CAR_Public/070322.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 22, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 58

                            Headlines


ALLIANCE IMAGING: Calif. Court Okays $2.5M Labor Suit Settlement
AMERISTAR CASINOS: Faces $150M Lawsuit Over Rewards Program
ANTIGENICS INC: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.M.
ART TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Mass. Securities Suit's Nixing
AUTONATION INC: Tex. Suit Over Vehicle Inventory Tax Now Closed

BANDAG INC: Faces Iowa Shareholder Suit Over Bridgestone Deal
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: No Discovery Yet in Calif. Securities Suit
BLAIR CORP: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Appleseed's Transaction
CERIDIAN CORP: Truck Stop Owner Files Antitrust Lawsuit in Pa.
COMMUNITY BANK: Settles Mortgage Loans Suit, Faces Two Others

CONNECTICUT: Waterbury Men Sue State Marshals Over 2006 Arrests
DOE RUN: Mo. High Court Allows Suit by Herculaneum Children
DRUG COMPANIES: Sales Reps File Suits Over Unpaid Overtime
ENRON CORP: 5th Circuit Revokes Certification of Investor Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Certification Sought in Wash. Occupancy Taxes Suit

HOTELS.COM: Continues to Face Shareholder Suit Over IAC Merger
HOTELS.COM: Hotel Occupancy Taxes Lawsuit in Tex. Deferred
HOTWIRE INC: March Conference Set in Calif. Occupancy Taxes Suit
LENNAR CORP: Bent Creek Residents to Sue Over Development Plans
LEVITT CORP: Continues to Face Homeowners' Litigation in Fla.

MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit in Ill.
MOTOROLA INC: April Trial Set in Consolidated Securities Suit
MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Face Suit Related to Adelphia MDL
MOTOROLA INC: Dismissal of Suit Related to Charter Challenged
NFFP: Personal Trainers Sue Over "Faulty" Certification Program

NORTHERN NATURAL: Appeal on Nebr. ERISA Suit's Nixing Dismissed
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 27
ORGANOGENESIS INC: Mass. Securities Lawsuit Denied Class Status
REDWOODS MORTUARY: Sued for Negligence in Care of Dead's Remains
ROYAL CANIN: Faces $50M Suit in Ontario Over Tainted Pet Food

ROYAL CANIN: Pet Owners Sue Over High Vitamin D in Dog, Cat Food
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues to Face Suit by Savings Plan Members
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Continues in N.J. Securities Lawsuit
TD BANKNORTH: Enters $2.95M Settlement in Suit Over Merger
TECO ENERGY: Parties Settle Fla. Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: To Seek Dismissal of Ky. Securities Suit
TENNESSEE GAS: La. Court Dismisses Hurricane-Related Lawsuits
TEREX CORP: Conn. Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
WISCONSIN: Court Certifies Lawsuit Over Prison Healthcare


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

JPMORGAN CHASE: Greenfield & Goodman Files Ill. Securities Suit
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
RADIOSHACK CORP: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit


                          *********


ALLIANCE IMAGING: Calif. Court Okays $2.5M Labor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alameda County Superior Court gave final approval to a
settlement of a purported class action filed against Alliance
Imaging, Inc. over allegations that the company violated labor
laws in its dealings with approximately 400 former and current
California employees, according to the company's March 16 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On May 5, 2005, the company was served with a class action
complaint.  On Aug. 19, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, which the company answered on Sept. 23, 2005.

In this suit, "Linda S. Jones, et al. v. Alliance Imaging, Inc.,
et al.," the plaintiffs allege violations of California's wage,
meal period, and break time laws and regulations.

Plaintiffs sought recovery of unspecified economic damages,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit.  On or
about March 10, 2006, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding a cause of action for conversion and a plea for
punitive damages.

The company filed a demurrer and motion to strike seeking to
dismiss the new claim and plea.  On July 19, 2006, the company
and the plaintiffs entered into a tentative settlement of the
class action complaint pursuant to which the company has agreed
to pay $2.5 million, which is included in other accrued
liabilities at Sept. 30, 2006, in exchange for a dismissal with
prejudice of all claims brought on behalf of the putative class
under the class action complaint.

On Sept. 8, 2006, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement and a conditional class was certified for purposes of
seeking class approval of the settlement.

On Oct. 2, 2006, notice was mailed to the conditional class
members outlining the terms of the settlement and providing all
class members with an opportunity to opt out of the settlement
prior to the Nov. 27, 2006 final approval hearing.

Two putative class members opted out of the class, and there
were no objections submitted.  The final approval hearing was
held on Nov. 27, 2006 as scheduled, and the court granted final
approval of the settlement.

The class settlement administrator distributed the settlement
amount on Feb. 16.  The case will be dismissed upon the parties'
compliance with the settlement agreement.  The court scheduled a
hearing for a final accounting of the settlement distribution on
June 25.

Alliance Imaging, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.allianceimaging.com.


AMERISTAR CASINOS: Faces $150M Lawsuit Over Rewards Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis attorney Arthur Muegler Jr. filed a $150 million class
action in St. Charles County Circuit Court (Missouri) against
Ameristar Casino St. Charles Inc. and its Las Vegas-based parent
company, Ameristar Casinos Inc. over the company's customer
rewards program, the St. Louis Business Journal reports.

The suit alleges Ameristar Casino St. Charles and Ameristar
Casinos Inc. (Nasdaq: ASCA) "engaged in deception, fraud and
various other unfair business practices in violation of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act in connection with
Ameristar Casino's advertising and cash-back comp, food comp and
card status 'earned point' scheme from and after March 15,
2006."

It seeks $100 million in actual damages and $50 million in
punitive damages against each Ameristar company.

According to an Ameristar statement, Mr. Muegler's claims have
no merit, and there is no basis for a class action.  The company
believes "the case is completely frivolous," thus it intends to
vigorously defend the company's position and to respond to these
allegations in court.

Representing plaintiffs is Arthur G. Muegler, Jr., PO Box 230143
St Louis, MO 63123-0643.


ANTIGENICS INC: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.M.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antigenics, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported securities
fraud class action filed in U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico by Steven J. Tuckfelt on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated.  

The complaint was filed on June 16, 2006 against the company and
its chief executive officer Garo H. Armen, Ph.D.  It alleges
that certain of the company's disclosures in connection with the
conduct of the Oncophage Phase 3 renal cell carcinoma trial
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint includes purported claims
for breach of fiduciary duty.

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

Antigenics, Inc. on the Net: http://www.antigenics.com/.


ART TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Mass. Securities Suit's Nixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against
Art Technology Group, Inc., and certain of its former officers
are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to dismiss the case.

The company and certain of the company's former officers were
named as defendants in seven purported class action that have
been consolidated into one action under the caption, "In re Art
Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
01-CV-11731-NG."  

The case alleged that the company, and certain of the company's
former officers, have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule SEC 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, which generally may subject issuers of
securities and persons controlling those issuers to civil
liabilities for fraudulent actions in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities.  The case was originally filed
in 2001, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed in March
2002.  

In April 2002, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
On Sept. 4, 2003, the court issued a ruling dismissing all but
one of the plaintiffs' allegations.  The remaining allegation
was based on the veracity of a public statement made by one of
the company's former officers.

In August 2004, the company filed a renewed motion to dismiss
and motion for summary judgment as to the remaining allegation,
which the court granted in September 2005.  Plaintiffs moved for
leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint.  

On Oct. 2, 2006, the court ruled in the company's favor and
entered a final order of dismissal of plaintiffs' case.  On Oct.
27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

The company reported no development in the matter in its March
16 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: Art Technology Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:01-cv-11731-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.     

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro
         Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02108,
         Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
         ted@shulaw.com

     (2) David C. Katz, Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite
         1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: 212-682-3025, Fax:
         212-682-3010, E-mail: dkatz@wllawny.com

     (3) Douglas M. Risen, Sherrie R. Savett, Berger & Montague,
         P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-875-3000,
  
     (4) Patrick K. Slyne, Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230, Fax:
         212-490-2022  

Representing the company are:

     (i) Dyan Finguerra-DeCharme, Mary Jo Johnson, William H.
         Pane, Jeffrey B. Rudman and Matthew A. Stowe of Wilmer
         Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-
         8888; and

    (ii) Nancy Margaret Gorton, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
         Dorr, LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-742-9100, E-mail: maryjo.johnson@wilmerhale.com,
         william.paine@wilmerhale.com,
         jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com and
         matthew.stowe@wilmerhale.com.


AUTONATION INC: Tex. Suit Over Vehicle Inventory Tax Now Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
AutoNation, Inc. has been dismissed from a federal class action
filed against certain of its Texas dealerships, the Texas
Automobile Dealers Association (TADA), and certain new vehicle
dealerships in Texas that are members of TADA.

Many of the company's Texas dealership subsidiaries had been
named in three class actions brought against the TADA and
approximately 700 new vehicle stores in Texas that are members
of TADA.

The three actions allege that, since January 1994, Texas dealers
deceived customers with respect to a vehicle inventory tax and
violated federal antitrust and other laws as well.

In February 2005, the company and the plaintiffs in all three of
the cases agreed to settlement terms.  The state court granted
final approval of the settlement on Aug. 14, 2006.  

The company has been dismissed from the state court actions and
the federal court action, according to its Feb. 27 form 10-k
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based AutoNation, Inc., on the Net:
http://www.autonation.com.


BANDAG INC: Faces Iowa Shareholder Suit Over Bridgestone Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bandag, Inc. was named a defendant in a purported shareholder
class action filed in Muscatine County District Court in Iowa in
relation to its proposed merger with Bridgestone Americas
Holding, Inc.

The suit, "Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 572 Pension Fund v.
Bandag, et al.," was filed on Dec. 8, 2006, seeking class-action
certification on behalf of all of the Bandag shareholders.

