CAR_Public/070321.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 21, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 57

                            Headlines


ADAMS GOLF: Proceedings in Del. Securities Litigation on Hold
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Seeks to Dismiss Lawsuit by Miss. Residents
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Md. Court Approves $4M ERISA Suit Settlement
ALLINA HEALTH: Settles Lawsuit by Class of Uninsured Patients
BMO BANK: Depositors File Suit Over Alleged Withholding of Funds

CATHOLIC CHURCH: Settles Suit Within Plan of Reorganization
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Court Dismisses Second Amended Complaint
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Nursing Home Residents Sue Over Policy
FORD MOTOR: Seeks to Dismiss ERISA Suit Over Visteon Spinoff
LAZARD LTD: Prevails in N.Y. Lawsuit Due to Plaintiffs' Inaction

LIVE NATION: Hearing to Certify Antitrust Suit Set April 23
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Expects Ruling in Race Bias Suit Appeal in Q2
MARATHON OIL: Continues to Face Suits Over MTBE Contamination
MARATHON OIL: Still Faces W.Va. Suit Over "Defective" Gasoline
MERCK & CO: Jury Awards $47.5M Payout to Vioxx Users in N.J.

MERRILL LYNCH: Nancy Thomas Gets $420T in Sexual Harassment Suit
MONTANA FISH: 2008 Trial Set in Lewiston Creek Pollution Suit
MOTOROLA INC: "Naquin" Plaintiffs Dismiss Product Liability Suit
MOTOROLA INC: Seeks to Junk Suit Over Cellular Phone Hazards
MOTOROLA INC: Iridium Securities Fraud Suit Trial Set May 2008

ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Appeals Class Certification in Injury Suit
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Bid for Narrower Class in "Butland" Allowed
PHH CORP: Shareholder Contests $1.8B Sale to GE, Blackstone
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Class Claims Withdrawn in N.J. Lawsuit
REAL ESTATE BROKERS: Patent Holder Seeks Certification of Suit

ROYAL AHOLD: Deficiency Notices to Dutch Claimants Now Out
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Court Mulls Appeal of "Tips" Suit Dismissal
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Transfer "Jacobs"
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Crew Appeals Dismissal of Calif. Wage Lawsuit
RYLAND GROUP: Tex. Court Revives Dismissed Shareholder Lawsuit

SANDISK CORP: Continues to Face Suit by msystems Shareholders
SANDISK CORP: Settlement of Suit Over Flash Memory Approved
SIMON PROPERTY: Faces Ga., N.Y. Consumer Suits Over Gift Cards
STONE ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of La. Securities Fraud Lawsuits
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Stockholder Lawsuits in Ariz., Nev.

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Deadlines in N.Y. Securities Case Stayed
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Pension Fund Wants to Amend Complaint
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: N.Y. Grand Theft Suit Enters Discovery
THOMAS DODGE: EEOC Sues Over "Hostile Environment" for Females
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Minn. 401(k) Suit Opposed

VISTEON CORP: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit Under Appeal
WEBSENSE INC: Software Engineers Sue for Alleged Unpaid Overtime
WINSTON HOTELS: N.C. Shareholder Files Suit to Stop Wilbur Deal


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCREDITED HOME: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
EDUCATE INC: Brian M. Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Suit


                           *********


ADAMS GOLF: Proceedings in Del. Securities Litigation on Hold
-------------------------------------------------------------
All proceedings were postponed in a consolidated securities
class action pending against Adams Golf, Inc. in Delaware
federal court until a new judge is assigned to the case.

Beginning June 1999, the first of seven class actions was filed
against the company, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and the three underwriters of its initial public
offering.   

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection
with the company's initial public offering.  In particular, the
complaints alleged that its prospectus, which became effective
Jul. 9, 1998, was materially false and misleading in at least
two areas.

Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that
unauthorized distribution of the company's products (gray market
sales) threatened the company's long-term profits.  

They also alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that
the golf equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of
inventory at the retail level, which had an adverse impact on
sales.

The operative complaint was filed on Jan. 24, 2006, and it
alleges that the prospectus failed to disclose that unauthorized
distribution of the company's products (gray market sales)
threatened the company's long-term profits and that the company
engaged in questionable sales practices (including double
shipping and unlimited rights of return), which threatened post-
IPO financial results.  

Discovery closed on Aug. 11, 2006.  On Nov. 21, 2006, all
summary-judgment briefing was completed.  On Dec. 13, 2006, the
company learned that the judge from the U.S. District Court of
the District of Delaware for whom the case was set before was
elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.  

On Dec. 15, 2006, the company was notified that its case was
assigned to the vacant judicial position.  All proceedings have
been postponed until a new judge is confirmed, and there is no
trial date set at this time, according to the company's March 14
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Shockley, et al. v. Adams Golf Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:99-cv-00371-KAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware under Judge Kent A. Jordan.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Carmella P. Keener of Rosenthal,
Monhait, Gross & Goddess, Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401, P.O.
Box 1070, Wilmington, DE 19899-1070, Phone: (302) 656-4433, E-
mail: CKeener@rmgglaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Kevin G. Abrams of Abrams & Laster, LLP, Brandywine  
         Plaza West, 1521 Concord Pike, #303, Wilmington, DE
         19803, Phone: (302) 778-1000, Fax: (302) 778-1001;

     (2) Jeffrey L. Moyer of Richards, Layton & Finger, One  
         Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551, Wilmington, DE 19899,  
         Phone: (302) 651-7700, E-mail: moyer@rlf.com; and

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


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Seeks to Dismiss Lawsuit by Miss. Residents
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc., along with numerous other companies with
coal-fired generation facilities and companies in other
industries, filed a motion to dismiss a class action filed in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

The suit -- filed on April 19, 2006 - was brought on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in Mississippi
who were harmed by Hurricane Katrina.  The named plaintiffs
allege that the emission of greenhouse gases by defendants
contributed to global warming, thereby causing Hurricane Katrina
and plaintiffs' damages.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

On Dec. 6, 2006, Allegheny Energy filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint on jurisdictional grounds and joined a
motion filed by other defendants to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim.  These motions remain pending,
according to the company's Feb. 27 form 10-k filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Co., Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under
Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) F. Gerald Maples and Meredith A. Mayberry of F. Gerald
         Maples, PA, 902 Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113,
         Phone: 504/569-8732, E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
         and mmayberry@geraldmaples.com;

     (2) Randall Allan Smith and Stephen M. Wiles - PHV, Smith &
         Fawer, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702, New Orleans,
         LA 70170, Phone: 504/525-2200, Fax: 504/525-2205, E-
         mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net and
         smwiles@smithfawer.com; and

     (3) Carlos A. Zelaya - PHV, II, Maples & Kirwan, LLC, 902
         Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504-569-
         8732, Fax: 504/525-6932.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Md. Court Approves $4M ERISA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted
preliminary approval to a settlement of a suit alleging Employee
Retirement Income Security Act violations by Allegheny Energy
Inc.

In February and March 2003, two putative class actions were
filed against Allegheny Energy in U.S. District Courts in New
York and Maryland alleging that the company violated ERISA by
breaching fiduciary duties with respect to the Allegheny Energy
Stock Ownership and Savings Plan.  The cases were subsequently
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.

Under the proposed settlement in the consolidated ERISA class
action, the action will be dismissed with prejudice in exchange
for a cash payment of $4 million, of which approximately $3.9
million will be made by Allegheny Energy's insurance carrier.

On Feb. 13, 2007 the district court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  The proposed settlement
remains subject to final court approval, following notice to
class members.

The suit is "Keesecker v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-00843-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland under Judge Andre M. Davis.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas J. Hart of Slevin and Hart  
PC, 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW Ste. 450, Washington, DC 20036,  
Phone: 12027978700, Fax: 12022348231, E-mail:  
tjh@slevinhart.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Christa D. Haas, Groom Law Group Chtd., 1701  
         Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone:  
         12028570620, Fax: 12024594503, E-mail: cdh@groom.com;

    (ii) Gabrielle S. Moses of Venable Baetjer and Howard LLP,  
         Two Hopkins Plz., Ste. 1800, Baltimore, MD 21201,  
         Phone: 14102447400, Fax: 14102447742, E-mail:  
         gsmoses@venable.com; and
  
   (iii) Bradley P. Smith and William J. Snipes of Sullivan and  
         Cromwell, LLP, 125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004-2498,  
         Phone: 12125581660, Fax: 12125583588, E-mail:  
         smithbr@sullcrom.com or snipesw@sullcrom.com.


ALLINA HEALTH: Settles Lawsuit by Class of Uninsured Patients
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allina Health System in Minnesota agreed to settle a class
action filed by uninsured patients in the Hennepin County
District Court.

On Feb. 6, 2007, the District Court ruled that a lawsuit filed
against Allina Health System may proceed as a class action for
the purpose of settlement.  In the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege
that Allina charged uninsured patients an unreasonable amount in
comparison with the amount charged to other payers, such as
insurance companies.

The settlement class are:

     -- patients who received services between Feb. 17, 1999 and
        Aug. 1, 2005 from:

        * Abbott Northwestern Hospital,
        * Abbott Northwestern Medical Associates - Sartell,
        * Abbott Northwestern General Medicine Associates,
        * Allina Behavioral Health Services,
        * Buffalo Hospital,
        * Cambridge Hospital,
        * Chaska Urgent Care,
        * Mercy Hospital,
        * Midwest Internal Medicine,
        * Minnesota Perinatal Physicians,
        * New Ulm Hospital,
        * Owatonna Hospital,
        * Park House,
        * Phillips Eye Institute,
        * Vision Rehab Clinic at Phillips Eye Institute,
        * River Falls Hospital,
        * St. Francis-Shakopee Hospital,
        * Sister Kenny Rehab Associates,
        * United Hospital,
        * United Hospital Menopause Clinic,
        * United Hospital Pain Center,
        * Unity Hospital, or
        * Virginia Piper Cancer Institute

     -- was uninsured at the time of receiving services;

     -- received medically necessary services (excluding
        cosmetic and other elective services such as LASIK
        surgery); and

     -- was billed by Allina at 100 percent of Allina's
        applicable list of charges, and did not receive at least
        a 25 percent discount on the bill.

Patients who received discounts which reduced their original
charges by 25 percent or more are excluded from this settlement.

Under the settlement:

     -- class members who have not paid more than 75 percent of
        an eligible bill, Allina will apply up to a 25 percent
        reduction to the original bill.  Allina will do this
        automatically; and

     -- class members who paid more than 75% of an eligible bill
        that had original charges of $500 or more, may be
        entitled to a credit voucher to use on future Allina
        services.  The credit voucher will be equal to the
        amount paid in excess of 75 percent of the eligible
        bill.

