose homes and businesses were
damaged by Hurricane Katrina are requesting class certification.

They allege that hurricanes' meteorological effects increased in
frequency and intensity due to global warming, and there will be
continued future damage from increasing intensity of storms and
sea level rises.

They claim this was caused by the various defendants (oil and
gas companies, electric and coal companies, and chemical
manufacturers).

Plaintiffs claim defendants' emissions of "greenhouse gases",
cause global warming, which they blame as the cause of their
damages.

They also claim that the oil company defendants artificially
inflated and manipulated the prices of gasoline, diesel fuel,
jet fuel, natural gas, and other end-use petrochemicals, and
covered it up by misrepresentations.

They further allege a conspiracy to disseminate misinformation
and cover up the relationship between the defendants and global
warming.

Plaintiffs seek, among other damages, actual, consequential, and
punitive or exemplary damages.  

A motion has been filed to amend the lawsuit and add additional
defendants, including Apache.  Apache has not been served with
the lawsuit, according to 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 "Comer et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-JMR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L.T.
Senter Jr.

Representing the plaintiff is F. Gerald Maples of F. Gerald
Maples, PA, 902 Julia St., New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone:
504/569-8732, E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Charles Greg Copeland of Copeland, Cook, Taylor & Bush,
         P. O. Box 6020, Ridgeland, MS 39158-6020, Phone:
         601/856-7200, E-mail: gcopeland@cctb.com;

     (2) H. Mitchell Cowan and Laura Limerick Gibbes of Watkins
         Ludlam Winter & Stennis, P.A., P.O. Box 427, Jackson,
         MS 39205-0427, Phone: (601) 949-4900, Fax: (601) 949-
         4804, E-mail: mcowan@watkinsludlam.com and
         lgibbes@watkinsludlam.com;

     (3) Ross F. Bass, Jr. of Phelps Dunbar, P.O. Box 23066,
         Jackson, MS 39225-3066, Phone: 601/360-9332, Fax:
         601/360-9777, E-mail: bassr@phelps.com;

     (4) Robert C. Galloway and John C. Henegan of Butler, Snow,
         O'mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC, P.O. Drawer 4248,
         Gulfport, MS 39502-4248, Phone: 228864-1170 and (601)
         948-5711, E-mail: bob.galloway@butlersnow.com and
         john.henegan@butlersnow.com; and  

     (5) William Kurt Henke of Henke Bufkin, P.O. Box 39,
         Clarksdale, MS 38614, Phone: 662/624-8500, E-mail:
         wkh@henke-bufkin.com.


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Denies Allegations in Calif. Labor Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apria Healthcare Group, Inc. denied allegations made in a
purported class action filed against it in California Superior
Court for the County of San Francisco.

The suit contains blanket claims of liability under various
California employee protection statutes and regulations relating
to:

     -- payment of regular and overtime wages;  

     -- the timeliness of such payments;

     -- the maintenance and provision of access to required  
        payroll records; and  

     -- the provision of meal and rest periods.  

The suit is "Venegas v. Apria Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No.
CGC-06-449669," filed on Feb. 21, 2006.  No class has been
certified at this time, but on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all of the company's hourly employees in the State
of California, the complaint seeks compensatory and punitive
damages in an unspecified amount as well as other relief.

The company has filed an answer to the complaint denying all
material allegations and asserting a number of affirmative
defenses.

The company reported no development in 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.

Apria Healthcare, Inc., on the Net: http://www.apria.com/.


AQUILA INC: Dec. 2007 Trial Scheduled for ERISA Lawsuit in Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri set
a tentative December 2007 trial for the consolidated class
action, "In re Aquila ERISA Litigation" which is seeking to
recover from the company more than $150 million in alleged
retirement losses.

On Sept. 24, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company
and certain members of the company's board of directors and
management.

The suit is alleging that defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and were responsible for losses
that participants in the company's 401(k) plan experienced as a
result of the decline in the value of their Aquila common stock
held in the 401(k) plan.

A number of similar lawsuits alleging that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants in
violation of ERISA by concealing information and/or misleading
employees who held the company's common stock through the
company's 401(k) plan were subsequently filed against the
company.

The suits also seek damages for the plan's losses resulting from
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  On Jan. 26, 2005, the
court ordered that all of these lawsuits be consolidated into a
single case captioned, "In re Aquila ERISA Litigation."

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in March
2005, which largely repeats each of the allegations in the first
complaint.  

This case has been certified as a class action and set for trial
in December 2007, according to the company's Feb. 28 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Itteilag v. Aquila, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:04-cv-
00865-DW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri under Judge Dean Whipple.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Jaffe of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
         LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, US, Phone:
         (212) 545-4600; and

     (2) Bruce Keplinger of Norris & Keplinger, LLC, 6800
         College Blvd., Suite 630, Overland Park, KS 66211,
         Phone: (913) 323-3185 and Fax: (913) 663-2006, E-mail:
         bkeplinger@k-c-lawyers.com.

Representing the company is Stanley Daryl Davis of Shook Hardy &
Bacon LLP, 2555 Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64108-2613,
Phone: (816) 474-6550, Fax: (816) 421-4066, E-mail:
sddavis@shb.com.


AQUILA INC: Faces Shareholder Litigation in Mo. Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aquila, Inc., was named defendant in several purported class
actions in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri in
relation to its merger with Gregory Acquisition Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Great Plains Energy.

The suits were filed on Feb. 8 against the company and its board
of directors.  The complaints were filed as purported class
actions on behalf of a proposed class of holders of Aquila
common stock.

In general, these complaints allege, among other things,
breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants in connection
with the approval of the merger agreement.

These complaints seek as relief, among other things, an
injunction against the consummation of the merger, 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.

Aquila, Inc., on the Net: http://www.aquila.com/.


AQUILA INC: Settles NYMEX Gas Trading Lawsuit for $6.59M
--------------------------------------------------------
Aquila Inc. settled for $6.59 million a federal lawsuit filed
against it over alleged manipulation of New York Mercantile
Exchange natural gas futures and options.  

On Aug. 18, 2003, Cornerstone Propane Partners filed a suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against 35 companies, including Aquila, alleging that the
companies manipulated natural gas prices and futures prices on
NYMEX through misreporting of natural gas trade data in the
physical market.

The suit does not specify alleged damages.  It was filed on
behalf of all parties who bought and sold natural gas futures
and options on NYMEX from 2000 to 2002 and was certified as a
class action.

In 2006, Aquila paid $6.59 million to settle this case,
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 "In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-06186-VM-AJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Victor Marrero and
Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ali Oromchian, Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 601
         Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, by Phone:
         (415)-398-8700;

     (2) Christopher J. Gray, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray,
         P.C, 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 508-3695, E-mail:
         gray@cjgraylaw.com;

     (3) Christopher Lovell, Gary S. Jacobson, Lovell, Stewart,
         Halebian, L.L.P., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110,
         Phone: (212) 608-1900; and

     (4) Louis F. Burke, Louis F. Burke, P.C., 460 Park Avenue,     
         21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 682-1700,
         Fax: (212) 808-4280.


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Recalls Dog Treats for Possible Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. is recalling its 25-count packages of
"Berkley & Jensen" Full-Cut Pig Ears dog treats with no lot
number and only the expiration advisory "BEST IF USED BY 2009"
(without referencing a specific month) because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious infections in
dogs, and -- if there is cross contamination -- in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.

Confirmatory testing is ongoing but until the testing is final,
consumers should immediately stop feeding the treats to their
pets.

Salmonella can potentially be transferred to people handling
these dog treats, especially if they have not thoroughly washed
their hands after having contact with the product or any
surfaces exposed to these products.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  

In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in
the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more
severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.  Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should
contact their healthcare providers.

Dogs that become ill from Salmonella generally will have a fever
and diarrhea that may contain blood or mucus.  Affected animals
may seem more tired that usual, and may have vomiting.  Some
dogs do not have diarrhea, but will have decreased appetite,
fever and excess salivation.  If your dog has consumed the
recalled product and is exhibiting these signs, please contact
your veterinarian.

The potential for contamination was noted after testing revealed
the potential presence of Salmonella in a 25-count package of
"Berkley & Jensen" Full-Cut Pig Ears dog treats.

There have been no confirmed illnesses to date.  These products
have been removed from sale while the problem is being
investigated.

BJ's members who purchased "Berkley & Jensen" Full-Cut Pig Ears
dog treats between Jan. 1, 2006 through March 8, 2007 should
discontinue use of the product and may return the unused portion
to any BJ's Wholesale Club for a full refund.  Consumers who
have further questions may contact BJ's toll free Member Care
line at 1-800-BJS-CLUB.


BROADWING INC: Ohio Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
granted final approval to a settlement of a consolidated
securities class action filed against Broadwing, Inc., a
subsidiary of Cincinnati Bell, Inc.

Between October and December 2002, five virtually identical
class actions were filed against Broadwing Inc. and two of its
former chief executive officers.

These complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company's securities between Jan. 17, 2001 and May 20, 2002,
inclusive, and alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by, inter alia:

      -- improperly recognizing revenue associated with
         Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) agreements; and

      -- failing to write-down goodwill associated with the
         company's 1999 acquisition of IXC Communications, Inc.
         
Plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, and expert expenses.

On April 28, 2006, the company and plaintiffs entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding, which sets forth an agreement in
principle to settle this matter.  

On July 12, 2006, the company and plaintiffs entered into a
definitive stipulation and agreement of settlement reflecting
the terms of the above-referenced MOU.  

On July 21, 2006, the court issued a preliminary order approving
the notice and proof of claim forms to be mailed to class
members and scheduling a settlement fairness hearing on Sept. 6,
2006.  