The complaint names as defendants:

      -- Bandag,
      -- Martin G. Carver, chairman, president and chief
         executive officer;
      -- Gary E. Dewel;
      -- R. Stephen Newman;
      -- Roy J. Carver, Jr.;
      -- James R. Everline;
      -- Phillip J. Hanrahan; and
      -- Amy P. Hutton.

It alleges, among other things, that in connection with the
proposed business combination transaction with Bridgestone
Americas Holding, the directors breached their fiduciary duties
of due care and good faith by failing to solicit bids from other
potential bidders and failing to maximize shareholder value and
by creating deterrents to third party offers.

Among other things, the complaint seeks class action status, and
a court order enjoining the consummation of the merger and
directing the defendants to take appropriate steps to maximize
shareholder value.

Bandag, Inc. on the Net: http://www.bandag.com/.


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: No Discovery Yet in Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery proceeding has yet to start in a purported securities
fraud class action filed against Biolase Technology, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaints sought unspecified damages on behalf of an
alleged class of persons who purchased the company's common
stock between Oct. 29, 2003 and July 16, 2004.  

The complaints alleged that the company and its officers
violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material
information about the demand for the company's products and the
fact that the company would not achieve the alleged forecasted
growth.  

The claimed misrepresentations included certain statements in
the company's press releases and the registration statement the
company filed in connection with the company's public offering
of stock, which closed in March 2004.

In January 2006, the company's motion to dismiss the second
amended consolidated class action complaint was granted and the
action was dismissed, with leave to further amend, by the order
of the Honorable David O. Carter, U.S. District Judge for the
Central District of California.  On March 10, 2006, the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

The third amended complaint made the same allegations regarding
violations of the federal securities laws but is limited to an
alleged class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's common stock pursuant to or traceable to the
public offering of the company's stock that closed in March
2004.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint and on July
25, 2006, the court ruled on the motion, granting the motion on
the grounds that lead plaintiffs lack standing, denying the
motion on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a claim
and allowing plaintiffs to file a fourth amended complaint and a
motion to appoint new lead plaintiffs.  

On Aug. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint
which defendants answered on Oct. 20, 2006.   The class action
is still in the pretrial stage and no discovery has been
conducted by any of the parties, according to the company's
March 16 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Van Dam Holdings Ltd. v. Biolase Technology,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-947," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge David
O. Carter.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Dale Joseph MacDiarmid, Lionel Z. Glancy, Peter Arthur
         Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of
         the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067, USA, Phone:
         310-201-9150;

     (2) Gregory M. Castaldo of Schiffrin & Barroway, 3 Bala
         Plaza E, Ste. 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-
         667-7706; and

     (3) Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley Geller Bowman Coates &
         Rudman, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste. 406, Melville, NY
         11747, Phone: 631-367-7263, E-mail:
         srudman@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are Theodore K. Bell, Bruce A.
Ericson and Marci A Reichbach of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman, Phone: 650-233-4500, 415-983-1000 and 415-983-1422, E-
mail: tbell@pillsburywinthrop.com,  
bericson@pillsburywinthrop.com and
marci.reichbach@pillsburylaw.com;  


BLAIR CORP: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Appleseed's Transaction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a purported stockholder class action filed against
Blair Corp. in relation to an acquisition proposal by
Appleseed's filed a motion to dismiss the suit with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware in New Castle County.

The suit, "Pogozelski v. Blair Corp., (Civil Action No. 2695-
N)," was filed on Jan. 24 by Mr. Richard P. Pogozelski, a
purported stockholder of the company against Blair, certain
members of its board of directors and Appleseed's.

It alleged, among other things, that the company's directors
have not acted reasonably and breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize stockholder value with regard to the
proposed acquisition by Appleseed's.

Among other things, the complaint sought class-action status, a
court order enjoining the company and its directors from
proceeding with or consummating the proposed acquisition of the
company by Appleseed's, compensatory damages, costs and expenses
and the payment of attorneys' and experts' fees.

On March 1, the company and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the class action complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.  

The court has not ruled on the motion, according to the
company's March 16 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Blair Corp. on the Net: http://www.blair.com/.


CERIDIAN CORP: Truck Stop Owner Files Antitrust Lawsuit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ceridian Corp., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Comdata Corp.
were named as defendants in a purported antitrust class action
alleging monopoly of trucker fleet cards.

The suit was filed by Universal Delaware, Inc. d/b/a Gap Truck
Stop, an independent truck stop owner-operator, on March 19 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Universal Delaware claims that most of the 3,000 truck stops in
the U.S. are independently owned and operated, but the
defendants have a monopoly in trucker fleet cards.  

These cards are essentially credit cards that allow truckers'
employers to capture data to track employees' location,
purchases and fuel use, to prevent certain purchases, and so on.

The complaint states that Comdata has a monopoly on fleet cards
and the systems that track them.  Specifically, it claims that
Comdata abuses this monopoly:

      -- by programming the Fleet Card Point of Sale program not
         to process rival cards;

      -- or to process them in an anticompetitive manner, for
         instance, by preventing data capture and purchase
         controls;

      -- by prohibitions and anticompetitive demands in
         contracts with chain truck stops; and

      -- by threatening chain truck stops with punitive
         transaction fees if they accept rival fleet cards.

The suit was purportedly brought on behalf of all persons or
entities that own independent truck stops in U.S. who paid
transaction fees for trucker fleet cards directly to Comdata or
any of its subsidiaries at any time from March 2003, until the
effects of the defendants anticompetitive conduct cease.

The suit specifically alleges two counts of violations of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  They are:

      -- Count I: Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
         Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2: Scheme to
         Monopolize; and

      -- Count II: Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
         Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1: Unlawful Agreements
         In Reasonable Restraint of Trade.

Plaintiffs' request for relief include:

       -- judgment in favor of itself and the class it seeks to
          represent against defendants, and each of them, for
          damages, measured as the overcharges plaintiff and
          other members of the class paid to defendants as a
          result of defendants' anticompetitive conduct,
          trebled;  

       -- pre- and post-judgment interest;
       
       -- injunctive relief to prevent further anticompetitive
          conduct; and

       -- costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys/ fees.

Additionally, plaintiffs, represented by Berger & Montague are
demanding a jury trial.

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

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

The suit is "Universal Delaware, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-01078-JKG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge James Knoll
Gardner.

Representing the plaintiffs is Eric L. Cramer of Berger &
Montague, PC, 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone:
215-875-3026, E-mail: ecramer@bm.net.


COMMUNITY BANK: Settles Mortgage Loans Suit, Faces Two Others
-------------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank of Northern Virginia, an acquisition of
Mercantile Bankshares Corp., settled one purported class action
but continues to face two other similar cases that challenges
the validity of second mortgage loans, according Mercantile's
March 1 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Between 2001 and 2003, on behalf of either individual plaintiffs
or a putative class of plaintiffs, eight separate actions were
filed in state and federal court against Community Bank of
Northern Virginia and other defendants challenging the validity
of second mortgage loans the defendants made to plaintiffs.  

All of the cases were either filed in, or removed to, the
federal district court for the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.  

In June 2003, the parties to the various actions informed the
court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle
the various actions.  

On July 17, 2003, the court conditionally certified a class for
settlement purposes, preliminarily approved the class
settlement, and directed the issuance of notice to the class.

Thereafter, certain plaintiffs who had initially opted out of
the proposed settlement and other objectors challenged the
validity of the settlement in the district court.  

The district court denied their arguments and approved the
settlement.  These "opt out" plaintiffs and other objectors
appealed the district court's approval of the settlement to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

In August 2005, the 3rd Circuit reversed the district court's
approval of the settlement and remanded the case to the district
court with instructions to consider and address certain specific
issues when re-evaluating the settlement.  

In July 2006, the settling parties modified the original
settlement agreement and submitted the modified settlement
agreement to the District Court.  

Certain individuals who were excluded from the settlement class
have filed two actions on behalf of a putative class of
plaintiffs alleging claims similar to those raised in the
initial filing.   These actions were later consolidated in the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

Mercantile Bankshares Corp. on the Net:
http://www.mercantile.net/.


CONNECTICUT: Waterbury Men Sue State Marshals Over 2006 Arrests
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several Connecticut State Marshals were named as defendants in a
purported federal class action over the recruitment of civilians
to participate in the alleged unlawful arrest of hundreds of
residents.

The suit was filed on Feb. 23 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut by Waterbury residents who are claiming
that civilians posing as state marshals during a sweep in
Waterbury back in October 2006 illegally arrested them.

Plaintiffs in the case are Larry Mason and Modesto Rodriguez,
two of the 11 men rounded up in the October sweep, whose purpose
was to serve court papers on fathers who owe court-ordered child
support.

Messrs. Mason and Rodriguez alleged that over a two to three
year period, State Marshals John Barbieri, Brian Hobart, and Jon
Gallup organized arrest sweeps, in which they brought along
civilians to participate in the arrests, resulting in the
unlawful arrests of at least 245 residents.

Besides the three State Marshals other defendants in the suit
include:

      -- Dominic Jannetty,
      -- Michael Brown,
      -- Raymond Brown,
      -- Dennis Kerrigan,
      -- James E. Neil,
      -- Charisse E. Hutton,
      -- John G. Maxwell,
      -- David Panke, and
      -- Karen Archambault.

The lawsuit also states that members of the State Marshal
Commission and Court Support Services are responsible for the
unlawful arrests, since they failed to do anything to protect
residents against such unlawful conduct.

It seeks class-action status, according to plaintiffs' attorney
A. Paul Spinella, who added that as many as 242 others could
seek damages if a federal judge certified his clients' case.