Applications for credit vouchers are due Sept. 14, 2007.
Applications must be mailed to:

     Allina Hospitals & Clinics
     ATTN: UNINSURED CLASS SETTLEMENT
     Mail Route 10200
     2925 Chicago Ave. South
     Minneapolis, MN 55407-1321

A fairness hearing is set May 31 at 8:30 a.m. at the Hennepin
County District Court.  Requests for exclusion are due May 17.

The Settlement on the Net: http://www.allina.com/settlement.   


BMO BANK: Depositors File Suit Over Alleged Withholding of Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP, on behalf of bank
customers who didn't receive immediate access to their funds
after checks and wire transfers cleared, filed a class action in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as against BMO Bank of
Montreal.

Specifically, the suit was filed on behalf of persons who have
maintained a bank account with defendant and have:

     (1) made one or more deposits into their bank account at
         any time between March 19, 2001 and March 19, 2007; and

     (2) were not able to access their funds immediately upon
         such deposit because the defendant held their funds.

Juroviesky and Ricci LLP are seeking to pursue remedies against
the defendant for common law breach of contract, breach of
common law duty/agency, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
negligence.

Generally, the statement of claim alleges that the defendant
wrongfully withheld certain of its clients' funds on deposit
with defendant for a period of time:

     (1) in the case of a check on deposit, after such check
         clears (as that term is used in the clients' terms and
         conditions with Defendant, as applicable); or

     (2) in the case of a check, wire transfer, or other
         deposit, after the Defendant had already received
         payment on such deposit (such payment received from the
         source or payor financial institution in respect of
         such deposit).

For more information, contact Henry Juroviesky of Juroviesky and
Ricci LLP, Phone: (416) 481-0718, Fax: (416) 481-1792, Email:
info@jrclassactions.com.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Settles Suit Within Plan of Reorganization
-----------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement was reached in the bankruptcy proceedings
referred to as "In Re: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in
Oregon, and successors, a corporation sole, dba the Archdiocese
of Portland in Oregon, Debtor, Case No. 04-37154-elp11," pending
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon.

The Class Action Settlement relates to a defendant class action
(Adversary Proceeding No. 04-03292-elp filed in the Bankruptcy
Case).

Under the Class Action Settlement, in consideration for the
Debtor's payment in full of the allowed amount of all claims
under the Second Amended and Restated Joint Plan of
Reorganization:

     (1) the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice on the
         Effective Date of the Plan;

     (2) if the court approves the plan, the Debtor, the
         Parishes and Schools will receive a discharge from
         liability for all claims that arose prior to the
         Effective Date of the Plan.  Thereafter, those with
         claims that arose prior to the Effective Date may seek
         recovery only under the terms of the Plan;

     (3) the Parishes, Schools and the Debtor will be
         restructured under civil law in the 12 months following
         the Effective Date of the Plan, among other things, to
         make clear under civil law the ownership interests
         effective under ecclesiastical law; and

     (4) the Disclosure Statement states:

              "It is anticipated that no Parish or School
              property will be used to pay Claims or serve as
              collateral for any loans, and that the Reorganized
              Debtor will be able to provide the necessary
              funding to pay Claims without increasing the
              Parish assessments."

However, if unanticipated financial circumstances that affect
the Debtor's ability to fulfill all obligations under the Plan
should arise, it is possible that, as a result, parish
assessments could increase.  The Debtor views this possibility
as unlikely.

Rejection by the Class of the Class Action Settlement could
jeopardize confirmation of the Plan, endanger payments to tort
claimants and other creditors under the Plan, and renew costly
and uncertain litigation in connection with the Lawsuit.

Deadline to file for objections is on April 5, 2007.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon will hold,
on April 10, 2007, 9:00 a.m., a hearing on the Proposed Class
Action Settlement.

The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon filed for chapter 11
protection (Bankr. Ore. Case No. 04-37154) on July 6, 2004
(Troubled Company Reporter, Mar. 14, 2007).   

On July 22, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order in a
lawsuit certifying parishes and parishioners as a class of
defendants.

At issue in the lawsuit is whether Catholic parishes, schools
and certain funds are available to the Archdiocese to pay
settlements of tort claims and to other creditors.

The main issues in the Lawsuit are whether Parishes, Schools and
certain funds are unrestricted assets belonging to the Debtor
and available to creditors of the Debtor.

The Debtor, the Parishes and Schools contend, among other
things, that such assets are restricted and are not available to
pay creditors of the Debtor.

The Tort Claimants Committee contends that such property is the
unrestricted property of the Debtor and is available to pay
creditors of the Debtor.

The Committee of Parishioners - Western Oregon on the Net:
           http://www.parishionerscommittee.org/

The suit is "In Re: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in
Oregon, and successors, a corporation sole, dba the Archdiocese
of Portland in Oregon, Debtor, Case No. 04-37154-elp11," pending
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon, under
the Honorable Elizabeth L. Perris.

Class Counsel is Douglas R. Pahl of Perkins Coie LLP, 1120 N.W.
Couch Street, Tenth Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128, Phone: (503)
727-2121, Fax: (503) 727-2222, E-mail:
parishclass@perkinscoie.com.


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Court Dismisses Second Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted Discovery Laboratories, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint that was filed against the
company and two of its executive officers on Nov. 30, 2006.

In addition, on March 19, 2007, the court issued an order in a
derivative action against the company and several of its
officers and directors, in which the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on Dec. 29, 2006 and the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007.

The court directed that, as the derivative action complaint is
largely based on the assumption that various statements made by
the company subjected it to potential liability under the
federal securities laws and the court's March 15 opinion in the
class action held that the vast majority of the statements
referenced in the derivative plaintiffs' complaint are not
actionable under federal law, plaintiffs should file a
supplemental brief explaining why the court's March 15 decision
in the class action does not require dismissal of the derivative
complaint as well, and defendants should file a response.

On May 1, 2006, Hal Unschuld filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
individually and purportedly on behalf of a class of the
company's investors who purchased its publicly traded securities
between Dec. 28, 2005 and April 25, 2006 (Class Action Reporter,
June 15, 2006).

The suit was filed against the company and company Chief
Executive Officer Robert J. Capetola.  This action alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act in connection with various public statements
made by the company.

Plaintiff sought an order wherein the suit may proceed as a
class action and an award of compensatory damages in favor of
the plaintiff and the other class members in an unspecified
amount, together with interest and reimbursement of costs and
expenses of the litigation and other equitable or injunctive
relief.
     
The company was notified that two additional class actions
seeking the same relief have since been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
although the company has not been served with a complaint in
these actions.

On July 25, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued an order appointing the Mizla
Group, as lead plaintiff in "In re Discovery Laboratories
Securities Litigation, No. 06-1820 (SD)."

The court also approved the appointment of Chimicles & Tikellis
LLP as lead counsel.  The court directed that a consolidated
amended complaint be filed, and on Aug. 10, 2006, the company
filed the consolidated amended complaint.

On Sept. 14, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and, in an order dated November
1, 2006, the district court granted that motion while giving
plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

On Nov. 30, 2006, the company filed the second consolidated
amended complaint (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2006).

On March 19, 2007, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint.

The company has no information as to whether the plaintiffs plan
to file an appeal.

A copy of the second consolidated amended complaint is available
free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1656.

The suit is "In re Discovery Laboratories Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:06-cv-01820-SD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Stewart
Dalzell.

Representing plaintiffs are James R. Malone and Joseph G. Sauder
both of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, 361 West Lancaster Avenue,
Haverford, PA 19401, Phone: 610-642-8500, E-mail:
jamesmalone@chimicles.com or josephsauder@chimicles.com.

Representing defendants are Michelle M. Crimaldi, Robert L.
Hickok, Christopher J. Huber and Gay Barlow Parks Rainville all
of Pepper Hamilton LLP, 3000 Two Logan Square, 18th and Arch
Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799, Phone: 215-981-4000 or
215-981-4583 or 215-981-4446, Fax: 215-981-4750, E-mail:
crimaldim@pepperlaw.com or hickokr@pepperlaw.com or
huberc@pepperlaw.com or rainvilleg@pepperlaw.com.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Nursing Home Residents Sue Over Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of nursing home facilities in the District of Columbia
have filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia against the state's policy in
determining how much an individual must pay for his or her care
as a beneficiary of the Medicaid long-term care program, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint was filed against:

     -- Gregory A. Payne, director of the Department of Health
        of the District of Columbia;

     -- Robert Cosby, director of the Medical Assistance
        Administration for the District of Columbia;

     -- Kate Jesberg, interim director of the Department of
        Human Services for the District of Columbia;

     -- Sharon Cooper-Deloatch, acting administrator of the
        Income Maintenance Administration for the District of
        Columbia;

     -- the District of Columbia; and

     -- the mayor of the District of Columbia.

The suit asserts that defendants have refused to fully honor and
implement the requirements of federal and District of Columbia
law that medical expenses (including nursing home charges)
incurred before an individual becomes eligible for Medicaid
benefits be deducted from the individual's income in determining
how much the individual must pay for his or her care as a
beneficiary of the Medicaid long-term care program.

As a result, the District of Columbia, acting through its co-
defendants, has allegedly failed to pay for badly needed nursing
home care for hundreds or thousands of medically needy District
of Columbia Medicaid recipients,

The defendants' actions allegedly violated the federal Medicaid
statute, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Section
1396, et seq. and D.C. law.