On Dec. 1, 2006, all objections to the proposed settlement were
withdrawn and the court gave final approval of the settlement
and dismissed all claims with prejudice, according to Cincinnati
Bell's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re Broadwing, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. C-1-02-795," filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio under Judge Walter H. Rice.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James Edward Arnold of Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott - 2,
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215,
         Phone: 614-469-1400, E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com; and

     (2) Matthew Roberts Chasar of Strauss & Troy Co. LPA, The
         Federal Reserve Building, 150 East 4th Street,
         Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-621-2120, Fax: 513-
         241-8259, E-mail: mrchasar@strausstroy.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Peter J. Beshar of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, 200
         Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone: 212-351-4084,
         E-mail: pbeshar@gibsondunn.com; and

    (ii) Grant Spencer Cowan of Frost Brown Todd, LLC, 2200 PNC
         Center, 201 E. 5th Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4182,
         Phone: 513-651-6800, Fax: 513-651-6745, E-mail:
         gcowan@fbtlaw.com.


CENTURYTEL INC: Appeals Class Certification of "Beattie" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centurytel, Inc. is appealing the certification as a class
action of a lawsuit filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by Barbrasue
Beattie and James Sovis.

The suit, "Beattie, et al. v. CenturyTel Inc.," filed on Oct.
28, 2002, alleges that the company unjustly and unreasonably
billed customers for inside wire maintenance services.  It seeks
unspecified money damages and injunctive relief under various
legal theories on behalf of a purported class of over two
million customers in the company's telephone markets.  

On March 10, 2006, the court certified the class-action status
of the suit and issued a ruling that the billing descriptions
the company used for these services during an approximately 18-
month period between Oct. 29, 2000 and May 2002 were legally
insufficient.

The company has appealed the class certification decision,
according to 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 "Beattie, et al. v. Centurytel, Inc., Case No. 1:02-
cv-10277-DML," filed in the U.S District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge David M. Lawson.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gregory J. Boulahanis of Boulahanis & Assoc., 21905
         Garrison Avenue, Dearborn, MI 48124, Phone: 313-277-
         2550, Fax: 313-277-2550;

     (2) George G. Burke, III of Mindell, Malin, 25505 W. Twelve
         Mile Road, Suite 1000, Southfield, MI 48034-1811,
         Phone: 248-353-5595, Fax: 248-353-5595; and

     (3) Elwood S. Simon of Elwood S. Simon Assoc., 355 S.
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 250, Birmingham, MI 48009,
         Phone: 248-646-9730, Fax: 248-258-2335, E-mail:
         esimon@esimon-law.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jennifer L. Frye of Dickinson Wright (Ann Arbor), 301
         N . Liberty, Suite 500, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, Phone:
         734-623-7075, Fax: 734-623-1625, E-mail:
         jfrye@dickinsonwright.com; and

    (ii) David J. Houston of Dickinson Wright, 215 S. Washington
         Square, Suite 200, Lansing, MI 48933-1888, Phone: 517-
         371-1730, E-mail: dhouston@dickinsonwright.com.


CHICAGO BOARD: Files Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit by CBOT Members
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed against Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Inc. (CBOE) in relation to its
demutualization filed a motion for partial summary judgment in
the case.  Defendants, meanwhile, filed a motion to dismiss a
second amended complaint.

CBOT Holdings, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, the Board
of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., along with a class
consisting of certain CBOT full members filed the suit on Aug.
23, 2006 in the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware.

The lawsuit seeks to enforce and protect certain rights of
CBOT's full members contained in agreements by and among CBOT
Holdings, CBOT and CBOE as well as CBOE's charter.

The lawsuit alleges that these Exercise Rights allow CBOT's full
members who hold them to become full members of CBOE and to
participate on an equal basis with other members of CBOE in
CBOE's announced plans to demutualize.  

The lawsuit is consistent with the company's previously stated
intention to vigorously defend the rights of CBOT's full members
who are eligible to participate in CBOE's demutualization.

On Jan. 4, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, in which
they added a count seeking a declaration that, contrary to the
position taken by the CBOE before the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the merger between CBOT Holdings and CME
Holdings would not result in the termination of the Exercise
Rights.  

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
recovery of the company's attorneys' fees.  

On Jan. 11, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment.  On Jan. 16, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

Both motions are presently 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.

For more details, contact Hugh R. McCombs, Phone: +1 312 701
7357, Fax: +1 312 706 8653, E-mail: hmccombs@mayerbrownrowe.com,
Web site: http://www.cbot.com.


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Still Faces Antitrust Suits by Banana Buyers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. remains a defendant in
several purported class actions filed in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida by direct and indirect
purchasers of bananas, according to its March 7 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In July through November 2005, eight class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against the company and three of its competitors on behalf of
entities that purchased bananas in the U.S. either directly (6
cases) or indirectly (2 cases) from the defendants from May 1999
to December 2005.  

The complaints allege that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to artificially raise or maintain prices and control
and restrict output of bananas in the U.S.  

Plaintiffs seek treble damages for violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  The complaints provide no specific
information regarding the allegations.

One of the cases involving the indirect purchasers has been
dismissed and one is still pending; the defendants' motion to
dismiss this case is pending.

The cases involving the direct purchaser defendants have been
consolidated into one case and are pending before a different
judge; the defendants' motion to dismiss these cases was denied
and discovery is proceeding.  

Chiquita Brands International, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.chiquita.com/.


COTT CORP: Dismissal of Suit Over Recycling Fees Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit alleging improper use and collection of
deposits and container recycling fees by beverage companies in
British Columbia are appealing the dismissal of the case,
according to Cott Corp.'s form 10-k filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

In January 2005, Cott was named as one of many defendants in an
action, "The Consumers' Association of Canada and Bruce Cran v.
Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. et al.," filed in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia (Canada).  This claim has been brought under
the British Columbia Class Proceedings Act as a class action,
but it has not to date been certified as a class action.

The plaintiffs are suing over 30 defendants, consisting of
beverage manufacturers, retailers and Encorp Pacific (Canada),
the government-approved steward of British Columbia's container
deposit program, alleging the improper use and collection by the
defendants of deposits and container recycling fees pursuant to
the British Columbia container recycling program.

The relief sought by the plaintiffs includes a declaration that
CA$70 million in container deposits were unlawfully converted by
the defendants and are held on constructive trust for consumers
and the repayment of CA$60 million collected as container
recycling fees.

The defendants, including the Cott, brought and argued a summary
trial application in January 2006.  On June 2, 2006, the British
Columbia Supreme Court granted the summary trial application,
which resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action
against the company and the other defendants.

On June 26, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their
action to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.  The company,
together with the other defendants, is defending the appeal,
which the company expects to be heard in the next eight to
twelve months.  

In February 2005, a similar class action, "Kruger et al. v.
Pepsi-Cola Beverage Ltd. et al.," were filed in the Superior
Courts of a number of other Canadian provinces, naming
essentially the same defendants, including the company, plus the
other regional stewardship agencies.  The claims which were
filed in Quebec have since been discontinued.


CROSS COUNTRY: Calif. Court Grants Final OK to Labor Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court Central District of California has
granted final approval of a settlement in connection with a wage
and hour class action lawsuit that was previously disclosed by
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. in a press release on September
11, 2006.

On that date, the company issued a statement saying it reached
an agreement in principle to settle the wage and hour class
action lawsuit that was brought on behalf of field employees.  
This matter was filed against certain of the Company's
subsidiaries in Superior Court in Orange County, California in
August of 2003.

                       Case Background

On Aug. 26, 2003, a purported class action, "Theodora Cossack,
et al. v. Cross Country TravCorps and Cross Country Nurses,
Inc.," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Orange.

Plaintiffs plead causes of action for:

      -- violation of California Business and Professions Code
         Section 17200, et. seq;

      -- violations of California Labor Code Section 200, et.
         seq;

      -- recovery of unpaid wages and penalties;

      -- conversion;

      -- breach of contract;

      -- common counts - work, labor, services provided; and

      -- common counts - money had and received.

Plaintiffs, who purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated allege that defendants failed to pay
plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent, properly
under California law.  

They specifically claim that defendants:

      -- failed to pay nurses hourly overtime as required by
         California law;

      -- failed to calculate correctly their employees' regular
         rate of pay used to calculate the rate at which
         overtime hours are to be compensated;

      -- failed to calculate correctly and pay a double time
         premium for all hours worked in excess of 12 in a
         workday;

      -- scheduled some of its employees on an alternative
         workweek schedule, but failed to pay them additional
         compensation when those employees did not work such
         alternative workweek, as scheduled; and

      -- failed to pay employees for the minimum hours
         defendants had promised them.

On Feb. 10, 2006, the Superior Court of the State of California
granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to add causes of
actions alleging defendant's failure to pay for missed meal
periods and rest breaks.

Although Cross Country Nurses, Inc. was previously dismissed
from the action upon defendants' motion for summary judgment
plaintiffs have erroneously included Cross Country Nurses, Inc.
in the caption and allegations of the amended complaint they
filed.

On March 10, 2006, defendants removed this putative class action
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in Orange County.  

Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the case be remanded
to state court, which was granted on Apr. 28, 2006.  

Plaintiffs are seeking:

      -- an order enjoining defendants from engaging in the
         practices challenged in the complaint;

      -- for an order for full restitution of all monies
         defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs (and
         their purported class);

      -- for pre-judgment interest; for certain penalties
         provided for by the California Labor Code; and

      -- for attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  

On Sept. 5, 2006, plaintiff filed the third amended complaint
alleging a Fourth Cause of Action for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and failure to pay the amount of premium pay
required under the FLSA when putative class members worked more
than 40 hours in a week.