Mr. Spinella said that one of the defendants, Michael Brown,
posing as a state marshal over the past few years, has arrested
many of those men in the October sweep.  Mr. Brown, who is not a
marshal, has been assisting licensed State Marshals.

The judicial department's legal counsel has already indicated
that Michael Brown had no legal authority to participate in
rounding up deadbeat dads when he ruled the department didn't
have to pay Mr. Brown for 24 bills he submitted.

Mr. Barbieri, who organized the Oct. 21 sweep, is facing three
allegations, according to reports.  He is alleged to have used
his powers to allow Mr. Brown to participate in the sweep and
then to sign vouchers and get paid for serving legal documents.

Under Connecticut law, State Marshals are authorized to make an
arrest pursuant to a capias mittimus, a type of civil arrest
warrant.  Capias mittimi are issued by Court Enforcement
Services for parents behind on child support payments.  

State Marshals organized sweeps in order to make numerous capias
arrests in short period of time.  The State pays marshals $250
for each capias arrest.

The sweeps often took place in the middle of the night or early
in the morning.  The marshals recruited at least two civilians,
Michael Brown and Raymond Brown, to participate and assist in
the arrests.  The civilians were given jackets with the words
"State Marshal" written on the front and back.

The marshals allowed the civilians to enter residents home,
detain them, and transport them to jail in law enforcement
vehicles provided for by the State.  

Often times, the civilians were allowed to handcuff persons.  
The sweeps took place in the cities of Waterbury, Hartford and
New Britain.

The suit is "Mason et al v. Barbieri et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
00287-AWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson.

Representing the plaintiffs is A. Paul Spinella of The Law
Offices of A. Paul Spinella & Associates, One Lewis St.,
Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-728-4900, Fax: 860-728-4909, E-
mail: spinella_law@yahoo.com.

Representing the defendants is Clare E. Kindall of Attorney
General's Office, P.O. Box 120, 4th Floor, 55 Elm St., Hartford,
CT 06141-0120, Phone: 860-808-5020, Fax: 860-808-5347, E-mail:
Clare.Kindall@po.state.ct.us.


DOE RUN: Mo. High Court Allows Suit by Herculaneum Children
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Supreme Court allowed a class action to proceed
against Doe Run Resources Corp., d.b.a. The Doe Run Co.,
operator of a lead smelter in the town of Herculaneum.

The suit was filed on behalf of more than 200 children in the
community.  The lead plaintiff is 9-year-old Lani Meyer.  A St.
Louis court earlier refused to certify the suit saying her
claims are not representative of the complaints of the class she
seeks to represent.

Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of children who lived in
Herculaneum during a period of time when they were six years old
or younger and children born to mothers who lived in Herculaneum
during their pregnancies.  The remedy sought is medical
monitoring for the class.  The program would provide exams to
test for lead exposure and identify injuries and illnesses
resulting from that exposure.

The suit is "Meyer, et al. v. Fluor Corp., et al.," formerly
"Mitchell, et al. v. Fluor Corp., et al., filed on July 9, 2001.


DRUG COMPANIES: Sales Reps File Suits Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of pharmaceutical representatives filed suits in
California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York against more
than a dozen major drug companies over alleged unpaid overtime,
The National Law Journal reports.

Defendants include:

     -- AstraZeneca PLC,
     -- Pfizer Inc.,
     -- Johnson & Johnson,
     -- Amgen Inc.,
     -- Eli Lilly & Co.,
     -- GlaxoSmithKline PLC,
     -- Bayer Corp.,
     -- Hoffman-LaRoche Inc.

Plaintiffs allege that drug companies are misclassifying them as
salespeople, denying them overtime even though they work 50- to
60-hour weeks.

They argue that they're not actually selling anything, but
rather acting as public relations representatives who memorize
carefully worded scripts about drugs.

Plaintiffs' attorney Eric Kingsley of Los Angeles-based Kingsley
& Kingsley said these reps aren't making sales, they're
marketing products to doctors.  

Attorney Mike Delikat of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe's New
York office, who is representing Hoffman LaRoche, declined
comment.

Frank Dee of McElroy, Deutch, Mulvaney & Carpenter in
Morristown, N.J., who represents Johnson & Johnson, also
declined comment.

Several more lawsuits are expected to be filed in New York,
Pennsylvania and possibly Minnesota, according to the report.


ENRON CORP: 5th Circuit Revokes Certification of Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled on March 19
that a suit against investment banks that did business with
Enron Corp. was improperly certified as a class action, and sent
the case back to the lower court for reconsideration, reports
say.

The suit, which was filed October 2001, names as defendants
Merrill Lynch and Co. Inc. and Credit Suisse Group.  It was
filed by Enron investors seeking to recover $40 billion in
losses from the bankruptcy of the energy company.  Enron filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Dec. 2, 2001.

In June 2006, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon certified the
lawsuit as a class action.  The University of California is lead
plaintiff in the case.  It has so far reached these settlements:

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

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

Remaining defendants [as of Jan. 25, 2007] are: Credit Suisse
First Boston, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch & Co., Royal Bank of
Canada, Royal Bank of Scotland, Toronto Dominion Bank.

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

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

The point of the argument in the case against the investment
banks is whether the banks were "primary violators" and thus
liable for losses from the company's bankruptcy.  The Appeals
Court ruled against the investors saying the certification of
their suit was partly based on "legal error" regarding the
banks' liability.

William Lerach, a lawyer for the Enron investor plaintiffs, said
he would seek a Supreme Court review of the appeals court's
decision.  A trial is scheduled in the case on April 16.

Plaintiffs-Appellees are:

     -- Regents of the University of California;
     -- Washington State Investment Board;
     -- San Francisco City and County Employees' Retirement
        System;
     -- Employer-Teamsters Local Numbers 175 and 505 Pension
        Trust Fund;
     -- Hawaii Laborers Pension Plan;
     -- Staro Asset Management LLC;
     -- Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the Longview Collective
        Investment Fund;
     -- Robert V. Flint;
     -- John Zegarski; Mervin Schwartz, Jr.;
     -- Steven Smith;
     -- Archdiocese of Milwaukee;
     -- Greenville Plumbers Pension Plan;
     -- Nathaniel Pulsifer, as Trustee of the Shooters Hill
     -- Revocable Trust.

Defendants-Appellants are:

     -- Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc.;
     -- Credit Suisse First Boston LLC;
     -- Pershing LLC;
     -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.;
     -- Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.;
     
Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. are also
Appellants.

The suit is on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Case m H-01-3624).

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


EXPEDIA INC: Certification Sought in Wash. Occupancy Taxes Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Expedia Hotel Taxes and Fees Litigation are
seeking certification of a class in the case.

On Feb. 18, 2005, three actions filed against Expedia, Inc., a
Washington corporation, were consolidated under the caption, "In
re Expedia Hotel Taxes and Fees Litigation, No. 05-2-02060-1,"
before King County Superior Court.

The suits are:

     -- "C. Michael Nielsen et al. v. Expedia, Inc. et al., No.
        05-2-02060-1," filed in Superior Court, King County on
        Jan. 10, 2005;

     -- "Bruce Deaton et al., v. Expedia, Inc. et al., No. 05-2-
        02062-8," filed in Superior Court, King County on Jan.
        10, 2005; and

     -- "Jose Alba, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
        Similarly Situated v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et al., No.
        05-2-04533-7," filed in Superior Court, King County on
        Feb. 3, 2005.

The consolidated complaint alleges that Expedia Washington is
improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes
and engaging in other deceptive practices in charging customers
for taxes and fees.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of all
persons who were assessed a charge for "taxes/fees" when booking
rooms through Expedia Washington.

The complaint alleges violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and common-law conversion and seeks imposition of
a constructive trust on monies received from the plaintiff
class, as well as damages in an unspecified amount,
disgorgement, restitution, interest and penalties.  Six of the
seven originally named plaintiffs have withdrawn form the suit.

On March 27, 2006, a new named plaintiff was permitted to
intervene.  A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was scheduled March 2, 2007.


HOTELS.COM: Continues to Face Shareholder Suit Over IAC Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The time for Hotels.com and IAC/InterActiveCorp to respond to
complaints filed against them related to a merger agreement has
been adjourned indefinitely.

On Dec. 21, 2004, IAC/InterActiveCorp announced its plan to
separate into two independent public companies to allow each
company to focus on its individual strategic objectives.  A new
company, Expedia, Inc., was incorporated under Delaware law in
April 2005, to hold substantially all of IAC's travel and
travel-related businesses.

A putative class action on behalf of Hotels.com stockholders was
filed in the Delaware Chancery Court against Hotels.com,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and members of the Board of Directors of
Hotels.com on April 10, 2003, the day of the announcement of the
IAC/Hotels.com merger agreement.  

The suit is "Michael Garvey v. Jonathan F. Miller et al., No.
20248-NC" filed in New Castle County.

Also on April 10, 2003, the plaintiff in a purported shareholder
derivative action on behalf of Hotels.com filed an amended
complaint to include class allegations regarding the merger
transaction.  

The suit is "Alex Solodovnikov, Derivatively on Behalf of
Hotels.com v. Robert Diener et al., No. 03-02663" filed in
District Court, 160th Judicial District, Dallas County.

In addition, on April 17, 2003, the plaintiffs in a consolidated
action pending in the Delaware Chancery Court, which had
consolidated a number of putative class actions filed against
Hotels.com, IAC and members of the Board of Directors of
Hotels.com as a result of IAC's announcement in June 2002 of its
intention to enter into a Hotels.com acquisition transaction,
filed a consolidated and amended class-action complaint.  

The suit is "In re Hotels.com Shareholders Litigation, No.
16662-NC" filed in New Castle County.