The suit was brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons who are now, have been during the three years prior to
filing of this complaint, or may in the future be recipients of
Medical long-term care benefits in the District of Columbia
based on their being aged, blind or disabled, and who had or
have incurred medical expenses, including nursing home charges,
prior to the first day upon which they become eligible for
Medicaid long-term care benefits.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment:

     -- declaring that defendants' practice of denying
        deductions for pre-eligibility medical expenses is
        illegal, null and void;

     -- declaring that any determinations that plaintiffs (and
        all class members) are liable for current cost of care
        obligations without deduction for medical expenses
        incurred prior to eligibility are illegal, null and
        void;

     -- ordering and enjoining defendants to rescind all
        determinations of eligibility that failed to deduct pre-
        eligibility medical expenses for plaintiffs and ordering
        defendants to issue determinations of eligibility
        reflecting such deductions, and further ordering and
        enjoining defendants to recalculate Medicaid cost of
        care obligations for class members denied deduction of           
        pre-eligibility medical expenses, retroactive to the
        dates they would otherwise have been eligible for same
        but for the policies challenged;

     -- awarding restitution to plaintiffs of all sums
        wrongfully paid to defendants; and

     -- awarding plaintiffs such other and further relief as
        seems proper and just, including costs and reasonable
        attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1bb9

The suit is "Janigian v. Anderson, Case No. 1:07-cv-00508,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
under Judge Paul L. Friedman.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Cyril V. Smith of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, 100 East Pratt
         Street, Suite 2440, Baltimore Maryland 21202, Phone:
         (410) 332-0444, Fax: (410) 6589-0436; E-mail:
         csmith@zuckerman.com;

     (2) Carlos T. Angulo of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, 1800 M
         Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington D.C. 20036-5802,
         Phone: (202) 778-1800, Fax: (202) 822-8106, E-mail:
         cangulo@zuckerman.com;

     (3) Ron M. Landsman of Ron M. Landsman, PA, 200-A Monroe
         Street, Suite 110, Rockville, Maryland 20850-4412,
         Phone: (240) 403-4300, ext. 101, Fax: (240) 403-4301,
         E-mail: RMK@ronmlandsman.com; and

     (4) Rane H. Reixach of Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP, 700
         Crossroads Building, 2 State St., Rochester, New York
         14614, Phone: (585) 987-2858; Fax: (585) 987-2958, E-
         mail: Rreixach@WoodsOviatt.com.


FORD MOTOR: Seeks to Dismiss ERISA Suit Over Visteon Spinoff
------------------------------------------------------------
Visteon Corp. and Ford Motor Co. are seeking to dismiss a suit
brought by certain former salaried employees of Visteon who
alleged Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations
against the companies in their allocation of certain pension
liabilities between them.

In June 2006, the company and Ford Motor Co. were named as
defendants in a purported class action brought under ERISA in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
behalf of certain former salaried employees of the company
associated with two plants located in Michigan.

The complaint alleges that the company and Ford violated their
fiduciary duties under ERISA when they established and spun off
the company and allocated certain pension liabilities between
them, and later when they transferred the subject employees to
Ford as new hires in 2006 after Ford acquired the plants.  In
August 2006, the company and Ford moved to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim, which is currently pending,
according to Visteon's Feb. 28 form 10-k filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.  

The Van Buren Township, Michigan-based company is a leading
global supplier of automotive systems, modules and components to
global vehicle manufacturers and the automotive aftermarket.

The suit is "Mark Ensley et al. v. Ford Motor Co. et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-12845-AJT-SDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
with referral to Judge Steven D. Pepe.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Cary S. McGehee, Robert W.  
Palmer, Michael L. Pitt and Peggy G. Pitt of Pitt, Dowty, (Royal  
Oak), 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200, Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804,  
Phone: 248-398-9800, E-mail: cmcgehee@pdmmp.com,  
rpalmer@pdmmp.com and attorneypitt@aol.com.


LAZARD LTD: Prevails in N.Y. Lawsuit Due to Plaintiffs' Inaction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lazard, Ltd. has prevailed in a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, after plaintiffs failed to file
an amended complaint for their case.

The company and Goldman Sachs & Co., the lead underwriter of the
company's equity public offering of its common stock, as well as
several members of the company's management and board of
directors, were named as defendants in several putative class
actions.

The putative class actions and putative derivative lawsuits
allege, respectively, various violations of the federal
securities laws and breaches by Lazard directors of their
fiduciary duties, all in connection with matters related to the
equity public offering, and seek, among other things,
compensatory, rescissory and punitive damages.

On Feb. 7, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York issued a decision and order dismissing plaintiffs'
claims and allowing plaintiffs 20 days to file an amended
complaint repleading any of the dismissed claims.

Plaintiffs allowed the 20-day period to pass without filing an
amended complaint.  Accordingly, the defendants have prevailed
in the putative class action, 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 first identified suit is "Arlette Miller, et al. v. Lazard
Ltd., et al., case no. 05-CV-05630," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Victor
Marrero.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050,
         Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail:
         JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com;  

     (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, e-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com;  

     (4) Law Offices of Marc Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite
         202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000, Fax:
         610.660.8080, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

     (7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (8) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com;

     (9) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com; and

    (10) Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, 845 Third Avenue, New
         York, NY, 10022, phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-   
         5969, E-mail: inquiry@zsz.com.


LIVE NATION: Hearing to Certify Antitrust Suit Set April 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation set an April 23
class certification hearing and a Dec. 11 trial in a
consolidated class action pending against Live Nation, Inc. in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit alleges anti-competitive practices for concert
promotion services by the company caused artificially high-
ticket prices.

Originally, the company is a defendant in 22 putative class
actions filed by different named plaintiffs in various U.S.
District Courts throughout the country.

The claims made in these actions are substantially similar to
claims made in the "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al.,
Case No. 2:02-cv-04503-JES," except that the geographic markets
alleged are statewide or more local in nature, and the members
of the putative classes are limited to individuals who purchased
tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged.  

The company filed its answers in all actions, and it has denied
liability.  On Dec. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion before
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the
above-listed actions and any similar ones commenced in the
future to a single federal district court for coordinated pre-
trial proceedings.  

On April 17, 2006, the Panel granted the company's motion and
ordered the consolidation and transfer of the actions to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The court has set a hearing on motions for class certification
for April 23, and trial is set for Dec. 11, 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:

     (1) [Plaintiffs] Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
         Shapiro, 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) [Defendants] Paul Chalmers of Paul Chalmers Law
         Offices, Two Lafayette Centre, 1133 21st Street, NW,
         #405, New York, NY 920036, US, Phone: 202-772-1834;

     (3) [Defendants] Sara B. Ciarelli of Wilson Sonsini
         Goodrich and Rosati, 12 East, 49th Street, 30th Floor,
         New York, NY 10017, US, Phone: 212-999-5859; and

     (4) Renata Hesse of Renata Hesse Law Offices, Two Lafayette
         Centre, 1133 21st Street, NW, #405, Washington, DC,
         20036, US, Phone: 202-772-1834.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Expects Ruling in Race Bias Suit Appeal in Q2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lufkin Industries Inc. expects the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
5th Circuit to issue by the second quarter of 2007 a decision in
a race discrimination suit filed by present and former employees
of the company.

An employee and a former employee of the company filed the class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas on March 7, 1997, alleging race discrimination.   
Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in  
February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998.   

In April 1999, the District Court issued a decision that
certified a class for this case, which included all black
employees employed by the company from March 6, 1994, to the
present.  

The case was closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties
unsuccessfully attempted mediation.  Trial for this case began
in December 2003, but was postponed by the District Court and
was completed in October 2004.  The only claims made at trial
were those of discrimination in initial assignments and
promotions.  

On Jan. 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that the company discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions.   

The District Court also concluded that the discrimination
resulted in a shortfall in income for those employees and
ordered that the company pay those employees back pay to remedy
such shortfall, together with pre-judgment interest in the
amount of 5%.   

On Aug. 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the backpay
award for the class of affected employees would be $3.4 million
-- including interest to Jan. 1, 2005 -- and provided a formula
for attorney fees that the company estimates will result in a
total not to exceed $2.5 million.   

In addition to back pay with interest, the District Court
enjoined and ordered the company to cease and desist all
racially biased assignment and promotion practices and ordered
the company to pay court costs and expenses.  

The company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and
on Sept. 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 5th Circuit.   

On Jan. 26, 2006, the Court of Appeals notified the parties that
the case had been docketed.  The company has submitted its
briefs and now anticipates a decision in this case in the second
quarter of 2007.   

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

The suit is "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No.  
9:97-cv-00063-HC," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Howell Cobb.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Morris J. Baller, Teresa Demchak, Meetali Jain, Nina  
         Rabin, Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen 300 Lakeside Dr  
         Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-763-9800, Fax:  
         15108351417 E-mail: mjb@gdblegal.com, dem@gdblegal.com,   
         mjain@gdblegal.com, nrabin@gdblegal.com;  
  
     (2) Timothy Borne Garrigan, Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter  
         2803 North Street PO Box 631902 Nacogdoches, TX 75963-
         1902 Phone: 936/560-6020 Fax: 19365609578 E-mail:  
         tbgstugar@cox-internet.com; and
  
     (3) Darci E. Burrell, Linda M. Dardarian, Joshua G.  
         Konecky, Saperstein Goldstein Demchak & Baller 300  
         Lakeside Dr Ste 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510/763-
         9800 Fax: 15108351417 E-mail: deb@gdblegal.com and  
         jgk@gdblegal.com.  

Representing the company are Christopher V. Bacon, Douglas  
Edward Hamel and John H. Smither of Vinson & Elkins, 1001 Fannin  
St., Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-6760, Phone: 713/758-2222,  
Fax: 17136155014, E-mail: cbacon@velaw.com and dhamel@velaw.com.


MARATHON OIL: Continues to Face Suits Over MTBE Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Oil Corp., along with many other refining companies in
over 40 cases in 11 states, remains a defendant in several suits
alleging contamination of groundwater with methyl tertiary-butyl
ether.

All of these cases have been consolidated in a multi-district
litigation in the Southern District of New York for preliminary
proceedings.  The judge in this multi-district litigation ruled
on April 20, 2005 that some form of market share liability would
apply.  

Market share liability enables a plaintiff to sue manufacturers
who represent a substantial share of a market for a particular
product and shift the burden of identification of who actually
made the product to the defendants, effectively forcing a
defendant to show that it did not produce the MTBE, which
allegedly caused the damage.

The judge further allowed cases to go forward in New York and 11
other states, based upon varying theories of collective
liability, and predicted that a new theory of market share
liability would be recognized in Connecticut, Indiana and
Kansas.  

Plaintiffs generally are water providers or governmental
authorities and they allege that refiners, manufacturers and
sellers of gasoline containing MTBE are liable for manufacturing
a defective product and that the owners and operators of retail
gasoline sites have allowed MTBE to be discharged into the
groundwater.  

Several of these lawsuits allege contamination that is outside
of Marathon's marketing area.  A few of the cases seek approval
as class actions.

Many of the cases seek punitive damages or treble damages under
a variety of statutes and theories.  Marathon stopped producing
MTBE at its refineries in October 2002.

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.

Marathon Oil Corp. on the Net: http://www.marathon.com/.


MARATHON OIL: Still Faces W.Va. Suit Over "Defective" Gasoline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Oil Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class
action, "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon Ashland
Petroleum, LLC, et al."