On Sept. 7, 2006, defendants filed a motion to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court Central District
of California.

The case was tentatively settled in August for $10.0 million and
on Aug. 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a settlement pursuant to which defendants would pay
up to $10.0 million, including payments to eligible nurses, the
named plaintiff, plaintiff's attorney fees and administrative
costs.

Payments to eligible nurses would be on a "claims made" basis,
which means that the company's total liability could be reduced
to the extent that nurses who are eligible to participate in the
settlement do not submit claims through the settlement
administration process.

On Oct. 30, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement and ordering, among
other things, that the class be preliminarily certified under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for settlement
purposes.

The suit is "Cossack et al. v. Cross Country Travelcorps, et
al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00266-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge David
O. Carter with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Joseph Antonelli of Joseph Antonelli Law Offices, 1000   
         Lakes Drive, Suite 450, West Covina, CA 91790, Phone:   
         626-917-6228, E-mail: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com;
  
     (2) Kevin T. Barnes of Kevin T. Barnes Law Offices, 5670   
         Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460, Los Angeles, CA 90036,   
         Phone: 323-549-9100, E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com;

Representing the defendants are, Enzo Der Boghossian, Arthur F.   
Silbergeld and Michael H. Weiss of Proskauer Rose, 2049 Century   
Park East, 32nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206, Phone: 310-  
557-2900, E-mail: asilbergeld@proskauer.com and  
mweiss@proskauer.com.


DIGIMARC CORP: Appeal in Ore. Securities Suit Dismissal Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal against a summary judgment issued in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against Digimarc Corp. in
the U.S. District Court of Oregon has been stayed.

Beginning in September 2004, three purported class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
against the company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities during the period April 17, 2002 to July 28, 2004.

These lawsuits were later consolidated into one action for all
purposes.  The amended complaint, which sought unspecified
damages, asserted claims under the federal securities laws
relating to the company's restatement of its financial
statements for 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004 and
alleged that the company issued false and misleading financial
statements and issued misleading public statements about the
company's operations and prospects.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and entered judgment in the
company's favor.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal in
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeal has been stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's
determination in another case of issues relating to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, according to the company's
March 8 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Garcia et al. v. Digimarc Corp. et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-01455-BR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon under Judge Anna J. Brown.
   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gary M. Berne at Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter,
         PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor, Portland, OR
         97204, Phone: (503) 227-1600, Fax: (503) 227-6840, E-
         mail: gberne@ssbls.com; and

     (2) Gary I. Grenley, Paul H. Trinchero, Grenley Rotenberg
         Evans Bragg & Bodie PC, 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite
         1100, Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 241-0570, Fax:
         (503) 241-0914, E-mail: ggrenley@grebb.com and  
         ptrinchero@grebb.com.


EQUIFAX CONSUMER: Settles CROA Violations Suit Over Score Power
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. reached an agreement to settle a
class action alleging violation of certain procedural
requirements under the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act
in relation to its sale of Score Power(R) credit score product.

The lawsuit was filed by Robbie Hillis against Equifax Consumer
Services, Inc. and Fair Isaac, Inc. on Nov. 19, 2004 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Plaintiff asserts that defendants have jointly sold Equifax's
Score Power(R) credit score product in violation of certain
procedural requirements under the federal Credit Repair
Organizations Act (CROA) and in violation of the antifraud
provisions of that statute.

Plaintiff contends that Equifax Consumer Services, Inc., and
Fair Isaac are "credit repair organizations" under the CROA and
that the transaction by which he purchased Score Power was in
violation of the CROA and fraudulent.  

On Feb. 5, 2007, the parties entered into an agreement of
settlement and, on Feb. 8, 2007, the District Court entered an
order approving the parties' motion to consolidate cases, for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, for approval of
notice plan, and a motion for certification of settlement class.

Under the proposed settlement, a class consisting of all
purchasers from defendants of ScorePower, CreditWatch and a
variety of related services, will release all CROA claims and
will receive, on request, ScoreWatch for a three-month period
without cost.  

Defendants also agreed to certain injunctive relief and will pay
an award of fees to plaintiffs' counsel not to exceed $4
million.  Notices distribution was set on or before March 9,
2007.  Final fairness hearing will be held on June 4, 2007.

The suit is "Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. et al.,  
Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Beverly B.  
Martin.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Lee McGlamry, Charles Neal Pope, Wade H.  
         Tomlinson, Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood,  
         925 The Pinnacle, P.O. Box 191625, 3455 Peachtree Road,  
         N.E., Atlanta, GA 31119-1625, Phone: 404-523-7706, E-
         mail: efile@pmkm.com;   

     (2) Arthur R. Miller, Arthur R. Miller, P.C., Areeda Hall  
         225, Cambridge, MA 02138, Phone: 617-495-1278; and  

     (3) Michael C. Spencer or Melvyn I. Weiss, Milberg Weiss  
         Bershad & Schulman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor,  
         New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Craig Edward Bertschi, Audra Ann Dial, Cindy Dawn  
         Hanson, Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100 Peachtree Street,  
         Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone: 404-815-
         6500, E-mail: cbertschi@kilpatrickstockton.com,  
         adial@kilpatrickstockton.com,  
         chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com; and  

    (ii) Kenneth M. Kliebard and Todd L. McLawhorn, Howrey, LLP,  
         Suite 3400, 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60610,  
         Phone: 312-595-2255, Fax: 312-264-0362, E-mail:  
         kliebardk@howrey.com or mclawhornt@howrey.com.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Millett Settlement Class Subsumed in Hillis
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class described originally in a suit filed in Georgia federal
court against Equifax Information Services, LLC for alleged
violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act in relation to
its sale of Credit Watch product has been subsumed in a similar
suit filed in the same court.

A suit was filed by Steven G. Millett and Melody J. Millett
against Equifax Information Services, LLC and Equifax Consumer
Services, Inc. on June 16, 2004 in U.S. District Court for
Kansas.  It was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.  Plaintiffs filed a 5th
Amended Class Action Complaint on April 19, 2006.

In this complaint, plaintiffs assert, among other allegations,
that Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. sold Equifax's Credit Watch
product in violation of the CROA.  They made claims similar to
those made by plaintiffs in "Robbie Hillis v. Equifax Consumer
Services, Inc. and Fair Isaac, Inc.," in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia that was settled in
February 2007.

On Jan. 8, 2007, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with the Milletts by which their individual claims will be
dismissed with prejudice.  The class described originally by the
complaint in Millett is subsumed in the Hillis settlement class.

The suit is "Millett, et al. v. Equifax Credit Information  
Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-02122-TWT," filed in the  
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under  
Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Leslie J. Bryan, Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles &  
         Devine, 1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600,  
         Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-881-8900, E-mail:  
         lbryan@dsckd.com
  
     (2) Barry R. Grissom, Law Office of Barry R. Grissom,  
         Building 7-Suite 220, 7270 West 98th Terrace, Overland  
         Park, KS 66212-6166, Phone: 913-341-6616, Fax: 913-341-
         4780  

     (3) B. Joyce Yeager, Yeager Law Firm, LLC, Building 7,  
         Suite 220, 7270 West 98th Terrace, Overland Park, KS  
         66212, Phone: 913-648-6673, Fax: 913-648-6921, E-mail:          
         jyeager@joyceyeagerlaw.com   

Representing the company is Cindy Dawn Hanson, Kilpatrick  
Stockton, 1100 Peachtree St., Ste. 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530,  
Phone: 404-815-6500, E-mail: chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com.


FEDEX GROUND/HOME: Class Certification Sought in Drivers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for current and former FedEx Ground/Home delivery
drivers nationwide have filed motions to certify two nationwide
classes and 10 statewide classes in the Multi-District
Litigation challenging FedEx's illegal classification of its
drivers as independent contractors.

The company allegedly misclassified its drivers as independent
contractors rather than employees, allowing it to compete as the
"low-cost" leader with virtually all of its operating expenses
foisted on the drivers, according to the briefs in support of
the motions.

Lynn Rossman Faris, Esq., co-lead counsel based in Oakland,
California, said the first wave of cases submitted for class
certification follow the taking of more than 200 depositions,
over 1200 hours worth, including that of:

     -- Daniel Sullivan, the founder and former chief executive
        of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., also known as
        FedEx Ground/Home Delivery, a unit of Federal Express
        (FDX);

     -- the current CEO, David Rebholz;

     -- the current executive vice present, Rodger Marticke and
        most of the top executives of the company.  

The nationwide classes the plaintiffs are seeking to certify
include all current and former drivers who have allegedly been
deprived of their legal rights under the Family Medical Leave
Act and deprived of all medical and pension and other benefits
given to all other FedEx employees.

In addition, they are asking certification of statewide classes
citing a variety of violations of state law in the following 10
states: California, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and South Dakota.

Plaintiffs plan to will file similar class certification motions
in at least 20 other states in the coming weeks.

"This is a major milestone in a landmark case involving the
blatant misuse of independent contractor status to deprive FedEx
Ground delivery drivers of their legal rights and to permit the
exploitation of these workers who believed FedEx's claim that
they would be business partners with the multi- billion dollar
company," explained Ms. Faris.

She said the first set of cases filed is representative of a
cross section of all the suits because they clearly meet or
exceed the standards for class certification.

At the heart of the lawsuits is a challenge to FedEx's right to
call its 14,000 drivers "independent contractors," while
dictating to them every aspect of how to pick up and deliver
packages, what to wear, what time to arrive at the customers'
door, and virtually every aspect of their daily work lives, Ms.
Farris said in a statement.