Pursuant to an agreement among the parties, the defendants' time
to respond to this complaint and to the complaint in the Garvey
case has been adjourned indefinitely, according to Expedia's
form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The complaints in these three actions allege, in essence, that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Hotels.com's
public shareholders by entering into and/or approving the merger
agreement, which allegedly did not reflect the true value of
Hotels.com.  


HOTELS.COM: Hotel Occupancy Taxes Lawsuit in Tex. Deferred
----------------------------------------------------------
Certification briefing in a suit accusing Hotels.com, L.P. of
charging customers excessive taxes and fees for non-existent
services has been deferred indefinitely.

On May 6, 2003, a purported class action was filed in Texas
state court against Hotels.com.  The suit was filed by Mary
Canales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated against Hotels.com, L.P. (Case No. DC-03-162) in the
District Court, 229th Judicial District, Duval County.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that Hotels.com charges
customers "taxes" that exceed the amount required by or paid to
the applicable taxing authorities and that Hotels.com charges
customers "fees" that do not correspond to any specific services
provided.  

The complaint seeks restitution of, disgorgement of, and the
imposition of a constructive trust upon all "excess" occupancy
taxes allegedly collected by Hotels.com.  On April 29, 2005, the
court issued an order granting the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

On Feb. 1, 2006, the court of appeals reversed the holding
certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court.  
On April 20, 2006, Ms. Canales filed a fourth amended petition
and a new motion for class certification.  

Certification briefing has been deferred indefinitely, according
to the company's form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


HOTWIRE INC: March Conference Set in Calif. Occupancy Taxes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A March 23 case management conference is scheduled in a
consolidated suit against Hotwire, Inc. and IAC/InterActiveCorp
over alleged improper charging and/or failing to pay hotel
occupancy taxes by the companies.

On April 19, 2005, three actions filed against Hotwire and
IAC/InterActiveCorp were consolidated and now are pending as
"Bruce Deaton v. Hotwire, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-05-437631,"
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco.

The consolidated suits are:

     -- "Bruce Deaton, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Hotwire, Inc. et al., No. 05-
         437631" filed Jan. 10, 2005;

     -- "Jana Sneddon, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Hotwire, Inc. et al., No. 05-
         437701," filed Jan. 13, 2005; and

     -- "Ashley Salisbury, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
         Similarly Situated and the General Public v. Hotwire,
         Inc. et al., No. 05-438781," filed Feb. 17, 2005.

The consolidated complaint, which was amended on Feb. 17, 2006,
alleges that Hotwire is improperly charging and/or failing to
pay hotel occupancy taxes and engaging in other deceptive
practices in charging customers for taxes and fees.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of all
persons who were assessed a charge for "taxes/fees" when booking
rooms through Hotwire.  The amended complaint alleges violation
of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions
Code, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
and breach of contract, and seeks imposition of a constructive
trust on monies received from the plaintiff class, as well as
damages in an unspecified amount, disgorgement, restitution,
interest and penalties.

The court held a hearing on Jan. 16, 2006, on plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The court stated, during that hearing,
that it would certify a class, but has not yet entered an order
to that effect.

The court is not requiring that Hotwire provide notice to the
potential class members.  A case management conference with the
court is scheduled for March 23, 2007.


LENNAR CORP: Bent Creek Residents to Sue Over Development Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Pierce (Fla.) residents threaten to file a class action
against Lennar Corp. for allegedly deceiving them of the sizes
of the house the developer plans to build in the neighborhood,
the Vero Beach Press-Journal reports.

Residents from the Bent Creek neighborhood are disgruntled over
the company's recent decision to begin building four new model
homes, some as small as 1,347 square feet next to their "estate"
homes that top 3,267 square feet and have been selling for
between $155,000 and $384,000.

According to some residents, Lennar began building the new homes
without informing residents and promised them when they bought
into the neighborhood the homes would be no smaller than 1,900
square feet.

Lennar representatives told residents they would be building
smaller homes on vacant lots between the larger homes.  
Residents are concerned the smaller homes would devalue their
properties and attract low-income residents.  

Located west of Hartman Road, Bent Creek was approved as a
planned unit development by the County Commission in January
2005 and will consist of 682 homes on 268 acres on lots 52- and
65-feet wide.


LEVITT CORP: Continues to Face Homeowners' Litigation in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levitt Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class action
pending in the 9th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Orange
County, Florida, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of 95 named
plaintiffs residing in approximately 65 homes in one of the
company's communities in Central Florida.  

The suit was filed by Frank Albert, Dorothy Albert, et al.
against:

     -- Levitt and Sons, LLC, a Florida limited liability
        company;
     -- Levitt Homes, LLC; a Florida limited liability company;
     -- Levitt Corp., a Florida corporation;
     -- Levitt Construction Corp. East, a Florida corporation;
        and
     -- Levitt and Sons, Inc., a Florida corporation.

The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; failure to disclose
latent defects; breach of express warranty; breach of implied
warranty; violation of building code; deceptive and unfair trade
practices; negligent construction; and negligent design.

Plaintiffs seek certification as a class, or in the alternative
to divide into sub-classes, unspecified damages alleged to range
from $50,000 to $400,000 per house, costs and attorneys' fees.  
Plaintiffs seek a trial by jury.

On Feb. 15, 2006, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation for
Abatement of Lawsuit Pending Compliance with Chapter 558,
Florida Statutes and Order Approving Same.  Court approval of
the Joint Stipulation is pending.

Levitt Corp. on the Net: http://www.levittcorporation.com/.


MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc. remains a defendant in a class action brought on
behalf of participants in company's 401(k) defined contribution
retirement plan.

A purported class action, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al.,"
was filed against Motorola and various of its directors,
officers and employees in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on July 21, 2003, alleging breach
of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had improperly
permitted participants in the Motorola 401(k) Plan to purchase
or hold shares of common stock of Motorola because the price of
Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by a failure to
disclose vendor financing to Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon
Hizmetleri A.S. in connection with the sale of
telecommunications equipment by Motorola.  It sought unspecified
amount of damages.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of participants in the
Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held
shares of common stock of Motorola from "May 16, 2000 to the
present."  On Sept. 30, 2005, the district court dismissed the
second amended complaint filed on Oct. 15, 2004.  Plaintiff
filed an appeal to the dismissal on Oct. 27, 2005.

In addition, on Oct. 19, 2005, plaintiff's counsel filed a
motion seeking to add a new lead plaintiff and assert the same
claims set forth in the Howell Complaint.

On Aug. 11, 2006, the district court denied the Oct. 19 Motion,
finding the second purported plaintiff lacked standing to sue.  
Plaintiff filed an appeal.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the appeals court dismissed the second appeal.  
Three new purported lead plaintiffs have since intervened in the
case, and have filed a motion for class certification seeking to
represent Plan participants for whose individual accounts the
Plan purchased and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from
May 16, 2000 through Dec. 31, 2002.
  
According to a press release by Stull, Stull & Brody, the case  
"Howell v. Koenemann, et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-05044," the court
has denied a request by a former participant of the Plan to
intervene and represent the participant class, finding that only
current Plan participants have standing to assert the claims in
the case (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2006).  

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 "Howell v. Koenemann, et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-
05044," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull & Brody, Six East 45th  
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-7230, E-
         mail: ssbny@aol.com;

     (2) Robert D. Allison and Bruce C. Howard both of Robert D.  
         Allison & Associates, 122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste 1850,  
         Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 427-4500 or (312) 427-
         7600, E-mail: rdalaw@ix.netcom.com or  
         bchoward@ix.netcom.com; and

     (3) Joseph H. Weiss of Weiss & Yourman, 551 Fifth Avenue,  
         Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025.

Representing defendants are:

     (i) Brian William Barrett, Ada W. Dolph, Timothy F.  
         Haley, Ian H. Morrison, Camille Annette Olson, James  
         Stephen Poor, Allegra R. Rich, Brian M Stolzenbach and  
         Michael A. Warner all of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 131 South  
         Dearborn Street, Suite 2400, Chicago, IL 60603-4205,  
         Phone: (312) 269-8814 or (312) 460-5000 or (312) 346-
         8000, Fax: (312) 460-7977; E-mail: adolph@seyfarth.com  
         or thaley@seyfarth.com or imorrison@seyfarth.com or  
         colson@seyfarth.com or arich@seyfarth.com or  
         bstolzenbach@seyfarth.com;

    (ii) Sarah Kotler, John C. Massaro, Emily M. Pasquinelli and  
         Stephen M. Sacks all of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth,  
         Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: (202)  
         942-5000; and  

   (iii) Dara Sahebjami of Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn,  
         Ltd., 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 2410, Chicago, IL  
         60603, Phone: (312) 701-6800.


MOTOROLA INC: April Trial Set in Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
An April 16 trial is set for one of the cases in a consolidated
securities fraud class action pending against Motorola, Inc. in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

A purported class action, "Barry Family LP v. Carl F.
Koenemann," was filed against the former chief financial officer
of Motorola on Dec. 24, 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging breach of fiduciary duty
and violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5.

In 2003, the case was consolidated with a number of related
cases as, "In re Motorola Securities Litigation" in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  

The plaintiffs allege that the price of Motorola's stock was
artificially inflated by a failure to disclose vendor financing
to Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S., in connection
with the sale of telecommunications equipment by Motorola as
well as other related aspects of Motorola's dealings with
Telsim.

On Aug. 25, 2004, the Illinois District Court issued its
decision on Motorola's motion to dismiss, granting the motion in
part and denying it in part.  The court dismissed without
prejudice the fraud claims against the individual defendants and
denied the motion to dismiss as to Motorola.

The plaintiffs chose not to file an amended complaint;
therefore, the fraud claims against the individual defendants
are dismissed.  The court, however, declined to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims that the individual defendants were
"controlling persons of Motorola."  