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia and alleges that the
company's Catlettsburg refinery sold defective gasoline to
wholesalers and retailers, causing permanent damage to storage
tanks, dispensers and related equipment, resulting in lost
profits, business disruption, and personal and real property
damages.  Plaintiffs seek class-action status.

In 2002, Marathon Petroleum Co. conducted extensive cleaning
operations at affected facilities but denies that any permanent
damages resulted from the incident.  

Marathon Petroleum previously settled with many of the potential
class members in this case and intends to vigorously defend this
action.

Marathon Oil reported no development in the matter in 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 "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon
Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00966," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia under Judge Robert C. Chambers.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gregory B. Breedlove of Cunningham Bounds Crowder Brown
         & Breedlove, P.O. Box 66705, Mobile, AL 36660, Phone:
         251/471-6191, Fax: 251/479-1031, E-mail: gbb@cbcbb.com;
         and

     (2) James M. Cawley, Jr. of Suite 2110, 440 Louisiana
         Street, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/426-1700, Fax:
         713/425-5325, E-mail: jay@jaycawley.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Joseph S. Beeson of Robinson & Mcelwee, P.O. Box 1791,
         Charleston, WV 25326-1791, Phone: 304-344-5800, Fax:
         344-9566; and

    (ii) Jeffrey V. Mehalic of The Law Offices Of Jeffrey V.
         Mehalic, P.O. Box 11133, Charleston, WV 25339-1133,
         Phone: 304/346-3462, Fax: 346-3469.


MERCK & CO: Jury Awards $47.5M Payout to Vioxx Users in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
An Atlantic City, New Jersey jury unanimously awarded a $47.5
million verdict against Merck & Co. Inc. in its most recent
Vioxx trial.

The jury awarded $18 million in compensatory damages to
Frederick Humeston, and his wife, Mary, for his heart attack, $2
million to his wife for loss of consortium and $27.5 million in
punitive damages, finding that Merck acted recklessly in
promoting its dangerous pain-reliever Vioxx.

Mrs. Humeston proved that Merck knew of Vioxx's dangerous side
effects, yet failed to warn prescribing physicians of those
dangers.  The jury also found that Merck committed consumer
fraud by misrepresenting and omitting critical safety
information about Vioxx.

"This verdict demonstrates, once again, that the public will not
tolerate anything less than immediate and full disclosure by
pharmaceutical companies of all known side effects associated
with their medications," said Robert Gordon of the Manhattan
personal-injury law firm Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.

Mr. Gordon added, "We are confident that plaintiffs will
continue to successfully prove that Vioxx played a significant
contributing role in causing heart attacks, strokes and other
cardiovascular injuries."

In April 2006, Robert Gordon, Jerry Kristal and Ellen Relkin
secured a $13.5 million verdict against Merck for John McDarby,
a wheelchair-bound diabetic who suffered a heart attack after
taking Vioxx (Case # ATL L 1296-05).

"This latest loss for Merck illustrates how its current strategy
of litigating each and every one of the 27,000 pending Vioxx
cases is financially irresponsible," said Mr. Kristal.  "Using
even very conservative estimates, if plaintiffs are successful
in only 30 percent of those cases, and compensatory verdicts
fall only in the $ 5-to-10 million range, Merck will be
obligated to pay between $40.5 billion and $81 billion in
compensatory damages as well as additional punitive damages,
billions of dollars in defense costs and fees/expenses assessed
in the consumer fraud claims."

Mr. Kristal said that despite Merck's posturing, this case
serves to reassure those who have been harmed by the
pharmaceutical maker that justice will prevail and Merck will be
held accountable for its actions.

For more information, contact Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. - Client
Relations Department, Phone: 1 (800) 476-6070, E-mail:
clientrelations@weitzlux.com, Website: http://www.weitzlux.com.


MERRILL LYNCH: Nancy Thomas Gets $420T in Sexual Harassment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of arbitrators ordered Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. on Feb.
28 to pay former broker Nancy Thomas $420,000 in relation to her
sex discrimination claim against the company in a 1997 class
action, The Journal News.com reports.

The arbitrators concluded that the harassment Ms. Thomas
experienced mostly occurred before the class-action period,
which began Jan. 1, 1994, according to the report.  They also
found that Ms. Thomas was the target of retaliation after she
spoke out on the harassment; and was awarded $100,000 for
emotional distress.  She was awarded $320,000 for her
discrimination claim.

Ms. Thomas lost on her claim of constructive discharge when she
left the company in February 2000.  She also lost claims for
punitive damages.

The original suit, "Cremin et al. v. Merrill Lynch" was filed in
1997.  It was settled in 1998.  Under an agreement, the two
sides agreed that the court would certify a class of women for
gender-based claims.  Expert testimonies later found valid
sexual harassment claims for the class.


MONTANA FISH: 2008 Trial Set in Lewiston Creek Pollution Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kurt Krueger of the 2nd Judicial District Court, Butte
(Mont.), agreed to delay until March 2008 a February jury trial
in a class action brought by landowners in Lewiston over the
contamination of Big Spring Creek, it emerged in a report by the
Tribune Enterprise.

The suit was brought by at least 100 landowners asking the court
to require Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks to clean up the creek
that has been contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyl-laden
paint that washed out of the state-owned fish hatchery.

The paint was used on the hatchery's concrete raceways, or fish-
rearing ponds, in the '60s and '70s.

Fish, Wildlife & Parks requested that the trial be delayed until
a cleanup is done.

Actual cleanup work won't start before 2009, said Don Skaar,
pollution control biologist for Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks,
which owns the hatchery.

The suit seeks punitive damages from the paint's manufacturer,
Monsanto Co.  It alleges that Monsanto "fraudulently concealed"
the environmental risks of PCBs, a suspected carcinogen, since
the '60s and failed to warn customers of the harm they can cause
to the environment.

Representing the class action plaintiffs is Torger Oaas of
Lewiston.


MOTOROLA INC: "Naquin" Plaintiffs Dismiss Product Liability Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Another suit in the consolidated Wireless Telephone Radio
Frequency Emissions Products Liability Litigation filed against
Motorola Inc. and several other cellular phone manufacturers
have been dismissed.

On May 26, 2000, a purported nationwide class action, "Naquin,
et al., v. Nokia Mobile Phones, et al." was filed against
Motorola and several other cellular phone manufacturers and
carriers in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
State of Louisiana.

The case alleges the failure to incorporate a remote headset
into cellular phones rendered the phones defective by exposing
users to biological injury and health risks and plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

Similar state class actions filed are:

     -- "Pinney and Colonell v. Nokia, Inc. et al.," filed on
         April 19, 2001 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
         Maryland;

     -- "Farina v. Nokia, Inc., et al.," filed on April 19, 2001
         in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
         County; and

     -- "Gilliam et al., v. Nokia, Inc., et al.," filed on April
         20, 2001 in the Supreme Court of the Sate of New York,
         County of Bronx.

During 2001, after removal to federal court, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the above four cases to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the matter
called, "In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency Emissions
Products Liability Litigation."

The Pinney and Gilliam plaintiffs dismissed these cases without
prejudice in April and March 2006, respectively.  On Nov. 6,
2006, plaintiffs dismissed the Naquin case without prejudice.


MOTOROLA INC: Seeks to Junk Suit Over Cellular Phone Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the suit "Dahlgren v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," is
seeking to dismiss the case that accuses them of failing to
inform customers that cellular phones have harmful health
effects.

The suit "Brower v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," was filed on April
19, 2001 in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego.  It seeks relief on behalf of an individual
who had brain cancer.

A first amended complaint was filed in Brower to add class
allegations that defendants engaged in deceptive and misleading
actions by falsely stating that cellular phones are safe and by
failing to disclose studies that allegedly show cellular phones
can cause harm.  Brower seeks injunctive relief, restitution,
compensatory and punitive damages and disgorgement of profits.

On Sept. 9, 2002, "Dahlgren v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," was
filed in the D.C. Superior Court containing class claims similar
to Brower.  Dahlgren seeks injunctive and equitable relief,
actual damages, treble or statutory damages, punitive damages
and a constructive trust.

These two cases were also removed to federal court and
transferred to the Multidistrict litigation court.  On June 10,
2005, the Dahlgren case was remanded to the Superior Court for
the District of Columbia.  

On Dec. 9, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
Dahlgren.  Defendants moved to dismiss Dahlgren on Feb. 3, 2006.  
That motion is still pending, according to the company's Feb. 28
form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Feb. 15, 2006, the MDL Court remanded Brower to California
state court.  The California state court set a deadline of Jan.
19, 2007, for the filing of an amended complaint.  To the date
of the regulatory filing, no amended complaint has been filed.


MOTOROLA INC: Iridium Securities Fraud Suit Trial Set May 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------
A May 22, 2008 trial is scheduled in the consolidated securities
suit, "Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Inc., et al.,"
which names Motorola Inc. as defendant.

The company was named as one of several defendants in securities
class actions arising out of alleged misrepresentations and
omissions regarding the Iridium satellite communications
business.  

"Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Inc., et al.,"
originally filed on Apr. 22, 1999 was brought before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia on March 15, 2001.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws
arising from alleged material misrepresentations or omissions
regarding difficulties in the satellite communications business
of Iridium World Communications, LTD, Iridium LLC and Iridium
Operating LLC.  The alleged class consists of purchasers of all
Iridium securities during the period from Sept. 9, 1998 to
March 29, 1999.

On Jan. 9, 2006, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The trial is scheduled to begin on May 22, 2008.

The suit is "Freeland, et al. v. Iridium World Comm, et al.,
Case No. 1:99-cv-01002" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge Nanette K. Laughrey.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Graham Thompson, Jr. of Finkelstein, Thompson &
         Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW Washington, DC 20007,
         Phone: (202) 337-8000, Fax: 202-337-8090, E-mail:
         dgt@ftllaw.com; and

     (2) Eric J. Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
         ebelfi@murrayfrank.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jeffrey L. Willian of Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East
         Randolph Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2000,
         Fax: 312-861-2200, E-mail: jwillian@kirkland.com; and
       
    (ii) James F. Moyle of Clifford Chance U.S. LLP, 31 West
         52nd Street, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 878-8508,
         Fax: 212-878-8375, E-mail:
         james.moyle@cliffordchance.com.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Appeals Class Certification in Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Co. is appealing the certification of a
class in one of the lawsuits filed against it, which alleges
that the company, damaged plaintiffs as a result of its
services.