This absolute control over the drivers -- who signed on because
they were told they'd be their own boss -- strictly governs the
type of truck they drive, the uniform they wear, the package
scanner they use, the route they drive and the hours they work.
And, as part of what the suit contends is actually a employer-
employee relationship, the drivers are also required to pay a
host of the company's expenses, including fuel, insurance, and
their medical insurance (if they have any), Ms. Farris'
statement said.

The lawsuits are seeking to have the former and current class
members reimbursed all the expenses -- including wage and other
employment-related taxes -- they've been allegedly forced to pay
as a result of being misclassified, a liability that experts
estimate could approach $1 billion.

FedEX Lawsuits on the Net: http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com

For more information, contact Lynn Rossman Faris, Esq., Phone:
+1-510-272-0169, E-mail: lfaris@leonardcarder.com.


FLORA FOODS: Recalls Olives that are Potentially Contaminated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flora Foods of Pompano Beach, Florida, is recalling its 25 oz.
jars of "Cerignola Olives" (UPC 0-20038-00693-5) because they
have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium
botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness
or death.

Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not
look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing.  Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

The recalled "Cerignola" olives were distributed in Florida,
Georgia and upstate New York in retail stores.

The product comes in a 25 oz., clear glass jar marked with LOT
#G080 stamped on the label.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
found that the product had been underprocessed.

Distribution of the product has been suspended as U.S. Food and
Drug Administration and the company continue their investigation
as to the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased 25 oz. jars of "Cerignola" olives
are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at
954-785-3100.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Settles Ariz. Lawsuit Over Phelps Dodge Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. and Phelps Dodge reached an
agreement in principle to settle three purported class actions
filed by shareholders of Phelps Dodge in Arizona and New York
state courts, in connection with the merger transaction between
the two companies, the StreetInsider.com reports.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Freeport-McMoRan agreed
that if, within 12 months after the closing of the merger, the
company sells all or substantially all of the capital stock or
assets of Phelps Dodge, it will pay $125 million in additional
pro rata consideration (less any fees awarded to plaintiffs'
counsel with respect to such consideration) to the shareholders
of Phelps Dodge who receive the merger consideration in the
Merger.

The settlement is subject to court approval.

                   Knisley Lawsuit in Arizona

Freeport-McMoRan is named a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the Superior Court of the state of Arizona,
County of Maricopa.  The suit, "Knisley v. Phelps Dodge Corp. et
al., No. CV2006-053422," was brought on behalf of a purported
class of all of the shareholders of Phelps Dodge Corp.

Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the Phelps
Dodge board of directors in connection with the merger
transaction.  

The complaints allege, among other things, that the named
defendants engaged in self-dealing, obtained personal benefits
for themselves not shared equally by Phelps Dodge shareholders
and failed to disclose all material information concerning the
transaction to Phelps Dodge shareholders.

Additionally, plaintiffs also allege that the company aided and
abetted such alleged violations of fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief
barring consummation of the transaction and directing that the
defendants obtain a transaction, which is in the best interests
of Phelps Dodge shareholders.

Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. (NYSE: FCX) on the Net:
http://www.fcx.com.


IRWIN HOME: Dismissal of Calif. FCRA Lawsuit Still Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, "Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity
Corp. and Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co.," are appealing the
dismissal of their case against two Irwin Financial Corp.
subsidiaries to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The suit was filed on Aug. 12, 2005, alleging the defendants
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by using or obtaining
plaintiffs' consumer reports for credit transactions not
initiated by plaintiffs and for which they did not receive firm
offers of credit.  

Plaintiffs also allege that the company failed to provide clear
and conspicuous disclosures as required by the FCRA.  The
complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory
damages of $1,000 per each separate violation and punitive
damages for alleged willful violations of the FCRA.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 4, 2005.  On Oct.
18, 2005, the company moved to dismiss the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim.

In response to the defendants' motion, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice on Feb. 23, 2006.  
Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit on April 13, 2006.

The company reported no development in the case at its March 9
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity Corp. et al., Case
No. 3:05-cv-03289-PJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdoin, Douglas Bowdoin, P.A., 255 South
         Orange Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando, FL 32801, Phone:
         407-422-0025, Fax: 407-843-2448, E-mail:
         dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com;

     (2) Gail Killefer, 417 Montgomery Street, Suite 300, San
         Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/362-8640, e-mail:
         gkillefer@aol.com; and

     (3) Kathleen Clark Knight, Terry A. Smiljanich, James,
         Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, 4830 W. Kennedy Blvd.,
         Suite 550 Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100 x4214,
         Fax: 813-286-4174, E-mail: kknight@jameshoyer.com or
         tsmiljanich@jameshoyer.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Virginia W. Barnhart, J. Preston Turner of Pope &
         Hughes, P.A., 29 W. Susquehanna Avenue, Suite 110,
         Towson, MD 21204, Phone: 410-494-7777, Fax: 410-494-
         1658, E-mail: virginia.barnhart@popehughes.com or
         jpturner@popehughes.com; and

    (ii) Tomio B. Narita, Wineberg Simmonds & Narita, 44
         Montgomery St., Ste 3880, San Francisco, CA 94104-4811,
         Phone: (415) 352-2200, Fax: (415) 352-2222, E-mail:
         tnarita@wsnlaw.com.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Told to Notify Public of Suit Over Service Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Superior Court for Marion County has ordered the
publication of class notices for the suit, "Silke v. Irwin
Mortgage Corp.," which alleges that the company charged a
document preparation fee in violation of Indiana law for
services performed by clerical personnel in completing legal
documents related to mortgage loans.  

Irwin Mortgage is formerly Inland Mortgage Corp., an indirect
subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp.  The company was named
defendant in the suit on April 2003.

The company filed an answer on June 11, 2003 and a motion for
summary judgment on Oct. 27, 2003.  On June 18, 2004, the court
certified a plaintiff class consisting of Indiana borrowers who
were allegedly charged the fee by the company at any time after
Apr. 14, 1997.  This date was later clarified by stipulation of
the parties to be April 17, 1997.  

In November 2004, the court heard arguments on the company's
motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion seeking to
send out class notice.  On Feb. 23, 2006, the court ordered that
class notice be mailed.   

On Sept. 7, 2006, the court ordered one-time publication of
class notice in Indiana newspapers.  

The company reported no development in the case at its March 9
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Irwin Financial Corp. on the Net: http://www.irwinfinancial.com.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Parties Settle Md. Consumer Act Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action against subsidiaries of Irwin Mortgage
Corp. are in the process of drafting a settlement agreement for
a case that alleges violations of the Maryland Mortgage Lending
Laws and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

The suit is "White v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co. and Irwin
Home Equity Corp.  It was filed on Jan. 5, 2006 in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland.

Plaintiffs allege that Irwin charged or caused plaintiffs to pay
certain fees, costs and other charges that were excessive or
illegal under Maryland law in connection with loans made to
plaintiffs by Irwin.

They seek certification of a class consisting of Maryland
residents who received mortgage loans from Irwin secured by real
property in the State of Maryland and who claim injury due to
Irwin's lending practices.

They are also seeking damages under the Maryland Mortgage
Lending Laws and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act for, among
other things, relief from further interest payments on their
loans, reimbursement of interest, charges, fees and costs
already paid, including prepayment penalties paid by the class,
and damages of three times the amount of all allegedly excessive
or illegal charges paid, plus attorneys' fees, expenses and
costs.

In the alternative, the plaintiffs seek arbitration as provided
for in their mortgage notes.

On Feb. 17, 2006, Irwin filed a notice of removal and removed
the case from state to federal court.  On March 17, 2006 the
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action back to state
court and also filed an amended complaint emphasizing the
alleged state law basis for their claims.

On April 24, 2006, the plaintiffs initiated a class arbitration
with the American Arbitration Association.  

On Oct. 13, 2006, the parties tentatively agreed to settle this
matter for a nonmaterial amount.  The parties are in the process
of drafting the settlement agreement and having it reviewed by
the arbitrator, according to the company's March 9 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Irwin Financial Corp. on the Net: http://www.irwinfinancial.com.


IRWIN UNION: Pa. Court Stays Consolidated Suit Over CBNV Loans
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
has stayed a consolidated class action filed against Irwin Union
Bank and Trust Co., a subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp., in
connection with loans the company purchased from Community Bank
of Northern Virginia (CBNV).

Initially several suits were filed against the company in both
federal and state courts.  These suits are:

      -- "Hobson v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company;"

      -- "Kossler v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia;"

      -- "Chatfield v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et
         al.," and

      -- "Ransom v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et al."

"Hobson" was filed on July 30, 2004 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.  As amended on Aug. 30,
2004, the Hobson complaint, seeks certification of both a
plaintiffs' and a defendants' class, the plaintiffs' class to
consist of all persons who obtained loans from CBNV and whose
loans were purchased by Irwin Union Bank.  

The suit alleges that defendants violated the Truth-in-Lending
Act (TILA), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
(HOEPA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

On Oct. 12, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Hobson claims as untimely filed and substantively defective.

"Kossler," was originally filed in July 2002 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  The
company was added as a defendant in December 2004.

The Kossler complaint seeks certification of a plaintiffs' class
and seeks to void the mortgage loans as illegal contracts.  It
also seeks recovery against the company for alleged RESPA
violations and for conversion.  

On Sept. 9, 2005, the Kossler plaintiffs filed a third amended
class action complaint.  On Oct. 21, 2005, the company filed a
renewed motion seeking to dismiss the Kossler action.