During 2005, the court certified the case as a class action.  
The case is scheduled for trial beginning April 16, 2007,
according to the company's Feb. 28 form 10-k filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Motorola Securities Litigation, Case No. 03  
C 00287," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Robert C. Finkel, James A. Harrod and Lester Levy of  
         Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022,  
         Phone: (212) 759-4600 and (877) 370-7703, Fax: (212)  
         486-2093 and (877) 370-7704; and  

     (2) Bruce D. Greenberg of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, &  
         Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ  
         07102, Phone: (973) 623-3000.   

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Timothy F. Haley, Ian H. Morrison and Camille Annette  
         Olson of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 55 East Monroe Street,  
         Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603-4205, Phone: (312) 346-
         8000, E-mail: thaley@seyfarth.com,  
         imorrison@seyfarth.com and colson@seyfarth.com; and  

    (ii) Emily M. Pasquinelli of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth  
         Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: (202)  
         942-5000.


MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Face Suit Related to Adelphia MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on a motion it
filed in 2004 to dismiss claims against it in a suit related to
a consolidated securities and derivative suit by Adelphia
Communications Corp. shareholders.
  
On Dec. 22, 2003, Motorola was named as a defendant in "Stocke
v. John J. Rigas, et al."  This case was originally filed in
Pennsylvania and was subsequently transferred to the Southern
District of New York as related to "In re Adelphia
Communications Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation."

Several other individual and corporate defendants are also named
in the amended complaint along with Motorola.  As to Motorola,
the complaint generally makes the same allegations as the case,
"W.R. Huff Asset Management Co. L.L.C. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP,
et al." and a state law claim of aiding and abetting fraud
relating to Adelphia securities.  

The Huff complaint alleges a claim arising under Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder relating to Adelphia securities.

The complaint seeks return of the consideration paid by
plaintiff for Adelphia securities, punitive damages and other
relief.  Motorola filed a motion to dismiss this complaint on
April 12, 2004, which is awaiting decision, 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.


MOTOROLA INC: Dismissal of Suit Related to Charter Challenged
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC filed a petition for
certiorari seeking review of the dismissal of its suit against
Motorola Inc. by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

On Aug. 5, 2002, Stoneridge Investment filed a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri against Charter Communications, Inc. and certain of its
officers, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder relating to Charter securities.

This complaint did not name Motorola as a defendant, but
asserted that Charter and the other named defendants had
violated the securities laws in connection with, inter alia, a
transaction with Motorola.  On Aug. 5, 2003, the plaintiff
amended its complaint to add Motorola as a defendant.

As to Motorola, the amended complaint alleges a claim under
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5(a)-(c) promulgated thereunder relating to Charter
securities and seeks an award of compensatory damages.

The District Court issued a final judgment dismissing Motorola
from the case which plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 8th Circuit.  On April 11, 2006, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the final judgment of the District Court
dismissing Motorola from the case.

On July 7, 2006 plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari
seeking review of the Court of Appeals decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court.  On Oct. 20, 2006, Motorola submitted its
response opposing the petition.

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 against Charter Communications is 4:02-cv-01186-CAS.  


NFFP: Personal Trainers Sue Over "Faulty" Certification Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of California personal trainers filed a purported class
action in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County
against NFFP, the organization that certified them as personal
trainers.

The suit -- Case #RG05249097 -- alleges that the certified
personal trainers pose a health risk to the public when using
the methods endorsed in its certification program training
materials.

The class action currently consists of 18 personal trainers but
more trainers are currently being sought to join the suit.  The
personal trainers each paid $199 to achieve the NFFP personal
trainer certification through an Internet distance-learning
program.  

Program participants receive a 42-page study guide and have to
pass a 25-question test to earn their Personal Trainer
Certification.

Jeremy Thompson, the spokesperson for the group of personal
trainers said, "NFFP claimed that their materials would make us
competent and effective personal trainers.  In reality, their
materials where riddled with errors that can lead to serious
injury when put in practice."

The suit claims that by certifying the group as personal
trainers, NFFP exposed the public to unsafe exercise practices
and the trainers to personal liability.

The licensing and certification of personal trainers is
unregulated in most states.  

For more details, contact David Schwantes of Starting-a-
Personal-Training-Business.com, Phone: +1 (949) 241-4566, Web
site: http://www.starting-a-personal-training-business.com/.


NORTHERN NATURAL: Appeal on Nebr. ERISA Suit's Nixing Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal against the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska of a purported class action filed
against Northern Natural Gas Co. for violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act has been dismissed.  

On June 7, 2005, the suit, "Lou Geiler, et al. v. Robert W.
Jones, et al.," was filed in by, among others, Lou Geiler and
Larry Moore, both former employees of the Omaha, Nebraska-based
company on behalf of the participants in the Northern Medical
and Dental Plan for Retirees and Surviving Spouses against:

     -- former and present members of the Trust Committee;
     -- the Trustee and the participating employers of the Enron
        Gas Pipelines Employee Benefit Trust; and
     -- a voluntary employees' beneficiary association (VEBA),
        including Transwestern Pipeline Co., LLC and
        CrossCountry Energy Services, LLC,

claiming the Trust Committee and the Trustee have violated their
fiduciary duties under ERISA.

Seeking a jury trial, the suit specifically alleges that the
committee members and plan trustee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank of
Texas violated their fiduciary duties by refusing to transfer
funds from the Enron retiree plan to the retiree plan of
MidAmerican Energy Co., the company that now owns Northern
Natural Gas.

Court document revealed that Dynegy Inc. gained ownership of
Northern Natural Gas in February 2002 after a failed merger with
Enron.  The suit also alleges that the fiduciaries failed or
refused to correct improper allocations of retiree plan
participants and their dependents from the Enron plan to
Northern Natural Gas' plan.

The suit is seeking a declaration from the court binding all
participating employers of an accounting and distribution of the
assets held in the Trust and a complete and accurate listing of
the individuals properly allocated to the company from the Enron
Plan.  

On Feb. 6, 2006 the Nebraska action was dismissed.  Plaintiffs
filed an appeal of the dismissal on March 8, 2006.

An agreement was reached on the conditions of the partition of
the Trust among the VEBA participating employers, Enron and the
Trust Committee and approved by the Enron bankruptcy court on
Dec. 21, 2006.

As a result, the Nebraska action appeal was dismissed on Jan.
25, according to Southern Natural Gas Co.'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 "Geiler, et al. v. Jones, et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-
00268-LES-TDT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska under Judge Lyle E. Strom with referral to
Judge Thomas D. Thalken.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Donald L. Swanson, Heather S.
Voegele and Gregory C. Scaglione of Koley, Jessen Law Firm, 1125
South 103rd Street, Suite 800, One Pacific Place, Omaha, NE
68124, Phone: (402) 390-9500, Fax: (402) 390-9005, E-mail:
don.swanson@koleyjessen.com, heather.voegele@koleyjessen.com and
greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Steven D. Davidson of Baird Holm Law Firm, 1500
         Woodmen Tower, Omaha, NE 68102-2068, Phone: (402) 636-
         8227, Fax: (402) 231-8556, E-mail:
         sdavidson@bairdholm.com;

     (2) Gregory L. Ash of Spencer Fane Law Firm, 9401 Indian
         Creek Parkway, Suite 700, 40 Corporate Woods, Overland
         Park, KS 66210-2007, Phone: (913) 327-5115, Fax: (913)
         345-0736, E-mail: gash@spencerfane.com; and

     (3) Terry J. Grennan of Cassem Tierney Law Firm, 8805
         Indian Hills Drive, Suite 300, Omaha, NE 68114, Phone:
         (402) 390-0300, Fax: (402) 390-9676, E-mail:
         tgrennan@ctagd.com.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of an April 27
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of Openwave Systems, Inc. between Sept. 30, 2002 and Oct.
26, 2006, inclusive.  The suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Earlier, the law firm announced that a securities class action
had been filed, alleging defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period concerning the company's
financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price
of Openwave securities (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 8, 2007).

For more information, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)638-4847,
Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com,
or visit http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


ORGANOGENESIS INC: Mass. Securities Lawsuit Denied Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph Tauro of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts refused to certify a class in a securities
fraud lawsuit against former officers and directors of
Organogenesis Inc., citing the inadequacy of the firm seeking to
be the plaintiff's lead counsel, the Boston Business Journal
reports.

Judge Tauro sees it "disturbing" for Steven Schulman, one of the
indicted partners of Milberg, Weiss & Bershad LLP, to sign the
amended complaint in the Organogeneis case, though the firm
contended that he was no longer litigating it.

He also noted Milberg Weiss' "repeated failure" to oversee the
class certification process.

The judge noted that the firm and its partners were entitled to
a presumption of innocence, and that the firm "has a respectable
record and reputation for litigating securities class actions."

But he also wrote, "The court cannot ignore the fact that by
virtue of the indictment, Milberg Weiss is a different firm than
it once was... The indictment alone is not enough to cancel out
the firm's respected history, but it is enough to make this
court look carefully at lead counsel's adequacy in this case."

The judge also concluded that one of the named plaintiffs did
not have standing because he did not suffer harm, and the other
plaintiff couldn't serve as a suitable representative for the
class because of the timing of his stock ownership.

Organogenesis filed for chapter 11 protection on Sept. 25, 2002
(Bankr. D. Mass. Case No. 02-16944), restructured its business,
reduced costs, renegotiated its relationship with Novartis
Pharma AG concerning licensing of the Apligraf trademark and the
exclusive right to market and distribute Apligraf, and emerged
from chapter 11 in Sept. 2003 (Troubled Company Reporter).

The company's reorganization plan delivered an approximate 35%
cash distribution to the holders of allowed general unsecured
claims.  All of its stock was liquidated in the process, leaving
shareholders with nothing.