Some lawsuits or arbitrations have been filed, including,
"Ernest W. Warren and Dolores G. Warren, et al. v. Orkin
Exterminating Co., Inc., et al.," and "Francis D. Petsch, et al.
v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., et al.," in which the
plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class.  The cases
originate in Georgia and Florida.

In Warren, the Superior Court of Cobb County, Marietta, Georgia,
ruled in August 2006, certifying the class action against Orkin.
Orkin is appealing this ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals.

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

Orkin, Inc. on the Net: http://www.orkin.com.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Bid for Narrower Class in "Butland" Allowed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals allowed plaintiffs in
the purported class action, "Mark and Christine Butland et al.
v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., et al.," to file for a
certification of a narrower class in the case.

The company, a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., was a named as
defendant in the case, which was filed in the Circuit Court of
Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida on March 1999.  The suit
seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The court ruled in early April 2002, certifying the class action
against Orkin.  Orkin appealed this ruling to the Florida 2nd
District Court of Appeals, which remanded the case back to the
trial court for further findings.

In December 2004, the court issued a new ruling certifying the
class action.  Orkin appealed this new ruling to the Florida 2nd
District Court of Appeals.  

In June 2006, the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals issued a
ruling denying certification of the class.  

Following the plaintiffs' motion for rehearing, the court upheld
its prior decision that class certification was improper, but
also ruled that the plaintiffs can return to the trial court and
attempt to certify a narrower class, according to the Rollins,
Inc.'s Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Orkin, Inc. on the Net: http://www.orkin.com.


PHH CORP: Shareholder Contests $1.8B Sale to GE, Blackstone
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jody Goldstein Molinari, a New Jersey woman, filed a class
action in Baltimore County on behalf of shareholders of New
Jersey-based PHH Corp., opposing the sale of the company to
General Electric Capital Corp. and The Blackstone Group, The
Daily Record reports.

Last week, the New Jersey company agreed to a $1.8 billion
buyout.

Ms. Molinari claims the defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties to shareholders, who will be reimbursed at a purported
artificially low rate of $31.50 per share.

According to her complaint, the amount is "unfair and grossly
inadequate because, among other things, the intrinsic value of
PHH's Common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered
for those securities in the proposed acquisition given the
company's prospects for future growth and earnings."

According to Ms. Molinari, PHH's stock dropped in 2006 after the
company disclosed it had repeatedly overstated its income and
financial performance in financial statements.

Although its outlook is improving, GE Capital and The Blackstone
Group have timed their acquisition to cap the company's market
price at "an artificially low level," she claims.

As of last fall, there were 53.5 million shares of PHH common
stock outstanding, according to the complaint.

Cendant Corp. spun off PHH Corp. in 2005, according to
information on the company's Web site.  The company is now
divided into PHH Mortgage, one of the top 10 residential
mortgage originators in the country, and Sparks-based PHH Arval,
the second-largest fleet management services provider in the
U.S. and Canada.  PHH Arval was founded in Baltimore.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Class Claims Withdrawn in N.J. Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Walter Koprowski granted
permission for plaintiffs' lawyers in a suit against The
Prudential Insurance Co. of America to amend their case to drop
class-action claims and allow 219 current and former employees
to join as plaintiffs, the NorthJersey.com reports.

The court allowed plaintiffs to add charges under the state's
Law Against Discrimination in its March 17 ruling.

There are 17 plaintiffs in the original suit alleging
discrimination, fraud and commercial bribery charges against the
company.  

The lawyers decided to drop the class action claims saying it
would have been extremely difficult to prove damages in a class
action because of the varied circumstances of their clients,
according to the report.


REAL ESTATE BROKERS: Patent Holder Seeks Certification of Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Real Estate Alliance, Ltd., the patent holder of an online
property location system and method that is widely used in the
real estate industry, seeks certification of a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, which could immediately implicate hundreds of
thousands of real estate professionals throughout the U.S.

                         Case Background

The suit was filed in 2005.  It alleged that RE/MAX agent Diane
Sarkisian of Pennsylvania infringed U.S. Patents 4870576 and
5032989; "Real Estate Search and Location System and Method."
The claims of these patents cover an online property location
process that has become a de facto standard throughout the
industry: interactive 'zoomable' maps to locate available real
estate properties.

                   Class Certification Filing

According to documents filed in the district court late last
week, a finding of infringement in this case, which has gone on
for more than a year now in relative obscurity, could result in
the immediate finding of liability against tens of thousands of
individual agents and brokers defined in the class.  The
National Association of Realtors was reportedly aware of this
potential more than a year ago.

According to the motion, official minutes from a NAR board
meeting in 2006 cited the association's concern that there was a
high likelihood of such broad implication if the patent could
not be invalidated.

In an effort to control the situation, the NAR and its
affiliates have already fully underwritten all of the legal
costs and indemnified the defendant in this one case with nearly
$2 million dollars.  No funds were apparently anticipated for
the remaining members that may now be implicated by this class
action motion.

                         Proposed Class

The class filing seeks certification of two groups, one group is
labeled as "Trend," and represents the Multiple Listing Services
members who similarly use and benefit from the infringing
process provided to approximately 30,000 subscribers by the
regional MLS organization Trend.

The second group labeled as Realtor.com seeks to establish
liability for those agents who knowingly used enhanced listings
and or benefited from utilization of enhanced listings on the
Realtor.com site from July 12, 1999 to the present.

Responses to the motion should be filed before the end of the
month.

The current case is likely to proceed on its planned course in
an effort to establish the facts of validity, infringement, and
damages.  The class motion in essence would attribute that
finding onto all of the other co-defendants in the action.

The patent holder has offered paid up licenses at a cost of
$10,000 for a single user, which represents "only a portion of
the anticipated damages" that it believes it could be awarded by
the courts based on past damage settlements of similar cases.

Additional activity in this case includes the judge recently
denying all of the motions of the NAR lead-defense which
requested, in a Daubert Motion, to have the court throw out all
of the patent holders' expert witnesses.  All of those experts
will remain in and will be relied upon to establish the points
of fact in the summary filings.

Summary judgment motions have been filed, which will layout the
factual basis for each litigants pleading.

The suit is "Real Estate Alliance, Ltd. v. Sarkisian et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-03573-TMG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Thomas M.
Golden.

Representing defendant are Darius C. Gambino and Steven A. Nash,
both of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP, One Liberty Place,
1650 Market St., Suite 4900, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-
656-3300 or 215-656-3305, E-mail: darius.gambino@dlapiper.com or
steven.nash@dlapiper.com.

Representing plaintiffs is Lawrence A. Husick of Weinberger &
Husick, PO BOX 587, Southeastern, PA 19399-0587, Phone: 610-296-
8259, Fax: 610-566-3660, E-mail: lawrence@lawhusick.com.


ROYAL AHOLD: Deficiency Notices to Dutch Claimants Now Out
----------------------------------------------------------
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, lead plaintiffs' counsel in the
settlement of the class action against Royal Ahold N.V., issues
this informational release concerning claims submitted to
participate in the settlement of the class action against the
company.

Beginning in December 2006, approximately 16% of Dutch claimants
in the Ahold settlement received deficiency notices from The
Garden City Group -- the Claims Administrator appointed by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in the class
action against Royal Ahold -- indicating that certain
information needed to substantiate their claim was missing or
incomplete.  Approximately one half of Dutch claimants who
received the First Deficiency Notice have now corrected their
claims.

The statement issued on March 16 stated that the Claims
Administrator would on that day begin mailing an additional
deficiency notice to Dutch claimants who have not responded to
the First Deficiency Notice.  The Second Deficiency Notice
provides Dutch claimants with an additional period of 60 days to
correct their claims.  The Second Deficiency Notice provides a
final date by which claimants can correct deficient claims.

Questions regarding the process or individual claims to the
Claims Administrator in the U.S. may be sent by e-mail message
to Questions@AholdSettlement.com.  International call center
toll-free number is 00-800-1020-4060.  Toll call number is 001-
941-906-4864.  Dutch claimants are advised to call between 8:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. CET.  

The suit "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities & ERISA Litigation"
is before Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.

The judge entered a final order and judgment approving Royal
Ahold's settlement of the suit for US$1.1 billion (EUR937
million) in June 2006.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit stems from a 2003 accounting scandal that forced the
company to restate earnings by $1.1 billion over three years.
Most of the problems were related to inflated earnings at the
company's U.S. Foodservice subsidiary in Columbia.  It alleged
that Ahold N.V. misled investors by presenting an inaccurate
financial picture of the company to stockholders and inflating
the price of its common stock.

It alleged claims against Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA
Holdings, Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Cees Van der Hoeven,
Michiel Meurs, Henny de Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L. Miller,
Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William
J. Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN AMRO Rothschild,
Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International, ING
Bank N.V., Rabo Securities N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based
upon the matters that Ahold first announced on Feb. 24, 2003
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2005).

The settlement of the suit covers Ahold, its subsidiaries and
affiliates, the individual defendants and the underwriters.   

It resolves all securities law claims against Ahold, and all
other defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities.  The
settlement is global in nature and is designed to provide a
recovery to all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or
American Depository Receipts from July 30, 1999 through Feb. 23,
2003, regardless of where such persons live or purchased their
Ahold shares.  

The settlement must be approved by at least 180 million shares
from about 800 million qualifying shares.  The average payment
is estimated to be $1.51 per Fund A share and 40 cents per share
for Fund B shares, according to court documents.  Claims are to
be made about 12 months after the court's final approval (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006).  The company, though, denies
any wrongdoing in the settlement.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Court Mulls Appeal of "Tips" Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' motion seeking a review of a dismissal of a
purported class action against Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. and
one of its cruise brands.

Filed in April 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, the suit alleges that the company's
Celebrity Cruises Lines improperly requires its cabin stewards
to share guest gratuities with assistant cabin stewards.  

The suit seeks payment of damages including penalty wages under
46 U.S.C. Section 10113 of U.S. law and interest.

In March 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the suit.  In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. on the Net:
http://www.royalcaribbean.com.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Transfer "Jacobs"
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. to transfer an
intellectual rights class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida remains
pending.

The suit was filed on January 2006.  It alleges that the company
infringed rights in copyrighted works and other intellectual
property by presenting performances on company cruise ships
without securing the necessary licenses.  

The suit seeks payment of damages, disgorgement of profits and a
permanent injunction against future infringement.