Plaintiffs in "Hobson" and "Kossler" claim that CBNV was
allegedly engaged in a lending arrangement involving the use of
its charter by certain third parties who charged high fees,
which were not representative of the services rendered and not
properly disclosed as to the amount or recipient of the fees.

The loans in question are allegedly high cost/high interest
loans under Section 32 of HOEPA.  Plaintiffs also allege illegal
kickbacks and fee splitting.  

In "Hobson," plaintiffs allege that the company was aware of
CBNV's alleged arrangement when it purchased the loans and that
it participated in a RICO enterprise and conspiracy related to
the loans.  Because the company bought the loans from Community
Bank, the Hobson plaintiffs are alleging that Irwin has assignee
liability under HOEPA.

If the Hobson and Kossler plaintiffs are successful in
establishing a class and prevailing at trial, possible RESPA
remedies could include treble damages for each service for which
there was an unearned fee, kickback or overvalued service.  

Other possible damages in "Hobson" could include TILA remedies,
such as rescission, actual damages, statutory damages not to
exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the net worth of the
creditor, and attorneys' fees and costs; possible HOEPA remedies
could include the refunding of all closing costs, finance
charges and fees paid by the borrower; RICO remedies could
include treble plaintiffs' actually proved damages.

In addition, the Hobson plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
punitive damages.  Under TILA, HOEPA, RESPA and RICO, statutory
remedies include recovery of attorneys' fees and costs.  Other
possible damages in "Kossler" could include the refunding of all
origination fees paid by the plaintiffs.

"Chatfield" and "Ransom," which both names the company along
with CBNV as defendants were filed on June 9, 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Frederick County, Maryland.  The cases involve
mortgage loans the company purchased from CBNV.

On July 16, 2004, both of these lawsuits were removed to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The
complaints allege that the plaintiffs did not receive
disclosures required under HOEPA and TILA.  They also allege
violations of Maryland law because the plaintiffs were allegedly
charged or contracted for a prepayment penalty fee.

The company believes the plaintiffs received the required
disclosures and that CBNV, a Virginia-chartered bank, was
permitted to charge prepayment fees to Maryland borrowers.

Under the loan purchase agreements between the company and CBNV,
Irwin has the right to demand repurchase of the mortgage loans
and to seek indemnification from Community for the claims in
these lawsuits.  

On Sept. 17, 2004, the company made a demand for indemnification
and a defense to "Hobson," "Chatfield," and, "Ransom."  CBNV
denied this request as premature.

In response to a motion by the company, the Judicial Panel On
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated "Hobson," "Chatfield" and
"Ransom" with "Kossler" in the Western District of Pennsylvania
for all pretrial proceedings.

The District Court had been handling another case seeking class
action status, captioned, "Kessler v. RFC, et al.," also
involving Community and with facts similar to those alleged in
the Irwin consolidated cases.  

The Kessler case had been settled, but the settlement was
appealed and set aside on procedural grounds.  Subsequently, the
parties in "Kessler" filed a motion for approval of a modified
settlement, which would provide additional relief to the
settlement class.

Irwin is not a party to the Kessler action, but the resolution
of issues in Kessler may have an impact on the Irwin cases.  The
District Court has effectively stayed action on the Irwin cases
until issues in the Kessler case are resolved, according to the
company's March 9 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and  
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The consolidated suit is "Davis, et al. v. Community Bank of
Northern Virginia, et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-01201-GLL, (formerly
Kossler)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Gary L. Lancaster.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric G. Calhoun of Lawson, Fields, McCue, Lee &
         Campbell, 14135 Midway Road, Suite 250, Addison, TX
         75001, Phone: (972) 490-0808;

     (2) R. Bruce Carlson of Caron, McCormick, Gordon &
         Constants, 201 Route 17 North, 2nd Floor, Rutherford,
         NJ 07070, Phone: (412) 749-1667, E-mail:
         bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com;

     (3) Michael E. McCarthy, 2500 Lawyers Building, Pittsburgh,
         PA 15219, Phone: (412) 281-1288; and

     (4) R. Hoyt Rowell, III of Ness, Motley, Loadholt,
         Richardson & Poole, P.O. Box 1792, Mt. Pleasant, SC
         29465, Phone: (843) 216-9471.

Representing the company is Larry K. Elliott of Cohen & Grigsby,
11 Stanwix Street, 15th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1319, Phone:
(412) 297-4962, E-mail: lelliott@cohenlaw.com.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Amendment in Calif. Securities Suit Allowed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
approved a stipulation allowing plaintiffs in a consolidated
securities fraud class action against Juniper Networks, Inc. to
file an amended consolidated complaint after the company files
its restated financial statements.

On July 14, 2006, a purported class-action complaint captioned,
"Garber v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C-06-4327 MJJ,"
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California against the company and certain of its officers
and directors.  Plaintiff filed a corrected complaint on July
28, 2006.

The Garber class action is brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Juniper Networks' common stock between Sept. 1, 2003 and May
22, 2006.

On Aug. 29, 2006, another purported class-action complaint
captioned, "Peters v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C 06
5303 JW," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.  

The Peters class action is brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Juniper Networks' common stock between April 10, 2003 and
Aug. 10, 2006.

Both of these purported class actions allege that the company
and certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by manipulating stock option grant dates to
coincide with low stock prices and issuing false and misleading
statements including, among others, incorrect financial
statements due to the improper accounting of stock option
grants.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the court appointed the New York City Pension
Funds as lead plaintiffs.  The lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on Jan. 12.  

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
purchasers of, or those who otherwise acquired, Juniper
Networks' publicly traded securities from April 10, 2003 through
and including Aug. 20, 2006.

It alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors.  

On Feb. 15, 2007, the parties agreed that plaintiffs may file an
amended consolidated complaint within 30 days after the company
files its restated financial statements with the U.S. Securities
Exchange Commission and the court approved the stipulation on
Feb. 16.

The suit is "In Re: Juniper Securities Litigation, Case NO.
5:06-cv-04327-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge James Ware with
referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard Bemporad of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad Selinger
         & Cohen, P.C., White Plains Plaza, 1 North Broadway,
         5th Floor, White Plains, NY 10601-2310, Phone: (914)
         997-0500, E-mail: rbemporad@ldbs.com; and

     (2) William M. Audet of Audet & Partners, 221 Main Street,
         Suite 1460, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-982-
         1776, Fax: 415.576.1776, E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Joni L. Ostler of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation, 650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-
mail: jostler@wsgr.com.


MEDICOR LTD: Founder Sued Over "Ponzi Scheme" in 1031 Exchange
--------------------------------------------------------------
The founder of Medicor, Ltd. and several others were named as
defendants in a purported class action flied in Santa Barbara
Superior Court in California over an alleged ponzi scheme, Santa
Barbara News-Press reports.

Donald McGhan is facing a suit filed by the law firm of
Hollister & Brace and led by attorneys Robert Brace and Michael
Denver.  The suit was brought on behalf of approximately 130
people residing in a dozen states who lost more than $80 million
entrusted to exchange accommodators.  They allege the money was
used in a Ponzi scheme masterminded by Mr. McGhan.  Marsha
Slotten, a real estate broker in Henderson, Nevada is one of the
lead plaintiffs in the case.

The suit provides intricate details on how the Ponzi scheme
allegedly was set up by Mr. McGhan and others to raid millions
from 1031 exchange accommodators.

A 1031 Exchange, also known as a Like Kind Exchange or Starker
Tax Deferred Exchange, is a transaction under U.S. law which
specifies that if an asset is sold and the proceeds of the sale
are then reinvested in an asset of a similar kind (like kind
asset), then no capital gain or loss is recognized, allowing the
deferment of capital gains taxes that would otherwise have been
due on the first sale.  The law is defined under section 1031 of
the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Section 1031.

The 1031 Exchange is most commonly used with real estate
transactions.  The deferral of capital gains is the incentive
for property owners to utilize tax-deferred exchanges.  

As a result, exchange accommodators often handle large sums of
money that they hold in trust for periods of up to 180 days.  
Exchange accommodators are largely unregulated, unlike banks and
insurance companies, which also provide this same service.

According to the suit, the stolen funds were funneled to
companies owned or controlled by Mr. McGhan, specifically
MediCor Ltd., a medical device company, which has a wholly owned
subsidiary, MediCor Development, in Santa Barbara.

According to a report by The Santa Barbara News-Press, other
defendants in the suit are:

     -- Mr. McGhan's children, Jim McGhan and Nikki Pomeroy;
     -- investment broker Peter DeMarigny;
     -- Mr. DeMarigny's former employers: Salomon Smith Barney,  
        now part of Citigroup Global Markets, and UBS Financial  
        Services, which handled accounts for Mr. McGhan,

Generally, the suit alleges that defendants discovered that the
1031 exchange accommodators were unregulated businesses holding
large sums of cash and only needed a small percentage of the
money to operate.  It claims civil Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act violations, as well as theft,
embezzlement, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, deceit and other
complaints.

The suit alleges that defendants owned and controlled a company
called Capital Reef Management Corp., which was used to purchase
at least three exchange accommodators -- such as Southwest
Exchange, Inc. and Qualified Exchange Services -- between 2004
and 2005.  It also alleges that defendants "formed a conspiracy"
to purchase the companies and "to steal its clients' assets held
in trust."

It is alleged that Mr. DeMarigny, the financial adviser, was
"enlisted to join the conspiracy" since he was an account
executive at Smith Barney who had access to the funds held by
one of the purchased exchange accommodators and had a
relationship with Don McGhan.