Shareholders filed the securities fraud suit against the company
and several former officers and directors on Jan. 2, 2004.

The suit is "Hofmann v. Laughlin et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-10027-
JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Jonathan A. Shapiro of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
         Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-526-6000, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
         jonathan.shapiro@wilmerhale.com;

     (2) James R. Carroll and Matthew J. Matule, both of
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, One Beacon
         Street, 31st Floor, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-573-
         4800 or 617-573-4887, Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:
         jcarroll@skadden.com or mmatule@skadden.com;

     (3) Vincent R. FitzPatrick, Jr., Glenn M. Kurtz and Robert
         E. Tiedemann, all of White & Case LLP, 1155 Avenue of
         the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-819-8200;

     (4) Andrew C. Glass and Rory J. Fitzpatrick, both of
         Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP, State
         Street Financial Center, One Lincoln Street, Boston, MA
         02111-2950, Phone: 617-261-3107 or 617-261-3100, Fax:
         617-261-3175, E-mail: andrew.glass@klgates.com or
         rfitzpatrick@klng.com;

     (5) Kimberly I. Friday and Jeffrey B. Rudman, both of
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 60 State
         Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-526-6328 or 617-
         526-6912, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
         kim.friday@wilmerhale.com or
         jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com;

     (6) Breton T. Leone-Quick and Peter M. Saparoff, both of
         Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC, One
         Financial Center, Boston, MA 02111, Phone: 617-542-
         6000, Fax: 617-542-2241, E-mail: bleone-quick@mintz.com
         or psaparoff@mintz.com; and

     (7) Sara Jane Shanahan of Griesinger, Tighe & Maffei, LLP,
         176 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-542-
         9900, Fax: 617-542-0900, E-mail: sshanahan@gtmllp.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Pastor of Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 225 Franklin
         Street, 16th Floor, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-742-
         9700, Fax: 617-742-9701, E-mail:
         dpastor@gilmanpastor.com;

     (2) Peter A. Lagorio of the Law Office of Peter A. Lagorio,
         63 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-367-
         4200, Fax: 617-227-3384, E-mail:
         plagorio@conversent.net; and

     (3) Nancy F. Gans of Moulton & Gans, P.C., 55 Cleveland
         Road, Wellesley, MA 02481, Phone: 781-235-2246, Fax:
         781-239-0353, E-mail: nfgans@gmail.com.


REDWOODS MORTUARY: Sued for Negligence in Care of Dead's Remains
----------------------------------------------------------------
A man whose father's body was among those in a storage facility
in a Rohnert Park (Calif.) mortuary where nine decomposing
bodies were found, filed a class action against the Abby Chapel
of the Redwoods Mortuary and its owner, CBS reports.

David Wells filed the suit in Sonoma County Superior Court in
California.  He alleges that Abby Chapel of the Redwoods
Mortuary and owner Anthony Villeggiante were negligent in the
care and disposal of the remains of Mr. Wells' father, Ralph,
because the remains were not cremated in a timely manner.

The complaint, filed on behalf of at least 50 other unnamed
persons, alleges negligence, fraud, breach of contract and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The suit contains allegations already made by Rohnert Park
officials, that the corpses were not stored under adequate
refrigeration and that the mortuary did not have permits for the
storage facility on State Farm Drive.

Michael Fiumara, attorney for the mortuary, said that families
of some of the deceased and their attorneys appeared at a court
hearing last week when a temporary injunction was granted.

Michael Fiumara is with The Law Offices of Michael A. Fiumara,
182 Farmers Lane, Suite 100-A, Santa Rosa, CA 95405, Phone:
(707) 571-8600, Fax: (707) 568-7240.


ROYAL CANIN: Faces $50M Suit in Ontario Over Tainted Pet Food
-------------------------------------------------------------
French pet food supplier Royal Canin is facing a $50 million
class action in Toronto for allegedly selling contaminated
products in Canada, CBC News reports.

The lawsuit seeks compensation for anyone who has purchased
Royal Canin dog or cat food since Aug. 1, 2004.

It alleges that certain types of Royal Canin cat and dog food
contain excessive amounts of Vitamin D, which cause severe
illness or death in pets.

The lawsuit has yet to be certified.  None of the claims have
been proven in court.

Toronto lawyer Joel Rochon told CBC News that the class action
is based on the case of Whitby (Ont.), pet owner Janet Grixti,
whose chocolate lab Mocha is alleged to have suffered permanent
kidney damage after eating Royal Canin dog food.  

The company recalled some of its products last summer and
offered to pay a portion of Ms. Grixti's $40,000 veterinarian
bill, but she was not satisfied by the offer.

"The allegation is that the problem persists even today," Mr.
Rochon said.

"From what we can tell, there's a segment of the pet food supply
here in Canada that just doesn't have adequate quality assurance
associated with it and that's a big concern," he said.

Royal Canin wasn't available to CBC News to comment on the
lawsuit.

Plaintiffs' attorney Joel P. Rochon is from Rochon Genova LLP,
121 Richmond St. W, Suite 900, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2K1, Phone:
(416) 363-1867 or 1-866-881-2292 (toll-free), Website:
http://www.rochongenova.com.


ROYAL CANIN: Pet Owners Sue Over High Vitamin D in Dog, Cat Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Rochon Genova LLP and Himelfarb Proszanski LLP
commenced a national class action in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice on behalf of pet owners who have purchased certain
types of dog and cat food manufactured by Royal Canin Canada
company.

The claim seeks compensation for all those who have purchased
Royal Canin dog or cat food since Aug. 1, 2004.

The claim alleges that certain types of Royal Canin cat and dog
food contain excessive amounts of Vitamin D, which cause severe
illness or death in pets.

The claim further alleges that Royal Canin was negligent in
manufacturing and distributing the pet food, and that it knew or
ought to have known that excessive amounts of Vitamin D are
unsafe and leave dogs and cats vulnerable to developing
conditions such as hypercalcaemia and renal failure.

"Pets are like family members, death or chronic illness can have
a devastating impact," said Joel P. Rochon, co-lead counsel. "It
would appear that some sectors of the pet food industry in
Canada operate without any meaningful quality assurance and that
the industry is largely self-regulating," added David Himelfarb,
co-lead counsel.

The proposed representative plaintiff, Janet Grixti of Whitby,
Ontario, stated "If Royal Canin properly tested its products and
recalled the dog food in a timely manner, my dog would not have
developed chronic renal failure.  He is a very young dog, and
now he will have this costly condition for the rest of his
life."

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court.

For more information, contact Joel P. Rochon of Rochon Genova
LLP, 121 Richmond St. W, Suite 900, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2K1,
Phone: (416) 363-1867 or 1-866-881-2292 (toll-free), Website:
http://www.rochongenova.com;or Himelfarb Proszanski LLP, 250  
Dundas St. W., Suite 401, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 2Z5, Phone:
(416) 599-8080, Website: http://www.himprolaw.com.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues to Face Suit by Savings Plan Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. and a company executive remains defendant
in a breach of fiduciary duty suit pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The suit was filed on March 31, 2003, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty against the company, the company's Employee
Savings Plan (Plan) administrator, and Richard Jay Kogan, who
resigned as chairman of the board Nov. 13, 2002, and retired as
chief executive officer, president and director of the company
April 20, 2003.

In May 2003, the company was served with a second putative class
action complaint filed in the same court with allegations nearly
identical to the complaint filed March 31, 2003.  

On Oct. 6, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
which names as additional defendants' seven current and former
directors and other corporate officers.  

The complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses allegedly
suffered by the Plan.  The court dismissed this complaint on
June 29, 2004.  On July 16, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Appeal.

On Aug. 19, 2005 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
reversed the dismissal by the district court and the matter was
remanded back to the district court for further proceedings.

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.

Schering-Plough Corp. on the Net:
http://www.schering-plough.com.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Continues in N.J. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a consolidated securities class
action filed against Schering-Plough Corp. in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

Following the company's announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration had been conducting inspections of the company's
manufacturing facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had
issued reports citing deficiencies concerning compliance with
current Good Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were
filed against the company and certain named officers.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material
information and making material misstatements.

Specifically, they allege that the company failed to disclose an
alleged serious risk that a new drug application for CLARINEX
would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing issues, and
they allege that the company failed to disclose the alleged
depth and severity of its manufacturing issues.

These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001,
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
shares of company stock from May 9, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001.  

The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class.
The court certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003.
Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's Feb. 28 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:01cv829," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with
referral under Judge Mark Falk.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert J. Berg of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,
         2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Lee, NJ 07024,
         Phone: (201) 592-3201, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman,
         Esqs., 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, NJ 07645, Phone:
         (201) 391-7000, E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com;

     (3) Andrew Robert Jacobs Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia
         Jacobs & Sprouls, 245 Green Village Road, P.O. Box 901,
         Chatham Township, NJ 07928-0901, Phone: (973) 593-4900,
         E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com; and

     (4) Justin F. Johnson of Lunga, Evers & Johnson, Esqs., 710
         Route 46E, Suite 100, Fairfield, NJ 07004, Phone: (973)
         227-4200, E-mail: jfj.lejlaw@attglobal.net.

Representing the defendant is Douglas Scott Eakeley, Lowenstein
Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068-1791,
Phone: (973) 597-2500, E-mail: deakeley@lowenstein.com.


TD BANKNORTH: Enters $2.95M Settlement in Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
TD Banknorth Inc. settled a consolidated stockholder class
action arising out of a proposed merger with The Toronto-
Dominion Bank.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the day the merger agreement between TD
Banknorth and The Toronto-Dominion Bank was announced, five
complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against
TD Banknorth, TD Banknorth's Board of Directors, and with the
exception of one complaint, The Toronto-Dominion Bank.  