In April 2006, the company filed a motion to sever and transfer
the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  

The motion is pending, according to the company's Feb. 28 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Jacobs et al. v. Carnival Corp., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-00606-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Deborah A. Batts.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Howard J. Schwartz Porzio,
Bromberg & Newman, P.C., (NJ), 156 West 56th St., New York, NY
10019-3800, Phone: (212) 265-6888, E-mail:
hjschwartz@pbnlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Frank W. Ryan of Nixon Peabody,
LLP, 437 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 940-
3129, Fax: (866) 947-2289, E-mail: fryan@nixonpeabody.com.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Crew Appeals Dismissal of Calif. Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action "Michael Rogers, et al.
v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, et al.," are appealing the
dismissal of their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on July 2006.  It alleges that the
company failed to timely pay crew wages and failed to pay proper
crew overtime.

It seeks payment of damages, including penalty wages under 46
USC Section 10313 and equitable relief damages under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

In December 2006, the District Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the claim and held that it should be
arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in Royal
Caribbean's collective bargaining agreement.

In January 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The suit is "Michael Rogers, et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruise
Lines, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04574-SVW-E," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Stephen V. Wilson with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.

Representing the plaintiffs is Joseph S. Farzam of Farzam and
Associates, 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1345, Los Angleles, CA
90067, Phone: 310-226-6890, E-mail: farzam@lawyer.com.

Representing the defendants is Sanford L. Bohrer of Holland &
Knight, 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000, Miami, FL 33131, Phone:
305-374-8500, E-mail: sandy.bohrer@hklaw.com.


RYLAND GROUP: Tex. Court Revives Dismissed Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has
reinstated the lawsuit "TDH Partners LLP v. Ryland Group Inc.,
et al."

The suit was filed against the company and two of its officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
Jan. 15, 2004.  The lawsuit alleged violations of federal
securities law as a result of information about home sales
during the fourth quarter of 2003.  

The action alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the disclosure by the company of new home sales
for the fourth quarter of 2003.  In September 2005, the court
dismissed the action because the lead plaintiff previously
selected by the court had failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.  As a result, the court also dismissed
the class action complaint.

Subsequently, a different member of the purported class asked to
be substituted as a new lead plaintiff.  In June 2006, the court
granted that request and reinstated the action.

The company reported no development in the matter in 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 "TDH Partners, LLP, et al. v. Ryland Group,  
Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-0073," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Jane J.  
Boyle.  Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Roger F. Claxton and Robert J Hill of Claxton & Hill,  
         3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103, Dallas, TX 75204-
         2471, Phone: 214/969-9029, Fax: 214/953-0583, E-mail:  
         claxtonhill@airmail.net  

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

     (3) Leonard A. Epstein of Newman Davenport & Epstein, 700  
         N. Pearl St., Suite 1650 LB 314, Dallas, TX 75201,  
         Phone: 214/754-0025, Fax: 214/754-0936, E-mail:
         leonep@flash.net  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Alan W. Harris of DLA Piper  
Rudnick Gray Cary - Dallas, 1717 Main St., Suite 4600, Dallas,  
TX 75201-4605, Phone: 214/743-4572, Fax: 214/743-4545, E-mail:  
alan.harris@dlapiper.com.  


SANDISK CORP: Continues to Face Suit by msystems Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corp. remains a defendant in purported class actions
filed by shareholders of msystems Ltd., a venture partner of the
company, in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara
County, California.

The company and msystems each own 50% of U3, LLC, or U3, an
entity established to develop and market a next generation
platform for universal serial bus flash drives.

On Aug. 7, 2006, two purported shareholder class and derivative
actions were filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa
Clara County, California.  They are:

     -- "Capovilla v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068760," and

     -- "Dashiell v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068759,"

On Aug. 9, 2006, and Aug. 17, 2006, respectively, two additional
purported shareholder class and derivative actions were filed,
namely:

     -- "Lopiccolo v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068946," and

     -- "Sachs v. SanDisk Corp., No. 1-06-CV-069534."

These four lawsuits were subsequently consolidated as, "In re:
msystems Ltd. Shareholder Litigation, No. 106 CV 068759. "  On
Oct. 27, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed that
supersedes the four original complaints.

The lawsuit is brought by purported shareholders of msystems.  
It names as defendants the company and each of msystems'
directors, including its president and chief executive officer,
and its former chief financial officer (now its chief operating
officer), and names msystems as a nominal defendant.  The
lawsuit asserts purported class action and derivative claims.

The alleged derivative claims assert, among other things, breach
of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, constructive fraud,
corporate waste, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement with
respect to past stock option grants.  

The alleged class and derivative claims also assert claims for
breach of fiduciary duty by msystems' board, which the company
is alleged to have aided an abetted, with respect to allegedly
inadequate consideration for the merger, and allegedly false or
misleading disclosures in proxy materials relating to the
merger.

The complaints seek, among other things, equitable relief,
including enjoining the proposed merger, and compensatory and
punitive damages.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 27
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Sandisk Corp. on the Net: http://www.sandisk.com/.


SANDISK CORP: Settlement of Suit Over Flash Memory Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two objectors have filed separate appeals against a final
approval of a settlement of a purported class action filed
against Sandisk Corp. and a number of other manufacturers of
flash memory products.

The consumer class action was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the City and County of San Francisco,
under the caption, "Willem Vroegh, et al. v. Dane Electric Corp.
USA, et al."

Filed on Feb. 20, 2004, the suit alleged false advertising,
unfair business practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit,
misrepresentation and violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedy Act.  

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory products and claims that the defendants overstated
the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products.  
It sought restitution, injunction and damages in an unspecified
amount.

The parties have reached a settlement of the case, which is
pending final court approval.  In April 2006, the court issued
an order preliminarily approving the settlement.

In August 2006, the court held a hearing to consider final
approval of the settlement, and on Nov. 20, 2006, the court
issued its formal written order of approval.

Two objectors to the settlement have filed separate appeals from
the court's order granting final approval, according to the
company's Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Sandisk Corp. on the Net: http://www.sandisk.com/.


SIMON PROPERTY: Faces Ga., N.Y. Consumer Suits Over Gift Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Property Group, LP is a defendant in three legal
proceedings relating to its sale of co-branded, bank-issued gift
cards.  

The suits are:

      -- "Betty Benson and Andrea Nay-Richardson vs. Simon
         Property Group, Inc., and Simon Property Group, L.P.,
         Superior Court of Cobb County, State of Georgia, Case
         No.: 04-1-9617-42, filed Dec. 9, 2004;"

      -- "Christopher Lonner vs. Simon Property Group, Inc.,
         Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
         Westchester, Case No.: 04-2246, filed Feb. 18, 2004;"
         and

      -- "Aliza Goldman, individually and on behalf of all
         others similarly situated vs. Simon Property Group,
         Inc., Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
         Nassau, filed Feb. 7, 2005."

Each of these proceedings has been brought by a private
plaintiff as a purported class action and alleges violation of
state consumer protection laws, state abandoned property and
contract laws or state statutes regarding gift certificates or
gift cards and seeks a variety of remedies including unspecified
damages and injunctive relief.

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

Simon Property Group, Inc., on the Net: http://www.simon.com/.


STONE ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of La. Securities Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for a dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Stone
Energy Corp. and several of its officers.

On or around Nov. 30, 2005, George Porch filed a putative class
action against the company, David H. Welch, Kenneth H. Beer, D.
Peter Canty and James H. Prince.  Three similar complaints were
filed thereafter.  All are alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

All complaints asserted a putative class period commencing on
June 17, 2005 and ending on Oct. 6, 2005.  All complaints
contended that, during the putative class period, defendants,
among other things, misstated or failed to disclose:

      -- that Stone had materially overstated Stone's financial
         results by overvaluing its oil reserves through
         improper and aggressive reserve methodologies;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         company's proved reserves, assets and future net cash
         flows were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On March 17, 2006, these purported class actions were
consolidated into "In re: Stone Energy Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-02088," with El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund designated as lead plaintiff.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on or
about June 14, 2006.  The consolidated complaint alleges claims
similar to those described above and expands the putative class
period to commence on May 2, 2001 and to end on March 10, 2006.

On Sept. 13, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
filed motions seeking dismissal of that action.  The motion has
since been fully briefed by the parties, but -- as of the
company's filing of a 10-k report with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006 on
Feb. 28 -- has not been decided by the court.

The suit is "In re: Stone Energy Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 05-cv-02088," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana under Judge Tucker L. Melancon
with referral Mildred E. Methvin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lewis S. Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Law Group, 650 Poydras
         St., Ste. 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-648-
         1850, Fax: 504-455-1498, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com;
         and

     (2) Mitchell J. Hoffman of Lowe Stein, et al., 701 Poydras
         St., Ste. 3600, New Orleans, LA 70139, Phone: 504-581-
         2450, Fax: 504-581-2461, E-mail: mhoffman@lshah.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Walter B. Stuart, IV, of Vinson & Elkins, 666 5th Ave.,
         26th Fl., New York, NY 10103, US, Phone: 212-237-0000,
         Fax: 212-237-0100, E-mail: wstuart@velaw.com; and

    (ii) Amy E. Allums of Johnson Gray McNamara, P.O. Box 51165,
         Lafayette, LA 70505, Phone: 337-412-6003, Fax: 337-412-
         6037, E-mail: aea@jgmclaw.com.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Stockholder Lawsuits in Ariz., Nev.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Co., Inc., is a defendant in several
purported stockholder class actions in both Arizona and Nevada
courts over a proposed acquisition of all of the company's
outstanding shares by its largest shareholder.

On Nov. 6 and 7, 2006, three cases were filed against the
company and each of its directors.  Two of the cases were filed
in Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County.  They are:

      -- "Pfeiffer v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. et al.,
         Case No. CV2006-017074," and

      -- "Molinari v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al.,
         Case No. CV2006-017089."

A third case was filed also filed in the District Court for
Nevada, Clark County under the caption, "Hendrix v. Swift
Transportation Co. Inc. et al., Case No A531032."

The three cases are putative class actions brought by
stockholders alleging that the company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the company in connection with a
proposal from Jerry Moyes, its largest shareholder and one of
its directors, to acquire all of the company's outstanding
shares for $29.00 per share.

The cases make claims for monetary damages, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees and expenses.  The parties have filed a
stipulation in Arizona to consolidate the two Arizona cases.

On Nov. 27, 2006, the company announced that the special
committee of the Board of Directors had rejected Mr. Moyes'
$29.00 per share offer.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the company announced that after engaging in
discussions with other potential financial and strategic buyers,
as well as further discussions and negotiations with Mr. Moyes,
the company decided to enter into a definitive merger agreement
pursuant to which Mr. Moyes and certain of his family members
would acquire all of the company's outstanding shares of stock
for $31.55 per share.