The suit states that a hot real estate market during 2004 and
most of 2005 hid the theft of more than $70 million in funds,
and large amounts of money remained undetected because the funds
held by Southwest Exchange increased dramatically from roughly
$100 million in early 2005 to more than $215 million by June of
that year.  

However according to the suit, when the real estate market
cooled at the end of 2005, money from new exchanges began to dry
up and that created a shortage for paying on the closings of
older exchanges.

Plaintiffs' attorneys added that faced with a liquidity crisis
in 2006, defendants purchased Qualified Exchange in October 2006
and stole $10 million or more in its trust assets.  

The Ponzi scheme collapsed when the real estate market cooled
and 1031 exchange transactions slowed significantly, creating
$80 million in damages.

Plaintiffs' attorney allege that the stolen money went to
various companies that all had ties to MediCor.  Specifically,
Capital Reef, Cennedig LLC, International Integrated Industries
LLC, Sirius Capital LLC, Ventana Coast LLC (formerly known as
McGhan Ranch LLC) all borrowed money from Southwest trust funds
in exchange for notes that have not been repaid, and these
businesses have no listed telephone numbers, however, all use
the same mailing address as MediCor Ltd. in Las Vegas.

The suit implicates Mr. McGhan of using the money he stole from
the clients of Southwest Exchange, laundering the funds through
other companies, and then using the money to pay MediCor's
ongoing expenses.

In addition, the suit also alleges that the stolen money was
also used to pay for the operation of a private Challenger jet,
to purchase mansions and golf courses in Nevada, to operate an
avocado ranch in Ventura and to purchase MediCor's foreign
medical device companies.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PREMIER FOOD: Hourly Workers Complain of Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southern California class action attorneys Derek J. Emge and
David A. Huch recently filed a class action against Premier Food
Services, Inc. on behalf of the company's hourly workers,
including bartenders and food servers.

The hourly employees claim they have not been provided with
state-mandated meal breaks and rest periods.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for hourly employees
employed by Premier Food Services from February 2003 to the
present.

Under California law, all hourly employees are entitled to a 30-
minute meal break for each shift lasting more than five hours.  
The 30-minute meal break must be uninterrupted and provided
during the first five hours of the employee's shift.  California
hourly employees are also entitled to a 10-minute rest period
for every four hours worked.

Headquartered in San Diego, California, Premier Food Services,
Inc. provides food and beverage service at the Del Mar
Racetrack, Del Mar Fairgrounds and other San Diego area catering
operations under the fictitious business name of Carriage Trade
Catering.

For more information, contact David A. Huch of the Law Offices
of David A. Huch, Phone: 760-402-9528, E-mail: dhuch@onebox.com;
or Derek J. Emge of Emge & Associates, Phone: 619-595-1400, E-
mail: derek@inthelaw.com.


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over OxyContin CR Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harvard Drug Group has filed an antitrust class action against
Purdue Pharma LP accusing it of an unlawful scheme to maintain
monopoly in the U.S. for the painkiller OxyContin CR, according
to a post at Patent Baristas http://www.patentbaristas.com/.

The suit is "Harvard Drug Group LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (SDNY
07cv1937)."

According to the post, Harvard alleges that Purdue engaged in a
scheme involving fraud before the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office in order to obtain U.S. patents relating to OxyContin
including 5,549,912; 5,508,042; and 5,656,295.

Purdue's patents of the drug allegedly unreasonably restrained,
suppressed, and eliminated competition in the market for
oxycodone CR (OxyContin and generic versions of OxyContin),
allowing it to illegally maintain a monopoly in the market for
oxycodone CR.

The company allegedly fixed, raised, maintained, and/or
stabilized the price of OxyContin at supra- competitive levels,
and thus overcharged Harvard and other direct purchasers of
OxyContin dollars by depriving them of the benefits of
competition from lower priced generic versions of OxyContin.

Harvard is seeking to recover payments for the higher prices
that OxyContin buyers paid as a result of the alleged anti-
competitive conduct.


QUANTUM SECURITIES: Faces Suit Over Endorsement of Westpoint
------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Slater & Gordon filed a class action against two
financial planning companies that recommended investments in the
now collapsed Westpoint Corp. Pty Ltd., AAP News.

The law firm filed a suit on behalf of 82 clients against
Quantum Securities Pty Ltd. and Masu Financial Management Pty
Ltd. in the New South Wales Supreme Court.

Of the 82 clients, 59 are predominantly from the Chinese
community and were allegedly encouraged to invest in Westpoint's
Bayshore development in Port Melbourne and the Mount Street
development in North Sydney.  Twenty-three clients of Masu
Financial Management are also suing the company for investments
made in Westpoint's Ann Street, Bayview and York streets
developments.

The investors claim both Quantum and Masu Financial gave them
inappropriate advice and made misleading statements about the
Westpoint investments.  They allegedly lost more than $9.5
million.

Slater & Gordon said the 82 investors are seeking a court order
for the companies to refund their investment with interest,
costs and compensation for anxiety and stress.

Headquartered in Perth, Western Australia, the Westpoint Group  
-- http://westpoint.com.au/-- is engaged in property  
development and owns or manages retail and commercial properties
with a total value of over AU$300 million.  The group's troubles
began in 2005 when the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission commenced a series of legal proceedings in relation
to a number of companies within the Westpoint Group.  

These investigations were then followed by the winding up of a
number of Westpoint's mezzanine companies.  ASIC also sought
wind-up orders after the Westpoint companies failed to comply
with ASIC's requirement to lodge accounts for certain financial
years.  

Last year, the Federal Court in Perth issued a winding up order
against Westpoint Corp. Pty Ltd.  ASIC applied to wind up the
company on grounds of insolvency.  

ASIC had said Westpoint's projects are suffering from
significant shortfall of assets over liabilities.  

Slater & Gordon on the Net: http://www.slatergordon.com.au/.


TATA AMERICA: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Tax Refunds Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied a motion of Tata America
International Corp. and its parent corporations Tata Consultancy
Services, Ltd., and Tata Sons, Ltd. to compel arbitration in
India, and to dismiss the nationwide class action lawsuit in
U.S. court.

In February 2006, the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, on behalf of Gopi Vedachalam, an employee of
Tata America International Corp., filed a nationwide class
action in U.S. District Court in San Francisco against:

     (1) Tata America International Corporation, and

     (2) its parent corporations Tata Consultancy Services,
         Ltd.,

     (3) and Tata Sons, Ltd. (collectively referred to as
         Tata).

Among other allegations, the suit charges that the Tata unjustly
enriched itself by requiring all of its non-U.S.-citizen
employees to endorse and sign over their federal and state tax
refund checks to Tata (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2006).

The complaint charges that most Tata employees in the U.S. are
non-U.S. citizens.  These employees are granted visas, which
allow them to work and live in the U.S.  Tata requires each
employee to sign an agreement, which states that the employee's
gross amount of compensation will be includable as earnings in
the U.S. and reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

The complaint alleges that these employees are not paid the
amount promised them in these agreements.

The complaint alleges further that, at least until July 2005,
Tata required its non-U.S.-citizen employees to sign power of
attorney agreements delegating an outside agency to calculate
and submit each employee's tax return to state and federal
authorities.  Tata then required its non-U.S.-citizen employees
who received tax refunds from state and federal tax authorities
to endorse the tax refund checks and send them back to Tata.

Under California Labor Code Section 221, it is unlawful "for any
employer to collect or receive from an employee any part of
wages theretofore paid by said employer to said employee."  The
complaint also charges that Tata's conduct violates this Code
section as well as the common law forbidding unjust enrichment
and conversion.

From 2000 to 2003, plaintiff Gopi Vedachalam worked in Hayward,
California, as a Tata project manager assigned to Target.  Since
2003, he has worked as a Tata project manager for 21st Century
Insurance in Woodland Hills, California.

Mr. Vedachalam asked the federal court to certify the case as a
class action and issue an injunction against Tata, preventing it
from requiring its employees to endorse their tax refund checks
to the company to the extent it is still doing so.  

The complaint also seeks compensation and damages for current
and former employees who were not paid what they were promised
and who were deprived of their tax refunds.

"Judge Walker upheld the principle that before a company can
force an employee working in the U.S. to give up the right to
have his or her claims heard in a U.S. court, it must show that
both the company and the employee clearly and mutually agreed
that these claims would be heard elsewhere," stated Steven M.
Tindall of Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall, co-class counsel for
plaintiffs.

"The Court found that the documents purportedly requiring
arbitration in India applied one set of rules to Mr. Vedachalam
and another set to Tata, negating any mutual agreement to
arbitrate legal disputes."

"The Court's order ensures that Mr. Vedachalam will have his day
in court in the U.S. before a neutral judge, not in India in
front of a private arbitrator of Tata's choosing," explained
Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
also co-class counsel for plaintiffs.  "Mr. Vedachalam and the
thousands of workers he seeks to represent are an important step
closer to obtaining justice."

The suit is "Vedachalam v. Tata America International
Corporation et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00963-VRW," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
under Judge Vaughn R. Walker.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kelly M. Dermody, Daniel Hutchinson and Peter Edwin
         Leckman, Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, 275
         Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-
         3339, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-mail:
         kdermody@lchb.com or dhutchinson@lchb.com or
         pleckman@lchb.com; and

     (2) Steven M. Tindall of Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall, 100
         Pine Street, Suite 725, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
         415-421-1800, Fax: 415-421-1700, E-mail:
         steventindall@rhdtlaw.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Michelle M. LaMar, Attorney at Law, 10100 Santa Monica
         Blvd., Suite 2200, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-
         282-2133, Fax: 310-282-2200, E-mail: mlamar@loeb.com;

     (2) Kevin J. Smith of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, 101 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY 10178, Phone: 212-808-5102, Fax:
         212-8087897, E-mail: ksmith@kelleydrye.com;

     (3) William A. Escobar, 101 Park Avenue, New York, NY
         10178-0002, Phone: 212-808-7800; and

     (4) Robert I. Steinerm, 101 Park Avenue, New York, NY
         10178-0002, Phone: 212-808-7800.