A sixth complaint was filed on Nov. 21, 2006.  One week later,
two complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of New York on
Nov. 28 and 30, 2006, respectively.  Finally, a Maine action was
filed on Dec. 8, 2006 in Superior Court.

All nine complaints are putative class actions filed on behalf
of TD Banknorth's public stockholders, which seek to enjoin the
transaction or collect damages on the grounds that disclosure
has been inadequate and that the consideration offered by The
Toronto-Dominion Bank is inadequate.

They all allege that TD Banknorth's directors and its majority
shareholder, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, have breached fiduciary
duties to the public shareholders by allowing The Toronto-
Dominion Bank to exert undue control over TD Banknorth within
the merger process.

In an order issued on Nov. 29, 2006, Vice Chancellor Lamb of the
Delaware Court of Chancery approved the Delaware plaintiffs'
motion to consolidate the six Delaware cases into one
comprehensive action within that court.

On or about Feb. 16, the parties to the consolidated action, "In
re TD Banknorth Shareholders Litigation," entered into a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the
six lawsuits comprising this consolidated action, without
admission of any wrongdoing by any of the defendants.

Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the
parties agreed, among other things, that:

      -- Wendy Suehrstedt and Peter Verrill will be treated as
         affiliates of The Toronto-Dominion Bank for purposes of
         the requirement that the merger agreement be approved
         by holders of a majority of all outstanding shares of
         TD Banknorth common stock not owned by The Toronto-
         Dominion Bank and its affiliates;

      -- TD Banknorth would make certain disclosures requested
         by the plaintiffs; and

      -- The Toronto-Dominion Bank will establish a settlement
         fund in an aggregate amount of approximately $2.95
         million.

If the proposed settlement is finalized and approved, this
settlement fund amount would be paid on pro rata basis to TD
Banknorth stockholders who receive the merger consideration (an
estimated $0.03 per share based upon the current number of
outstanding shares of TD Banknorth common stock).

The memorandum of understanding further states that the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will provide,
among other things, that the complaints in the six actions
comprising the consolidated lawsuit will be dismissed with
prejudice, and that the final stipulation of settlement will
contain a broad general release of all claims that have been or
could have been brought by members of the purported class in
connection with the merger.

The proposed settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including successful completion of confirmatory discovery and
negotiation of definitive settlement documentation, completion
of the merger, and final approval by the Delaware Court of
Chancery following notice to the company's stockholders.

Motions to stay or dismiss the New York and Maine actions have
been filed with the respective courts.  The Maine Court has
permitted expedited discovery by the plaintiffs to commence.

TD Banknorth, Inc. on the Net: http://www.tdbanknorth.com/.


TECO ENERGY: Parties Settle Fla. Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated securities class action filed against
TECO Energy, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
have settled the matter, 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.

Purchasers of company securities filed a number of securities
class actions in August, September and October 2004.  These
suits, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, allege disclosure violations under
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On Feb. 1, 2005, the court entered its order appointing the
"TECO Lead Plaintiff Group," as the lead plaintiff for the
class, which is comprised of:

     -- NECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur Plan),
     -- Monroe County Employees Retirement System,
     -- John Marder, and
     -- Charles Korpak.

The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP, was appointed as lead counsel by the court as well.

The plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint
for securities fraud on May 3, 2005.  The consolidated complaint
maintains the same class period, Oct. 30, 2001 to Feb. 4, 2003,
and the same parties as those contained in the original
complaint.  

The nature of the claims, which relate to the adequacy of the
company's disclosures and financial reporting, also remains the
same.

The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 25, 2005.  
The plaintiffs have been granted an extension to file their
response through Dec. 31, 2005, since the parties have agreed to
mediate the claims in mid-December 2005, in order to eliminate
uncertainty and ongoing expense associated with the litigation.

In March 2006, the court partially dismissed the consolidated
case.  According to Judge James Whittemore's ruling, the
plaintiffs relied on analysts' reports that they alleged
revealed the company's fraud.  

However those reports, while pessimistic about the company's
future, did not identify any improprieties, the judge wrote.

In addition, the judge pointed out that the plaintiffs did not
sufficiently establish a connection between the specific
fraudulent activity alleged and a drop in stock prices.

Thus in dismissing part of the plaintiff's complaint and the
request for class action, Judge Whittemore wrote, "In sum,
plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that defendant's fraud,
as opposed to poor market conditions, was the proximate cause of
TECO's stock price decline."

The judge, however, did not grant the company's motion to
dismiss the entire case.  His reason for not granting that
motion was because he found that the plaintiffs did set forth
allegations of deception and manipulation that were sufficient
to support a fraud claim.

The plaintiffs filed their further amended complaint to which
the company and the defendants filed their motion to dismiss on
Jul. 7, 2006, based on failure to plead loss causation as raised
in the prior motion.  Plaintiffs filed their response to the
motion to dismiss on July 21, 2006.  

On Oct. 10, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss in part, leaving only one remaining issue dealing with
public statements relating to the status of the contracting plan
for the approximately 6,000 Megawatts of merchant power then
under construction in several states outside of Florida.

On Oct. 30, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Rule 54(b) motion
asking the court to enter a final judgment on the matters that
were dismissed by its Oct. 10 order in order to appeal that
portion of the order immediately, while maintaining the balance
of the action in the district court.

The court denied the Rule 54(b) motion.  A mediation on the
entire suit occurred on Feb. 16, whereby the company reached an
agreement in principle to settle the shareholder securities
class action.

The suit is "In Re: TECO Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 8:04-cv-01948-JDW-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge James D.
Whittemore.

Representing the plaintiffs are David A. Rosenfeld, Samuel H.
Rudman, William S. Lerach, Darren J. Robbins, Stephen Richard
Astley, David D. George and Jack Reise of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone: 561/750-3077, 619/231-1058
and 631/367-7100, Fax: 561/750-3364 and 631/367-1173, E-mail:
sastley@lerachlaw.com, dgeorge@lerachlaw.com,
jreise@lerachlaw.com and drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the company are:

     (1) Diane Knox, Richard A. Rosen of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
         Wharton & Garrison LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas,
         New York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212/373-3000;

     (2) Tracy A. Nichols, Holland & Knight LLP, 701 Brickell
         Ave., Suite 3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL 33131-
         5441, Phone: 305/374-8500, Fax: 305/789-7799, E-mail:
         tracy.nichols@hklaw.com; and

     (3) Steven B. Rosenfeld, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New
         York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212/373-3000, Fax: 212-757-
         3990.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: To Seek Dismissal of Ky. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. is set to file a motion seeking
the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action
filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, 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.

Between Oct. 7, 2005 and Nov. 21, 2005, five complaints were
filed against the company and certain of its directors and
officers purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders who
purchased the company's stock between Apr. 22, 2005 and Sept.
19, 2005.

These actions were consolidated and Lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on Feb. 27, 2006 and asserted claims
arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Lead plaintiffs allege that certain of the company's public
disclosures regarding its financial performance between April
22, 2005 and Sept. 19, 2005 were false and/or misleading.

On Dec. 7, 2006, lead plaintiffs were permitted to file an
amended complaint.  Defendants' motion to dismiss is due to be
filed on March 30.  

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs, fees and other
relief within the court's discretion.  

The suit is "Grillo, et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00410-JMH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Joseph M. Hood.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michelle M. Ciccarelli of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, US, Phone: 619-213-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423; and

     (2) Andrei V. Rado of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, & Schulman,
         L.L.P. - New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor,
         New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-
         868-1229.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael D. Blanchard of Bingham McCutchen, LLP -
         Hartford CT, One State Street, Hartford, CT 06103-3178,
         Phone: 860-240-2700, Fax: 860-240-2800, E-mail:
         michael.blanchard@bingham.com; and

    (ii) Barry D. Hunter of Frost Brown Todd, LLC, 250 W. Main
         Street, 2700 Lexington, Financial Center, Lexington, KY
         40507, Phone: 859-231-0000, Fax: 859-231-0011.


TENNESSEE GAS: La. Court Dismisses Hurricane-Related Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
has dismissed three class action petitions for damages that name
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. as one of the defendants in each
case.

The suits were filed against all oil and natural gas pipeline
and production companies that dredged pipeline canals, installed
transmission lines or drilled for oil and natural gas in the
marshes of coastal Louisiana.

The lawsuits are:

      -- "George Barasich, et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission
         Co., et al.,"

      -- "Charles Villa Jr., et al. v. Columbia Gulf
         Transmission Co., et al., (filed in 2005)," and

      -- "Henry and Hattie Bands et al. v. Columbia Gulf
         Transmission Co. et al., (filed in August 2006)."

All three assert that the defendants caused erosion and land
loss, which destroyed critical protection against hurricane
surges and winds and was a substantial cause of the loss of life
and destruction of property.  

Additionally, "Barasich" and "Bands" allege damages associated
with Hurricane Katrina.  While, "Villa" alleges damages
associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The three cases were dismissed on the basis that the plaintiffs
failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.  

Those judgments are now final and none of the plaintiffs have
appealed, 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.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. on the Net:
http://www.tennesseeadvantage.com/default.asp.


TEREX CORP: Conn. Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of Connecticut approved a
settlement reached by Terex Corp. in a purported class action
and derivative complaint filed by a company shareholder.

The complaint was filed on Sept. 14, 2005, and is entitled,
"Michael Morter, derivately on behalf of nominal defendant Terex
Corp., v. G. Chris Andersen, Ronald M. DeFeo, Don DeFosset,
William H. Fike, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, J.C. Watts,
Jr., Helge H. Wehmeier and Phillip C. Widman, defendants, and
Terex Corp., nominal defendant."

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the
company's by-laws.  Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment requesting that the court order the company to hold an
annual meeting of shareholders which has not been held to date
due to the inability of the company to satisfy U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission and New York Stock Exchange rules.