On Jan. 23, and 26, two new lawsuits and an amended complaint in
a preexisting lawsuit were filed.  One of the suits was filed in
the Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, under the caption,
"Weller v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al, Case No
CV2007-1440)."

The other suit was filed in the District Court for Nevada,
Washoe County under the caption, "McDonald v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc. et al., Case No CV0700197."

The amended complaint was filed in an action that was commenced
on March 24, 2006, in the District Court for Nevada, Clark
County.  The action is "Rivera v. Eller et al, Case No A519346."

The three cases are also putative class actions brought by
stockholders alleging that company directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the company in connection with the company's
entry into the merger agreement.

In addition to asserting direct claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, the amended complaint asserts derivative claims on the
company's behalf and also asserts a claim against Mr. Moyes and
Mr. Earl H. Scudder, a former director of the company, for
unjust enrichment.

The three most recently filed complaints also make claims for
monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Swift Transportation Co., Inc. on the Net:
http://www.swifttrans.com/.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Deadlines in N.Y. Securities Case Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., have
stayed all pending deadlines in the case until they decide on
whether they will file a second amended complaint.

In February and March 2006, an aggregate of four purported class
action complaints were filed against the company, its chief
executive officer, chief financial officer and former chief
global operating officer in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and one such purported class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

The New York plaintiffs are Max Kaplan, John Fenninger, David
Andrews and David Toth and the Michigan plaintiff was The City
of Flint and Daniel J. Hall on behalf of The City of Flint
Employees' Retirement Pension Fund.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections
10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) by making or causing the company to make
untrue statements or failing to disclose in certain press
releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission periodic
reports that, among others:

      -- Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained "hidden"
         content which should have resulted in the game
         receiving an Adults Only rating from the Entertainment
         Software Rating Board than a Mature rating;

      -- the defendants attempted to bolster sales of Grand
         Theft Auto: San Andreas by concealing the "adult
         content" from retailers who refused to carry Adults
         Only material;

      -- the company's management failed to keep the Board of
         Directors informed of important issues or failed to do
         so in a timely fashion; and

      -- the company was misstating capitalized software
         development costs and amortization expense and had
         inadequate internal controls and procedures to ensure
         accuracy in its reported financial results.

The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages and their
costs.  Plaintiffs in the Michigan Action voluntarily dismissed
their complaint without prejudice.

On July 12, 2006, the court entered orders appointing the New
York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiff and directing the
filing of a consolidated amended complaint within sixty days.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint on Sept.
11, 2006.  The amended complaint added claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act related to
allegedly improper stock option granting practices at the
company.

On Dec. 11, 2006, the company announced the preliminary results
of an internal investigation into its historical stock option
granting practices.  

The preliminary findings showed that there were improprieties in
the process of granting and documenting stock options, and that
incorrect measurement dates for certain stock option grants were
used for financial accounting purposes.

The company further announced that the company will need to
restate previous financial statements and that the company's
financial statements between 1997 and April 30, 2006, are not
reliable.

As a result of these announcements the parties have entered into
a stipulation modifying the current scheduling order.  Pursuant
to the stipulation, plaintiffs have stayed all pending deadlines
pending a decision as to whether they will file a second amended
complaint reflecting the company's recent announcements,
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 first identified complaint is "John Fenninger, et al. v.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (2) Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero
         Beach La, FL 32963, Phone: 561.231.4202;

     (3) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525,
         Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         (Melville) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (5) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (New York) One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

     (6) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
         Flr., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

     (7) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

     (8) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; and

     (9) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New
         York, NY 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087,
         E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Pension Fund Wants to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case, "St. Clair Shores General Employees
Retirement System v. Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00688-
MBM," which is pending against Take-Two Interactive Software,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, seek to file an amended derivative and class action
complaint in the case.

On Jan. 30, 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees
Retirement System filed a suit against the company, as nominal
defendant, and certain of the its officers and directors and
certain former officers and directors.  

The factual allegations in this action are similar to the
allegations contained in the federal securities class actions
pending in New York.

Plaintiff asserts that certain defendants breached their
fiduciary duty by selling company stock while in possession of
certain material non-public information and breached their
fiduciary duty and violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the
U.S. Exchange Act by failing to disclose material facts in the
company's 2003, 2004 and 2005 proxy statements in which the
company solicited approval to increase share availability under
its 2002 Stock Option Plan.

Plaintiff seeks the return of all profits from the alleged
insider trading conducted by the individual defendants who sold
company stock, unspecified compensatory damages with interest
and their costs in the action.

A motion to stay the action pending the determination of an
investigation by the Special Committee was filed with the court.
On Oct. 4, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion
and staying the proceedings for a period of 150 days from the
date of the order.

On Jan. 17, plaintiffs moved for an order granting limited
relief from the court's Oct. 4, 2006 stay of the proceedings in
order to file an amended derivative and class action complaint,
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 "St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement
System v. Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00688-MBM," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Michael B. Mukasey.  

Representing the plaintiffs is James Joseph Sabella of Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., (NY2), 45 Rockefeller Center, 630 Fifth Avenue,
15th Floor New York, NY 10111, Phone: 646-722-8520, Fax: 212 755
6503, E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Leonard D. Steinman of Blank
Rome, LLP, The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Avenue, New
York, NY 10174, Phone: 212-885-5524, Fax: 917 332-3746, E-mail:
lsteinman@blankrome.com.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: N.Y. Grand Theft Suit Enters Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated discovery is proceeding in the consumer fraud class
action, "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," which names Take-Two Interactive
Software, Inc. as a defendant.

In July 2005, three purported class action complaints were filed
against the company and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games.  Two of
the complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  A third complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  

On Sept. 8, 2005, another similar complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial District, St. Clair County,
Illinois.  

The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the company's Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas game, allege that the company and Rockstar
Games engaged in consumer deception, false advertising and
common law fraud and were unjustly enriched as a result of the
alleged failure of the company and Rockstar Games to disclose
that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained "hidden" content,
which resulted in the game receiving an "M" rating from the
Entertainment Software Rating Board rather than an "AO" rating.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, declarations of various
violations of law and litigation costs.

The New York and Pennsylvania actions, together with an action
commenced against the company and Rockstar Games in the U.S.
District for the Southern District of New York in August 2006,
have been consolidated in the Southern District of New York
under the caption, "In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation, (05-CV-6734 (BSJ))" and the Illinois action has been
transferred to the Southern District of New York for coordinated
pretrial proceedings pursuant to an Order of Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.

These cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings
under the caption, "In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation (No. II), 06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD)."

On June 7, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint.  On July 31, 2006, the company and Rockstar Games
filed a partial motion to dismiss those claims brought under the
laws of states other than states where the named plaintiffs
reside and were purportedly injured.

By an opinion and order dated Oct. 25, 2006, the partial motion
to dismiss was denied.  On Nov. 10, 2006, the company and
Rockstar Games filed a motion to deny certification of the
proposed nationwide class.

On Nov. 17, 2006, the company and Rockstar Games served an
answer denying the allegations in the consolidated and amended
complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses.

On Jan. 24, plaintiffs cross-moved for certification of the
proposed nationwide class.  Consolidated discovery in these
actions is proceeding, 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: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric James Belfi of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100
         Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         (212) 907-0790, Fax: (212) 883-7579, E-mail:
         ebelfi@labaton.com; and

     (2) Andrew Palmer Bell of Locks Law Firm, PLLC, 110 East
         55th Street, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-838-3333,
         Fax: 212-838-3735, E-mail: abell@lockslawny.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Steven L. Caponi of Blank Rome LLP (DE), 1201 North
         Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone: (302)-425-
         6408, Fax: (302)-425-6464, E-mail:
         caponi@blankrome.com; and

    (ii) Dan Chammas of McDermott Will & Emery, 2049 Century
         Park E., 34th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208, Phone:
         (310) 277-4110.


THOMAS DODGE: EEOC Sues Over "Hostile Environment" for Females
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit
in federal court in Central Islip in New York against Thomas
Dodge Corp., also known as Thomas Dodge Subaru, accusing the
company of ignoring two female employees' repeated complaints of
sexual harassment, Newsday reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of Francesa Cicciari and Cynthia
Lafond, alleges the company did nothing about "pervasive" and
"frequent" sexual harassment on the part of the owner, a
department head and a supervisor.  The EEOC said more women
could be covered by the class action.

According to the complaint, female employees have repeatedly
complained about the sexual harassment but the defendant has
failed to remedy the hostile work environment and has failed to
prevent further harassment.

Further, the complaint accuses the supervisor of the most
egregious acts, which allegedly included touching the women
inappropriately and exposing himself.

EEOC trial attorney, Konrad Batog, said if the women prevail,
each could receive as much as $50,000 in compensatory and
punitive damages.  

That amount is the statutory cap for companies that, like Thomas
Dodge, have fewer than 100 employees, Mr. Batog said.

Thomas Dodge's attorney, Robert Milman of Milman & Heidecker in
Lake Success, declined to comment because he said he hadn't seen
the suit.

Konrad Batog is EEOC's trial attorney, Phone: (212) 336-3700.

Robert Fredric Milman is with Milman & Heidecker, 3000 Marcus
Avenue, Lake Success, NY 11042-1012, Phone: (516) 328-8899, Fax:  
(516) 328-0082.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Minn. 401(k) Suit Opposed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed papers with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota opposing motions to dismiss, and a
motion to intervene a new additional plaintiff in a 401(k)
breach of fiduciary duty class action against UnitedHealth Group
Inc.

The suit was filed on behalf of participants in the company's
401(k) defined contribution retirement plan (the UnitedHealth
Group Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan) for whose individual accounts
the Plan purchased and/or held shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc.
common stock at any time from Dec. 21, 2005 through May 24, 2006
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 3, 2007).

The case [No. 06-CV-2237 (JNR/SRM)], alleges that UnitedHealth
Group Inc. and other Plan fiduciaries concealed from Plan
participants important information concerning:

     (i) long-standing, improper practices at the company
         relating to executive stock options, including those
         awarded to former chief executive William McGuire and
         current chief executive Stephen Hemsley; and

    (ii) whether UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock was a
         prudent and suitable retirement investment for the
         Plan.

After receiving from the company certain documentation relating
to the Plan Stull, Stull & Brody filed an amended class action
complaint for Violations of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, which is the current pleading in the case.