TOYS R US: Recalls Toy Sets Containing High Levels of Lead
----------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us Inc., of Wayne, New Jersey, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
128,700 "Elite Operations" toy sets.

The company said these toys contain high levels of lead in the
paint, which is toxic if ingested by young children and can
cause adverse health effects.  Also, the toys have sharp points,
posing a laceration hazard.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves three styles of "Elite Operations" brand
toy sets.  The military-style play sets contain light and sound
vehicles, action figures and accessories.

Models included in this recall are:

     -- Super Rigs Transport Vehicle (Item # 087286),
     -- Command Patrol Center (Item # 920625) and
     -- Troop Carrier (Item # 773967).

The item numbers are located on the back of the packaging above
the barcode. Toy sets sold prior to January 2006 are not
included in this recall. No other "Elite Operations" brand toys
are affected by this recall.

These recalled "Elite Operations" toy sets were manufactured by
Toy Century Industrial Company Ltd. in China and are being sold
at Toys "R" Us stores nationwide and toysrus.com from January
2006 through early February 2007 for between $15 and $30.

Pictures of recalled "Elite Operations" toy sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07127a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07127b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07127c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the toys away from
children and return the product to the nearest Toys "R" Us store
for full credit.

For additional information, contact Toys "R" Us at (800) TOYSRUS
(869-7787) between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. ET Monday through Saturday,
10 a.m. and 7 p.m. Sunday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.toysrus.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Ill. Court Denies Class Status for Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark VandeWiele of the Rock Island County Circuit in
Illinois denied class status to a lawsuit filed by Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. employees alleging non-payment to workers of hours
worked through breaks, the Quad-Cities Online (Ill.) reports.

A group of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. employees filed the lawsuit
against the retail giant in 2001 alleging the company required
hourly employees to work "off the clock" without compensation.  

The suit charges the company of engaging in a "systematic scheme
of wage abuse" against its hourly paid employees from Aug. 15,
1996.  Hourly workers allegedly were not paid for missed and/or
interrupted meal and rest breaks and were asked to alter time
records.

The suit concerns some 223,000 employees of Wal-Mart and Sam's
Club in Illinois.  It was brought on behalf of Quad-Cities Wal-
Mart workers Lisa Brown, Cynthia Camp and Joseph Stanfield.

Possible liability to the company is estimated at $80 million to
$100 million (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2006).

In denying class status to the case, Judge VandeWiele wrote that
his decision was not on the merits of their case, but that the
plaintiffs "failed to demonstrate the existence of a reasonable
and accurate method of calculating damages on a class wide basis
... the individual issues regarding damages would predominate,
making class certification impractical."

New York attorney Judith L. Spanier, representing the
plaintiffs, plans to file a motion for reconsideration.  

Representing Wal-Mart is Matthew P. Pappas of Pappas & Schnell,
P.C., The Paddock Building, 1617 Second Avenue, Suite 300, Post
Box 5408, Rock Island, IL 61204-5408, Phone: (309) 788-7110,
Fax: (309) 788-2773.

Plaintiffs are represented by Judith L. Spanier of Abbey Spanier
Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY
10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax: (212) 684-5191.


WILLIAMS COS: Lawsuits Over Hurricane Damages in La. Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class actions filed against The Williams Companies, Inc. for
damages arising from hurricanes that struck Louisiana in 2005
have been dismissed.

Two lawsuits were filed against the company in federal court in
Louisiana in September and October 2005.  The class action
plaintiffs, purporting to represent persons, businesses and
entities in the State of Louisiana who have suffered damage as a
result of the winds and storm surge from the hurricanes.

The plaintiffs allege that the operating activities of the two
sub-classes of defendants, which are all oil and gas pipelines
(including Transco) that dredged pipeline canals or installed
pipelines in the marshes of south Louisiana and all oil and gas
exploration and production companies which drilled for oil and
gas or dredged canals in the marshes of south Louisiana, have
altered marshland ecology and caused marshland destruction which
otherwise would have averted all or almost all of the
destruction and loss of life caused by the hurricanes.

Plaintiffs requested that the court allow the lawsuits to
proceed as class actions and sought legal and equitable relief
in an unspecified amount.

In September 2006, the court granted the company's and the other
defendants' joint motion to dismiss the class action petitions
on various grounds.  

In August 2006, an additional class action containing
substantially identical allegations was filed against the same
defendants, including Transco.  This case was dismissed on Nov.
30, 2006.


WILLIAMS COS: Settles Nev. Gas Pricing Lawsuit for $2.4M
--------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said it has reached a $2.4 million
settlement in a class action filed in federal court in Nevada
alleging it manipulated gas prices for direct purchasers of gas
in California.

Legal documents will be filed with the court and the settlement
is subject to court approval, the company said at its Feb. 28
form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


WILLIAMS COS: Court Okays $15.6M Settlement of Gas Pricing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California state court granted on Dec. 11, 2006 final approval
to a $15.6 million settlement of a class action filed against
The Williams Companies, Inc.

The suit alleges the company manipulated prices for indirect
purchasers of gas in California.


WILLIAMS COS: Tenn. Court Dismisses Gas Purchasers Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
A state court in Tennessee dismissed on Feb. 2 a class action
brought against The Williams Companies, Inc. on behalf of direct
and indirect purchasers of gas in the state.

The court dismissed the case before it because the claims could
only be asserted at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  

The company is facing the same suit in state court in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.  


WILLIAMS COS: Okla. Court Approves $290M WilTel Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
granted final approval to a $290 million settlement of a class
action filed by securities holders of WilTel Communications,
previously an owned subsidiary of Williams Companies, Inc.,
known as Williams Communications.

On and after Jan. 29, 2002, multiple securities fraud class
actions were filed against the company and co-defendants, WilTel
Communications, and certain corporate officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  The
defendants were accused of acting jointly and separately to
inflate the stock price of both companies.  

Other suits allege similar causes of action related to a public
offering in early January 2002 known as the FELINE PACS
offering.   

These cases were also filed in 2002 against the company, certain
corporate officers, all members of its board of directors and
all of the offerings' underwriters.  WilTel is no longer a
defendant as a result of its bankruptcy.  

These cases were all consolidated and an order was issued
requiring separate amended consolidated complaints by the
company's equity holders and WilTel equity holders.  The
underwriter defendants have requested indemnification and
defense from these cases.  

In 2002, the amended complaints of the WilTel securities holders
and of the company's securities holders added numerous claims
related to the company's Power segment.  The parties went
through discovery, and an Aug. 16, 2006 trial date was set.

On June 13, 2006, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement-in-principle to settle the claims of purchasers of the
company's securities between July 24, 2000 and July 22, 2002 for
a total payment of $290 million.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  

On Feb. 9, 2007, the court gave its final approval of the
settlement.  The company recorded a pre-tax charge for
approximately $161 million in second quarter 2006.  Its portion
of the total payment was $145 million.

It funded its $145 million portion of the settlement with cash-
on-hand in November 2006, with the balance funded through
insurance proceeds.

The suit is "In re: Williams Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-
CV-72-H," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern  
District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P. Friot with referral
to Judge Frank H. McCarthy.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) R. Robyn Assaf of Kirby McInerney & Squire, (OKC), 4312  
         N. Classen, Oklahoma City, OK 73118, Phone: 405-525-
         0777, Fax: 557-0777;

     (2) Brian Barry of Brian Barry Law Office, 1801 Ave. Of The     
         Stars, Ste. 307, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-788-
         0831, Fax: 310-788-0841, E-mail: BriBarry1@yahoo.com;  

     (3) Laurie Bernice Ashton of Keller Rohrback, LLP, 3101 N  
         Central Ave., Ste. 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600, Phone:
         602-248-0088, Fax: 602-248-2822, E-mail:
         lashton@kellerrohrback.com; and

     (4) Wayne T. Boulton of Schatz & Nobel, PC, 1 Corporate  
         Ctr., Ste. 1700, Hartford, CT 06103-3202, Phone: 860-
         493-6292, Fax: 493-6290.


WILLIAMS COS: Suit by Royalty Interest Owners in Col. Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit filed against The Williams Companies, Inc.
over calculation of oil and gas royalty payments to royalty
interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado have agreed to stay
the action.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action in Colorado state court alleging
that the company improperly calculated oil and gas royalty
payments, failed to account for the proceeds that the company
received from the sale of gas and extracted products, improperly
charged certain expenses, and failed to refund amounts withheld
in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.

The plaintiffs claim that the class might be in excess of 500
individuals and seek an accounting and damages.  The parties
have agreed to stay this action in order to participate in a
mediation to be scheduled, the company said at its Feb. 28 form
10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Court Mulls Class Status for Natural Gas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Kansas state court has yet to rule on a motion seeking class
certification for a lawsuit filed against Williams Partners L.P.
along with its other subsidiaries.

In 2001, defendants were named in a purported nationwide class
action in Kansas state court that had been pending against other
defendants, generally pipeline and gathering companies, since
2000.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties
to the class of producer plaintiffs and sought an unspecified
amount of damages.

Defendants have opposed class certification and a hearing on
plaintiffs' second motion to certify the class was held on April
1, 2005.

Parties are awaiting a decision from the court, 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.

Williams Partners L.P. on the Net: http://www.williamslp.com.