On Nov. 30, 2006, the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut
officially approved the settlement of the company's previously
disclosed shareholder 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 settlement required the company to make minor modifications
to certain of its corporate governance documents and to pay $0.2
million in fees and expenses to counsel for the plaintiffs in
the class action.

The settlement will not have a material impact on the company's
financial statements.  As a result of the settlement, the
company amended its Audit Committee Charter to recommend, but
not require, members of its Audit Committee to attend periodic
continuing education programs at the company's expense.

In addition, as a result of the settlement, the company amended
its Governance Guidelines to provide that, in an uncontested
election, any nominee for Director receiving less than a
majority of the votes cast shall offer to resign from the Board
of Directors, and the Governance and Nominating Committee of the
Board and the full Board shall consider the resignation offer,
but shall not be obligated to accept it.

Terex Corp. on the Net: http://www.terex.com/.


WISCONSIN: Court Certifies Lawsuit Over Prison Healthcare
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
denied a motion seeking the dismissal of a purported class
action filed by four inmates at Taycheedah Correctional
Institution (TCI).

Judge Rudolph Randa also granted class-action status to the
case, known as, "Flynn et al v. Doyle et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
00537-RTR."

The American Civil Liberties Union initiated the case on behalf
of women prisoners, charging that the state prison system puts
their lives at risk through grossly deficient health care and
provides far inferior mental health treatment as compared to men
(Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2006).

The lawsuit, which was brought by the women, the ACLU's National
Prison Project and the ACLU of Wisconsin, seeks for a court that
will implement reforms to the system so that constitutionally
adequate care is made available.

In its legal complaint, the ACLU charged that the prison's
health system violates the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the
Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection, because the
women receive mental health care far inferior to what male
prisoners receive.  

The ACLU said these lapses in mental health care occur against
the backdrop of a prison system that has a suicide rate of twice
the national average.

According to the complaint, the system dramatically fails women
with both physical and mental diseases, as two well-publicized
incidents demonstrate.  

In February 2000, a 29-year-old asthmatic prisoner collapsed and
died in Taycheedah's cafeteria after repeated requests for
medical help.  

In June 2005, an 18-year-old suicidal prisoner hanged herself in
her cell while supposedly "in observation" in the mental health
unit at Taycheedah, which allegedly provides no in-patient care
and serves only to isolate and punish the most vulnerable women.  

Unlike the women at Taycheedah, men with severe mental health
issues may be assigned to the Wisconsin Resource Center, an
inpatient psychiatric facility that provides round-the-clock
care and individualized treatment for male offenders.

Even beyond these high-profile cases, the medical system is
failing women at Taycheedah on a daily basis, according to the
ACLU.  

In general, the case graphically describes the human suffering
resulting from the breakdown of an understaffed, underfunded and
dangerously dysfunctional health care system in Wisconsin's
prisons.  

The four women that were named, as plaintiffs in the case are
inmates:

      -- Kristine Flynn,
      -- Lenda Flournoy,
      -- Vernessia L. Parker, and
      -- Debbie Ann Ramos.

Defendants named in the suit are:

      -- Gov. Jim Doyle;

      -- Mathew Frank, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of
         Corrections;

      -- James Greer, Director, WDOC Bureau of Health Services
         (BHS);

      -- David Burnett, M.D., Medical Director, BHS;

      -- Donald Hands, Ph.D., Psychology Director, BHS;

      -- Barbara Ripani, Dental Director, BHS;

      -- Ana Boatwright, Warden, TCI;

      -- Holly Meier, Health Services Unit Manager, TCI; and

      -- Steven Meress, M.D., Supervising, Physician, TCI.  

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1bb2

The suit is "Flynn et al. v. Doyle et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
00537-RTR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin under Judge Rudolph T. Randa.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gouri N. Bhat of National Prison Project of the ACLU
         Foundation, 915 15th St NW - 7th Fl., Washington, DC
         20005, Phone: 202-393-4930, Fax: 202-393-4931, E-mail:
         gbhat@npp-aclu.org; and

     (2) Laurence J Dupuis of American Civil Liberties Union of
         WI Foundation, 207 E Buffalo St. - Ste. 325, Milwaukee,
         WI 53202, Phone: 414-272-4032, Fax: 414-272-0182, E-
         mail: ldupuis@aclu-wi.org; and

     (3) Robert L. Graham of Jenner & Block LLP, 330 N. Wabash
         Ave., Chicago, IL 60611-7603, Phone: 312-923-2785, Fax:
         312-840-7785, E-mail: rgraham@jenner.com.

Representing the defendants are Corey F. Finkelmeyer and Francis
X. Sullivan, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Office of the
Attorney General, 17 W Main St., P.O. Box 7857, Madison, WI
53707-7857, Phone: 608-266-7342 and 608-267-2222, Fax: 608-267-
8906 and 608-267-2223, E-mail: finkelmeyercf@doj.state.wi.us and
sullivanfx@doj.state.wi.us.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


JPMORGAN CHASE: Greenfield & Goodman Files Ill. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Greenfield & Goodman, LLC announces that a new
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

John Hollinger and S.C. Rabin, beneficiaries of fiduciary
accounts overseen by JPMorgan Chase, filed the complaint against
the bank, its parent, JPMorgan Chase & Co. arising out of, among
other issues, the fundamental change in the bank's provision of
services to fiduciary account beneficiaries and the Bank's
investment of assets held in the Bank's fiduciary accounts in
its proprietary JPMorgan mutual funds, the JPMorgan Funds.

The claims in the complaint are brought under and pursuant to:

     -- Sections 11 and 12 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933;
     -- Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
        1934;
     -- Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
        and Exchange Commission;
     -- as well as common law claims of breach of fiduciary
        duty.

The complaint alleges that the bank -- with the active
participation of its corporate parent and their respective
subsidiaries, together with the Trustees of the JPMorgan Funds:

     (a) distributed various JPMorgan Funds prospectuses that
         misrepresented material facts and/or omitted material
         facts as to, among others:
         
              -- the conflicts of interest between and among the
                 defendants; and
              -- the expenses that would be absorbed by the
                 beneficiaries of the affected fiduciary
                 accounts; and

     (b) the failure of the Trustees of the JPMorgan Funds to  
         seek advisory and administrative services in the best
         interests of the ultimate beneficiaries of the
         fiduciary accounts which were caused by the Bank to
         purchase JPMorgan Funds shares.

The complaint also seeks recovery of the defendants' unjust
enrichment.

The class consists of all beneficiaries of fiduciary accounts
for which the bank was and is corporate fiduciary during the
specified Class Period, March 1, 2003 to the present.  It
includes those beneficiaries whose assets were invested by the
Bank in JPMorgan Funds.

As such, members of the class include beneficiaries of trusts,
estates, employee benefit plans for which the Bank or one of its
predecessors is or was the Trustee, Executor, Personal
Representative, Administrator, etc.

Interested parties may move the court no later that May 21, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

The suit is "Rabin et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.,
Case No: 1:06-CV-5452," filed in the U.S. Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge William J. Hibbler.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard D. Greenfield of Greenfield & Goodman, LLC,
         7426 Tour Drive, Easton, MD 21601, Phone: (410) 745-
         4149, E-mail: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net;

     (2) Myron Milton Cherry and Daniel J. Becka, both of Myron
         M. Cherry & Associates LLC, 30 North LaSalle Street,
         Suite 2300, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 372-2100,
         E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com or
         dbecka@cherry-law.com;

     (3) Michael Peter Conway of Grippo & Elden LLC, 111 South
         Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 704-7700,
         E-mail: docket@grippoelden.com; and

     (4) Ann Miller of Ann Miller, LLC, 834 Chestnut Street,
         Suite 206, Philadelpha, PA 19107, Phone: (215) 238-
         0468, E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Mary J. Hackett, Gregory B. Jordan, Sharon I. Rutnak
         and Kristopher Issac deVyver, all of Reed Smith LLP,
         435 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412)
         288-3250 or (412) 288-4588 or (412) 288-7260, E-mail:
         mhackett@reedsmith.com or kdevyver@reedsmith.com; and

     (2) David Michael Rotenberg of Wildman, Harrold, Allen &
         Dixon, 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3000, Chicago, IL
         60606-1229, Phone: (312) 704-7700, Fax: (312) 558-1195,
         E-mail: docket@grippoelden.com.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: 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 New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Monster Worldwide, Inc.
(MNST) between May 6, 2005 and June 9, 2006, inclusive.

The action charges Monster, Andrew T. McKelvey, Myron Olesnyckyj
and Charles "Lanny" Baker 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 14, 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.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. announces that a
lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of RadioShack Corp. between Jan. 14, 2003 and June 7, 2006,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that RadioShack and certain of its
officers and directors violated Federal Securities laws by
issuing highly positive but false statements about RadioShack's
inventory wireless business, new store format and the company's
future prospects.

Defendants' false statements inflated RadioShack's stock price
from about $20 per share just before the start of the Class
Period on Jan. 14, 2003 to over $30 per share by mid-November
2003 and then to a Class Period high of $35.41 on Feb. 19, 2004.

The complaint alleges that defendants took advantage of this
artificial inflation and sold over 500,000 shares of the
RadioShack stock they owned at an average price of $31 per share
for illegal insider proceeds of over $17 million.

It is alleged that defendants knew that their positive
statements were false because, among other things, the company
was knowingly carrying millions of dollars worth of excess and
obsolete inventory.

RadioShack stock declined to about $15 per share as the truth
leaked into the market.

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

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


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. announces that a
lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of Wireless Facilities, Inc., between March
29, 2001 to March 12, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Wireless Facilities and certain of
its officers and directors violated Federal Securities laws 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.

As a result, 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 May 18, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

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


                            *********


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  * * *