On Feb. 7, 2007 UnitedHealth Group and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the case on the ground, among others, that the
plaintiff is no longer a participant in the Plan and does not
have standing to sue (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2007).

The hearing on the motion to intervene and add a new plaintiff
has been scheduled for April 30, 2007 at the federal courthouse
in Minneapolis.

The hearing on the motions to dismiss has been scheduled for May
15, 2007, also at the federal courthouse in Minneapolis.

The suit is "Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case
No. 0:06-cv-02237-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum, with
referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edwin J. Mills of Stull Stull & Brody - NY, 6 E 45th
         St., Ste 500 New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230,
         E-mail: ssbny@aol.com; and

     (2) James B. Hovland and David E. Krause, both of Krause &
         Rollins, 310 Groveland Ave., Mpls, MN 55403, Phone:
         612-874-8550, Fax: 612-874-9362, E-mail:
         jhovland@krauserollins.com or
         dkrause@krauserollins.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Peter W. Carter and Thomas P. Swigert, both of Dorsey &
         Whitney LLP, 50 S 6th St Ste 1500, Minneapolis, MN
         55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, E-
         mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com or
         swigert.tom@dorsey.com;

     (2) David M. Brodsky, Blair Connelly and Alexandra A. E.
         Shapiro, all of Latham & Watkins - NYC, 885 3rd Ave.,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-906-1628 or 212-906-1658
         Or 212-906-1670, Fax: 212-751-4864, E-mail:
         david.brodsky@lw.com or blair.connelly@lw.com or
         alexandra.shapiro@lw.com;

     (3) Thomas S. Gigot and Mark C. Nielsen, both of Groom Law
         Group, Chartered, 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Ste 1200,
         Washington, DC 20006-5811, Phone: 202-861-6624 or 202-
         861-5429, E-mail: tsg@groom.com or mnielsen@groom.com;
         and

     (4) Jodi F. Colton, Steve W. Gaskins, Eric W. Hageman and
         Kelly A. Moffitt, all of Flynn Gaskins & Bennett, LLP,
         333 S 7th St Ste 2900, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone:
         612-333-9500 or 612-333-9503 or 612-333-9553 or 612-
         333-9538, Fax: 612-333-9579, E-mail:
         jcolton@flynngaskins.com or sgaskins@flynngaskins.com
         or ehageman@flynngaskins.com or
         kmoffitt@flynngaskins.com.


VISTEON CORP: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit filed against Visteon
Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan have appealed a ruling dismissing an amended complaint
for failure to state a claim.

The Van Buren Township, Michigan-based company is a leading
global supplier of automotive systems, modules and components to
global vehicle manufacturers and the automotive aftermarket.

In February 2005, a shareholder lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against it
and certain of its current and former officers.

In July 2005, the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi was appointed as lead plaintiff in this matter.  In
September 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which alleges, among other things, that the company and its
independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, made misleading statements of
material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in
order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
purchasers of the company's securities during the period between
June 28, 2000 and Jan. 31, 2005.  Class action status has not
yet been certified in this litigation.  On Aug. 31, 2006, the
defendants motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure
to state a claim was granted.  The plaintiffs have appealed this
decision.

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

The suit is "Ley v. Visteon Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
70737-RHC-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern  
District of Michigan under Robert H. Cleland with referral to  
Judge Virginia M. Morgan.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) E. Powell Miller and Marc L. Newman of Miller Shea  
         (Rochester) 950 W. University Drive Suite 300  
         Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: 248-841-2200 E-mail:  
         emiller335@aol.com; and  

     (2) Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway (Radnor) 280 King  
         of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis (Chicago), 200 E.  
         Randolph Drive, Suite 6000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:   
         312-861-2000, Fax: 312-861-2200, E-mail:  
         maduffy@kirkland.com;  

    (ii) Jenice C. Mitchell of Foley & Lardner (Detroit), 500  
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700, Detroit, MI 48226-3489,  
         Phone: 313-234-7100, E-mail: jmitchell@foley.com; and

   (iii) Thomas P. Bruetsch, Bodman (Troy), 201 W. Big Beaver  
         Road, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084, Phone: 248-743-6000,  
         E-mail: tbruetsch@bodmanllp.com.

  
WEBSENSE INC: Software Engineers Sue for Alleged Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Websense Inc. and other unidentified individuals are facing a
purported class action filed by a certain Jason Tauber in
California Superior Court for the County of San Diego on Sept.
29, 2006.

The complaint, "Tauber v. Websense" alleges that the plaintiff
and a putative class of certain software engineers and computer
professionals who worked for the company as exempt employees
during the period from Sept. 15, 2002 through the present should
have been classified as non-exempt employees under California
law and should have been paid for overtime.

The complaint also alleges related wage and hour violations of
the California Labor Code arising from the alleged
misclassification and that the failure to pay overtime
constitutes an unfair business practice under California
Business and Professions Code SS17200.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for unpaid overtime,
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and other costs, statutory
penalties for alleged violations, and other proper relief.  The
case is at a very early stage.

Websense Inc., based in San Diego California, provides Web
filtering and Web security software products.


WINSTON HOTELS: N.C. Shareholder Files Suit to Stop Wilbur Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Hotels, Inc. faces a purported shareholder class action
in Wake County Superior Court in North Carolina that seeks to
prevent the real estate investment trust and hotelier from
consummating its sale to Wilbur Acquisition Holding Co.,
according to Triangle Business Journal reports.

Douglas Whitney, a Wake County resident and company shareholder,
filed the suit on March 5.  He named as defendants in the case:

      -- Winston Hotels;
      -- Charles Winston, board member;
      -- Edwin Borden, board member;
      -- Richard Daugherty, board member;
      -- Bob Winston, board member;
      -- Thomas Darden II, board member;
      -- David Sullivan, board member;
      -- Wilbur Acquisition Holding Co., LLC; and
      -- Wilbur Acquisition, Inc.

Winston Hotels, Inc., on the Net: http://www.winstonhotels.com.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

April 11-12, 2007
REINSURANCE COLLATERAL
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

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

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

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

April 17-18, 2007
DELIVERING FINANCIAL SERVICES TO UNDERSERVED MARKETS
American Conference Institute
New Orleans
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

April 18-19, 2007
D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

April 18-19, 2007
HEALTHCARE COMPLEX LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

April 19, 2007
PROPOSED FEDERAL LOBBYING AND ETHICS REFORM: WHICH CHANGES WILL
AFFECT YOU?
ALI-ABA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

April 25-26, 2007
BAD FAITH & PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

April 25-26, 2007
WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS AND CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

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

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

May 3-4, 2007
MEALEY'S DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
La Costa Resort & Spa, San Diego
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 8, 2007
CASEMAP CLIENT USER SUMMIT
Mealeys Seminars
Millennium Biltmore Hotel, Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 10-11, 2007
Mealey's Litigation Management Guidelines Conference
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin New York at Times Square
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 15-16, 2007
PHARMACEUTICAL ANTITRUST
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

May 17-19, 2007
Electronic Records Management and Digital Discovery: Practical
Considerations for Legal, Technical, and Operational Success
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 21-22, 2007
DEFENDING CONSUMER PROTECTION CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

May 21-22, 2007
RESPONDING TO BROKER/DEALER LITIGATION & REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

May 22-23, 2007
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 4-5, 2007
MEALEY'S BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 5, 2007
MEALEY'S MTBE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 5-6, 2007
CONSUMER CREDIT LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 6, 2007
MEALEY'S GLOBAL WARMING LITIGATION CONFERENCE: ARE YOU READY?
Mealeys Seminars
The Hotel Monaco, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 6-7, 2007
DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS & LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Boston
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 7-8, 2007
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Intercontinental Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

October 11-12, 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 8-9, 2007
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 27, 2007
MEALEY'S WALL STREET TELECONFERENCE: ASBESTOS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 28, 2007
MEALEY'S PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
NAVIGATING A FEDERAL MDL WITH THE EXPERTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 28, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 29, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: LITIGATING YOUR CLIENT'S COPYRIGHT
CASE-HOW TO AVOID IT & HOW TO WIN
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 29, 2007
MEALEY'S E-DISCOVERY TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ADDRESSING PRIVACY
RIGHTS & CROSS-BORDER ISSUES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 3, 2007
MEALEY'S WOMEN IN THE LAW TELECONFERENCE SERIES: THE KEYS TO
SUCCESSFUL RAINMAKING
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 19, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: IDENTIFYING AND PROVING INFRINGEMENT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 16, 2007
MEALEY'S ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ETHICAL MANAGEMENT OF
CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 17, 2007
MEALEY'S MEDICINE FOR LAWYERS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: TOXICOLOGY
FOR TOXIC TORT LAWYERS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 20, 2007
MEALEY'S ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ETHICS AND SETTLEMENTS-
THE ETHICAL PITFALLS IN MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCREDITED HOME: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announces that a securities class
action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of Accredited Home
Lenders Holding Co. between Nov. 1, 2005 and March 12, 2007,
inclusive.

The action charges Accredited and one or more of its officers
and/or directors of violating federal securities laws by issuing
a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 15, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact David Brower and Charles Piven,
both of Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East
Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone:
410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com.


EDUCATE INC: Brian M. Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a class
action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland on behalf of shareholders of Educate, Inc.
in connection with the offer by an investment group led by some
of the company's executives to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of EEEE public shares including assumed debt.

The goal of the lawsuit is to seek the highest possible offer
for the public shares.  It will seek an injunction against the
completion of an unfair bid or damages from the named
defendants.

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


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson filed a class action on behalf of plaintiff
and a proposed class of purchasers of securities of Wireless
Facilities, Inc. during the period March 29, 2001 to March 12,
2007 inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Wireless Facilities and certain
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning Wireless
Facilities' improper and undisclosed practice of backdating
options conferred on certain executives, which made it appear
that such options were issued upon dates when the market price
of Wireless Facilities stock was lower than actual market price
on the actual grant dates, thereby masking the profits the
option recipients obtained.

Under generally accepted accounting principles, these profits
were required to be recognized as an expense in the company's
financial statements for the appropriate period, but were not.

This backdating of options also violated provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code relating to deduction of option payments.
Thus, the complaint alleges, the company's financial statements
in Form 10-K filings for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
and 2005 and Form 10-Q quarterly filings were materially false
and misleading.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
March 16, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Eben F. Duval of Johnson &
Perkinson, 1690 Williston Road, P.O. Box 2305, South Burlington,
Vermont 05403, Phone: 1-888-459-7855 (toll free), E-mail:
email@jpclasslaw.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  * * *