WCP (GENERATION): Ninth Circuit Mulls Appeal in Calif. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has yet to rule on
plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of a purported federal
class action that names as a defendant WCP (Generation)
Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc.

The suit on appeal is "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc., et al. v.
Dynegy, Inc. Holding Co., West Coast Power, LLC, et al., Case
No. CIV.S-03-2346 DFL GGH," which was filed U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California on Nov. 10, 2003.

This putative class action alleges violations of the federal
Sherman and Clayton Acts and state antitrust law. In addition to
naming WCP and Dynegy, Inc. Holding Co., the complaint names
numerous industry participants, as well as "unnamed co-
conspirators."

The complaint alleges that defendants conspired to manipulate
the spot price and basis differential of natural gas with
respect to the California market.  

The complaint seeks unspecified amounts of damages, including a
trebling of plaintiff's and the putative class's actual damages.

On April 18, 2005, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss based on the filed rate doctrine and federal preemption.

On May 17, 2005, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

The suit is "Texas-Ohio Energy v. Centerpoint Energy, et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-02346-FCD-GGH," on appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California under
Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. with referral to Judge Gregory G.
Hollows.

Representing the plaintiffs is Dennis Stewart of Hulett Harper
Stewar, LLP, 550 West C Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: 619338-1133, Fax: 619338-1139, E-mail:
office@hulettharper.com.


WCP (GENERATION): Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Gas Indexes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
WCP (Generation) Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of NRG Energy,
Inc., is seeking for dismissal of the purported class action,
"Bustamante v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al., No. BC
235598."

The suit was filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles
County on Nov. 20, 2002, and was amended in 2003.  It alleges
that the defendants attempted to manipulate gas indexes by
reporting false and fraudulent trades.  

Named defendants in the suit include several of WCP's operating
subsidiaries:

      -- El Segundo Power, LLC;

      -- Long Beach Generation, LLC;

      -- Cabrillo Power I LLC; and

      -- Cabrillo Power II LLC.

The complaint seeks restitution and disgorgement, civil fines,
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment is pending, according to
NRG Energy, Inc.'s Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

NRG Energy, Inc. on the Net: http://www.nrgenergy.com/.


WCP (GENERATION): Settles Several Antitrust Lawsuits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached for several purported class actions
that named as defendant WCP (Generation) Holdings, Inc., a
subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc.

The suits that were initially filed are:

      -- "Fairhaven Power Company v. Encana Corporation, et al.,
         Case No. CIV-F-04-6256 (OWW/ LJO)," U.S. District
         Court for the Eastern District of California (filed
         Sept. 22, 2004),

      -- "Abelman v. Encana, Case No. 04-CV-6684," U.S. District
         Court for the Eastern District of California, (filed
         Dec. 13, 2004); and

      -- "Utility Savings v. Reliant, et al.," filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of California,
         (filed Nov. 29, 2004).

These putative class actions named WCP and Dynegy Holding Co.,
Inc. among numerous defendants.  They alleged violations of the
federal Sherman Act, and California's antitrust and unfair
competition law as well as unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs sought a determination of class action status, a
trebling of unspecified damages, statutory, punitive or
exemplary damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
a constructive trust, and costs and attorneys' fees.

On Dec. 19, 2005, the court granted defendants notice to dismiss
based upon the filed rate doctrine and federal preemption.  

On Feb. 2, 2006, defendants settled the case and plaintiffs are
expected to file a motion to approve the settlement with the
court by the end of the first quarter 2007.

NRG Energy, Inc. on the Net: http://www.nrgenergy.com/.


WINCO FOODS: Recalls Bread Possibly Containing Wire Fragments
-------------------------------------------------------------
WinCo Foods is voluntarily recalling several bread products
packaged under the Cascade Pride label and sold at its WinCo
Foods stores in California and Nevada.

The Cascade Pride products, manufactured for WinCo Foods by
Safeway Inc., may contain wire fragments from production
machinery. The recall does not affect WinCo Foods stores in
Washington, Oregon, or Idaho.

The recall affects the following products with a "Best Before"
date of March 15, 2007.

     Product                                         UPC Code #

     Cascade Pride Crushed Wheat Bread               17072-00003  
     Cascade Pride 100% Wheat Bread                  17072-00007
     Cascade Pride Butter Top White Bread            17072-00008
     Cascade Pride White 24 oz. Bread                17072-00017
     Cascade Pride Wheat 24 oz. Bread                17072-00018
     Cascade Pride Butter Top Wheat Bread            17072-00021
     Cascade Pride White Sandwich Bread              17072-00022
     Cascade Pride Wheat Sandwich Bread              17072-00023
     Cascade Pride Texas Toast                       17072-00068
     Cascade Pride Maple Toast                       17072-00069
     Cascade Pride White 16 oz.                      17072-00101
     Cascade Pride Wheat 16 oz.                      17072-00102

The "Best Before" date can be found on the bread bag's plastic
closure.  The UPC number can be found on the bottom panel of the
bread bag.  Customers who purchased these products may return
the products to their local store for a full refund.

While Safeway has received a few complaints about the products,
WinCo Foods has not received any complaints to date.  No
injuries have been reported.

Safeway has assured WinCo that the production machinery in
question has been repaired and the production line cleaned.
WinCo Foods values its customers and regrets the inconvenience
or concern that this voluntary recall may cause.


             New Securities Fraud Cases


NEW CENTURY: Murray, Frank & Sailer Files Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action in the Central
District of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired the securities of New Century Financial
Corp. between April 4, 2006 through Feb. 7, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges New Century and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Bradley P. Dyer of Murray, Frank &
Sailer LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212)
682-1892.


POWERWAVE TECH: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filings
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces
that class actions have been commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division,
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9, 2006,
inclusive.

The complaints allege that Powerwave, which supplies wireless
solutions for wireless communications networks worldwide, and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws.

Further, it alleges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market during the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

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

      (1) that Powerwave was materially overstating its
          financial results, specifically by improperly
          recognizing revenue;

      (2) that the Company was materially overstating its
          profitability by underreporting foreseeable expenses,
          and failing to make proper, timely adjustments;

      (3) that Powerwave's financial statements were not
          prepared in accordance with GAAP;

      (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal operational
          or financial controls;

      (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          statements about its financial well-being and future
          business prospects were lacking in any reasonable
          basis when made; and

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

On Oct. 9, 2006, prior to the market opening for that day,
Powerwave shocked investors when it announced, in striking
contrast to the Company's prior announcements, the Company was
drastically slashing its financial guidance for the Third
Quarter of fiscal year 2006.

On the release of this news, shares of the Company's stock
declined $1.38, or 17.6 percent, to close on Oct. 9, 2006 at
$6.42 per share on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

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


WELLS REAL: Law Firms Announce Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP and Labaton Sucharow &
Rudoff LLP and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
announce that a securities class action was commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Wells
Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. and certain of its
affiliates, officers and directors.

The complaint, filed on behalf of a proposed class of the
Company's stockholders who are entitled to vote on Wells REIT's
proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on Feb. 26, 2007,
also includes derivative claims asserting wrongdoing on behalf
of Wells REIT against certain defendants.

The complaint, which seeks damages and other appropriate relief
for the Class and the Company, charges defendants with
violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections
14(a) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The Proxy seeks shareholder approval to merge affiliates of the
Company (the "Advisor") into Wells REIT for $175 million worth
of the Company's stock ("Internalization"). The Advisor is
wholly owned by officers and directors of Wells REIT and thus
the Internalization is a self-dealing transaction that must
receive the utmost scrutiny by the Class and the Company.

The Complaint charges that the Internalization does not stand up
to that scrutiny. Among other things, the Complaint alleges that
the Proxy is false, misleading and omits material information
concerning the fact that:

     (a) the Internalization makes no economic sense to the
         Class and the Company given the likelihood that the
         Company will liquidate starting January 30, 2008;

     (b) they purport to sell the Advisor to the Company, but
         will continue to extract fees from the Company for       
         advisory-type services;

     (c) recent comparable transactions reveal that the value
         placed on this Advisor is excessive and the
         Internalization transaction itself is not justified;

     (d) the Internalization is being used as an alternative
         exit strategy for the Advisor and its owners to end-run
         existing contractual provisions governing the Advisor's
         fees and to extract fees when they otherwise could
         receive nothing; and

     (e) the so-called fairness opinion obtained by defendants
         to support the Internalization and the value of the
         Advisor is materially flawed and based on unsupported
         assumptions.

The Complaint also alleges that the Advisor and certain
defendants owe fiduciary duties to the shareholders and the
Company and breached those duties by entering into the
Internalization which constitutes an abusive and self- dealing
transaction, a waste of the Company's assets and puts their own
personal self-interests above those of the Company and its
shareholders.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 11, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

     (1) Nicholas E. Chimicles and Kimberly M. Donaldson, both
         of Chimicles & Tickellis LLP, 361 West Lancaster,
         Avenue Haverford, PA 19041, Phone: 610-642-8500 or  
         866-399-2487 (Toll Free), Fax: 610-649-3633, E-Mail:
         kimdonaldson@chimicles.com, Website:
         http://www.chimicles.com;

     (2) Lawrence A. Sucharow and Christopher J. Keller, both of
         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New
         York, New York 10017, Phone: 212-907-0700, Fax: 212-
         818-0477, E-Mail: ckeller@labaton.com, Website:
         http://www.labaton.com;and

     (3) Lawrence P. Kolker of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
         Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
         10016, Phone: 212-545-4600, Fax: 212-686-0114, E-Mail:
         Kolker@whafh.com, Website: http://www.whafh.com.


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *