CAR_Public/070326.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, March 26, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 60

                            Headlines


ALBERTSON'S INC: Idaho Court Okays $53.3M Labor Suit Settlement
ASARCO INC: Okla. Court Stays Lawsuit by Quapaw Residents
AUSTRALIA: To Face Lawsuit by Farmers Damaged by Bushfires
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Gov't. Brief Requested in Tamoxifen Suit
CALIFORNIA: 91 Express Lanes Operator Sued Over Imposed Fines

CALIFORNIA: Homeless Fresno Residents Win Victory in Court
CANADA: Caledonia Land Row Suit Certification Hearing Set June
CANADA: Same Sex Partners Win Partial Retroactive Pension Payout
DELAWARE: N.Y. Convict Could be Part of Suit Over Death Penalty
EATON VANCE: 2nd Circuit Rejects Fund Investors' ICA Complaints

EXELON CORP: Suit Over Ill. Tritium Spill Denied Certification
FAIRVIEW HEALTH: Settles Lawsuit by Class of Uninsured Patients
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Units Still Face Suits Over Credit Reporting
FIRST NLC: Continues to Face FCRA Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
FIRST NLC: Calif. Court Certifies FLSA Violations Lawsuit

FIRST NLC: "Funders" File FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Still Faces N.Y. Consolidated Securities Suit
GANNETT CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Colo.
GENESEE & WYOMING: Rail Yard Case Settlement Conference Set
GIANT INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit in Ariz. Over Western Refining Deal

LOUDEYE CORP: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wash.
LOUISIANA: Caddo School Sued Over Special Education Program
MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Ontario Court Over Pet Food Recall
MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Wis. Court Over Recalled Pet Food
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Units Still Face Natural Gas Suit in Kans.

MOLSON COORS: Continues to Face Suits Related to 2005 Merger
NL INDUSTRIES: Appeals Court Affirms Quapaw Tribe Suit Rulings
NOKIA CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Headset for Hand-Helds
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
PHILIP SERVICES: $79.75M Securities Suit Settlement Approved

PNC FINANCIAL: Approval of Adelphia Suit Settlement Under Appeal
PNC FINANCIAL: ERISA Suit Plaintiffs Seek Rehearing of Appeal
QUICKSILVER INC: Customer Files FACTA Violations Suit in Calif.
SENDTEC INC: Second Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Filed
STATE FARM: Judge Senter Denies Class Status Request in "Guice"

TOWN SPORTS: Consents to Mediation for Overtime Lawsuit in N.Y.
WIRELESS FACILITIES: J&P Corrects Lead Plaintiff Filing Info
* EU Unveils Plans to Bring U.S.-Style Class Action to Europe


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCREDITED HOME: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Lawsuit
ACCREDITED HOME: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
COAST FINANCIAL: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit
COAST FINANCIAL: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing

RADIOSHACK CORP: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Federman Announces Securities Suit Filing
WORLDSPACE INC: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


ALBERTSON'S INC: Idaho Court Okays $53.3M Labor Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for the
District Court of Idaho approved a $53.3 million settlement of a
consolidated class action against Albertson's, Inc. by salaried
grocery managers, the Associated Press reports.

The settlement will pay an average of $7,000 to more than 7,000
employees.  Some will receive as much as $28,000.

As part of the settlement, Supervalu Inc. -- which acquired
Albertson's for $9.7 billion in June 2006 -- also agreed to pay
$6.5 million in attorney's fees.

"As we work to build a best-in-class organization, SuperValu
believes that it is in the best interests of the company and our
associates to reach agreement on all these claims," the company
said in a statement.  "SuperValu is committed to full compliance
with all laws governing the work place.  We expect that all
associates will be fully paid for all work performed and that no
work will be performed off the clock."

Albertson's employees filed 10 federal and state lawsuits in
1996 and 1997, and those suits were combined as part of a class
action.  The case raises various issues including "off-the-
clock" work allegations and allegations regarding certain
salaried grocery managers' exempt status.

In September 2000 an agreement was reached and court approval
granted to settle eight purported class and/or collective
actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho.

Under the settlement agreement, current and former employees who
met eligibility criteria were allowed to present their off-the-
clock work claims to a claims administrator.

Additionally, current and former grocery managers employed in
the State of California were allowed to present their exempt
status claims to a claims administrator.

The company mailed notices of the settlement and claims forms to
approximately 70,500 associates and former associates.  About
6,000 claim forms were returned, of which approximately 5,000
were deemed by the claims administrator to be incapable of
valuation, presumed untimely, or both (the Unvalued Claims).

The claims administrator was able to assign a value to
approximately 1,080 claims although the value of many of those
claims is still subject to challenge by either party.  Two other
claims processes occurred during 2004.

The company raised certain challenges to the claims process,
including the supplemental information submitted by plaintiffs'
counsel in 2005, and valuation protocols.

On Jan. 4, 2006, the court granted in part the company's motion
and directed the claims administrator to value the claims
disregarding certain information (Class Action Reporter, April
21, 2006).

The suit is "In Re: Albertson's Inc. Employee, Case No. 1:98-md-
01215-BLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) James H. Webster, Richard P. Blumberg and Lynn D. Weir,
         all of Webster Mrak & Blumberg, P O Box 16365, Seattle,
         WA 98116, Phone: (206) 223-0344, Fax: 1-206-223-0316,
         E-mail: jhwatty@wmblaw.net or rpbatty@wmblaw.net or
         ldwatty@wmblaw.net;

     (2) Robin S. Owings, Glen D. Nager, Alison B. Marshall, all
         of Jones Day, 51 Louisiana Ave NW, Washington, DC
         20001, Phone: 202 879-3759, E-mail:
         rsowings@jonesday.com or gdnager@jonesday.com or
         abmarshall@jonesday.com;

     (3) Craig L. Meadows of Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP,
         PO Box 1617, Boise, ID 83701, Phone: (208) 344-6000,
         Fax: 1-208-342-3829, E-mail: clm@hteh.com;

     (4) Scott McKay of Nevin Benjamin & McKay LLP, PO Box 2772,
         Boise, ID 83701, Phone: (208) 343-1000, Fax: 1-208-345-
         8274, E-mail: smckay@nbmlaw.com; and

     (5) Richard N. Appel of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld,
         1333 New Hampshire Ave NW #400, Washington, DC 20036,
         Phone: (202) 887-4000, Fax: 1-202-887-4288, E-mail:
         rappel@akingump.com.


ASARCO INC: Okla. Court Stays Lawsuit by Quapaw Residents
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
has stayed proceedings in a purported class action, "Evans v.
ASARCO, Case No. Case No. 04-CV-94," according to the company's
March 13 form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

The suit was filed on Feb. 9, 2004 on behalf of two classes of
persons living in the town of Quapaw, Oklahoma:

      -- a medical monitoring class of persons who have lived in
         the area since 1994; and

      -- a property owner class of residential, commercial and
         government property owners.

Four individuals are named as plaintiffs, together with the
mayor of the town of Quapaw, Oklahoma, and the School Board of
Quapaw, Oklahoma.

Plaintiffs allege causes of action in nuisance and seek a
medical monitoring program, a relocation program, property
damages and punitive damages.

The company answered the complaint and denied all of plaintiffs'
allegations.  The trial court subsequently stayed all
proceedings in this case pending the outcome of a class
certification decision in another case that had been pending in
the same U.S. District Court, a case from which the company have
been dismissed with prejudice.

The suit is "Evans, et al. v. Asarco Inc., et al., Case No.
4:04-cv-00094-GKF-PJC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma under Judge Gregory K. Frizzell
with referral to Judge Paul J. Cleary.

Representing the plaintiffs is Tony Wayne Edwards of Edwards Law
Firm (McAlester), PO BOX 1066, McAlester, OK 74502, Phone: 918-
302-3700, Fax: 918-302-3701, E-mail: tedwards@edwardslawok.com.

Representing the defendants is John Phillip Gonsoulin of
Kirkland & Ellis (Washington DC), 655 15th St. NW, Ste. 1200,
Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-879-5000, Fax: 879-5200.


AUSTRALIA: To Face Lawsuit by Farmers Damaged by Bushfires
----------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of Victorian farmers affected by bushfires that started
on government lands are planning to launch a multi-million
dollar class action against the state if it fails to compensate
them on an individual basis, the News.com.au reports.

The farmers are planning to open a dialogue with the government,
hoping it would set up a compensation commission to determine
losses on an individual basis, but if it fails to do so, the
class action would be pursued all the way to the Supreme Court,
a lawyer for the group, Charles Slidders, said.

The government is allegedly negligent in maintaining national
parks and cleaning forest undergrowth that usually causes
bushfires.

More than 500 farmers would be seeking compensation "in the tens
of millions of dollars," according to Mr. Slidders.  They would
argue that state authorities failed to adequately carry out
backburning and fuel reduction operations, causing wildfires to
spread.  

The suit would encompass victims of bushfires dating back to the
2003 alpine crisis, according to Mr. Slidders.


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Gov't. Brief Requested in Tamoxifen Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court asked a brief from the U.S. Solicitor
General's office in relation to a class action over an agreement
between a unit of AstraZeneca PLC and a unit of Barr
Pharmaceuticals Inc. to delay marketing of a generic tamoxifen
drug, MarketWatch reports.

Under an agreement that follows a 1992 ruling in a patent
litigation between the companies over tamoxifen, a drug used to
treat breast cancer, Zeneca and its former parent, Imperial
Chemical Industries PLC, paid Barr and its supplier $56.9
million to delay its generic version of the drug and provided
Barr with tamoxifen for resale in the U.S. under a royalty
scheme.

Approximately 31 consumer or third-party payor class action
complaints were filed in state and federal courts against:

     -- Zeneca, Inc.,
     -- AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P., and
     -- Barr Pharmaceuticals

alleging, among other things, that the 1993 settlement of patent
litigation between Zeneca and the company violated the antitrust
laws, insulated Zeneca and the company from generic competition
and enabled Zeneca and the company to charge artificially
inflated prices for tamoxifen citrate.

A prior investigation of this agreement by the U.S. Department
of Justice was closed without further action.  On May 19, 2003,
the U.S. District Court dismissed the complaints for failure to
state a viable antitrust claim.   

On Nov. 2, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
affirmed the District Court's order dismissing the cases for
failure to state a viable antitrust claim.  

Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.  In the Supreme Court
appeal, the plaintiffs said the federal appeals courts are in
sharp disagreement over how antitrust laws apply to the brand
name and generic drug company agreements.

The case is Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation v. Barr
Laboratories, 06-830.

Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey-based Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NYSE: BRL) -- http://www.barrlabs.com/-- is primarily a  
holding company.  The company's subsidiaries, Barr Laboratories,
Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develop, manufacture and
market generic and proprietary pharmaceutical products,
respectively.


CALIFORNIA: 91 Express Lanes Operator Sued Over Imposed Fines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sixteen motorists have filed a class action against the Orange
County operators of the 91 Express lanes over penalties for
drivers failing to pay toll fees, The Press-Enterprise reports.

The lawsuit accuses the Orange County Transportation Authority
and the Transportation Corridor Agencies, which operates Orange
County's 67-mile public toll road system, of violating
constitutional protections against excessive fines.

The plaintiff alleges they were illegally assessed about
$336,000 in penalties after failing to pay about $2,500 in toll
fees.  They filed the suit in Orange County Superior Court in
January.  Anat Levy, a Beverly Hills attorney, represents the
plaintiffs.

The lawsuit alleges "widescale abuse" in the assessment of
penalties, questioning whether it is fair and legal to assess
penalties of up to $500 per violation when a driver fails to pay
a toll of a few dollars.  

It seeks unspecified damages and a court order to overturn the
fines.  It is unclear how many motorists might be considered a
part of the class covered under the toll road suit, according to
the report.


CALIFORNIA: Homeless Fresno Residents Win Victory in Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Oliver Wanger of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California refused to dismiss charges against Will
Kempton, the director of Caltrans, in a suit over the alleged
illegal confiscation and destruction of personal property of
homeless people in Fresno, Mike Rhodes at Comcast.net reports.

In October, Fresno was named as a defendant in a lawsuit over
allegations that work crews illegally confiscated and destroyed
their personal property when they tore down makeshift
settlements this year (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006).

The suit, "Kincaid, et al. v. city of Fresno, et al.," was filed
on behalf six homeless Fresno residents who claim that their
civil rights were violated.

It seeks a permanent ban on the removal of personal belongings
during similar city actions, a judgment that the practice
violates state and federal constitutional provisions and
unspecified monetary damages for destruction of property.  
Plaintiffs want to turn the suit into a class action.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California is one
of two organizations that filed the suit on Oct. 17, 2006.  The
other is the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.

Other defendants named in the lawsuit are:

      -- California Department of Transportation,
      -- Fresno Mayor Alan Autry,
      -- Police Chief Jerry Dyer,
      -- Police Capt. Greg Garner,
      -- Caltrans director Will Kempton, and
      -- other city employees.

According to the suit, "for more than a year, defendants have
engaged in an ongoing and continuing policy and practice of
raids on those Fresno residents who are unsheltered, in which
they take and destroy the personal property of these
individuals."

The suit claims that the city violated the homeless residents'
Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure,
their 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection
under the law, and similar violations of the state constitution.

Attorneys for the homeless said that property was seized without
giving those residents a chance to reclaim it and the city
rarely gave notice that it was coming.

In October, Judge Wanger issued a temporary order requiring
Fresno to keep personal belongings so homeless residents can
reclaim them when homeless settlements are torn down.

The suit is "Kincaid, et al. v. City of Fresno, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01445-OWW-SMS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California under Judge Oliver W. Wanger with
referral to Judge Sandra M. Snyder.

Representing the plaintiff is Paul Alexander of Heller Ehrman,
LLP, 275 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506, Phone:
(650) 324-7000 or 7015, Fax: (650) 324-0638, E-mail:
paul.alexander@hellerehrman.com.  

Representing the defendants are James B. Betts of Betts &
Wright, P.O. Box 28550, Fresno, Ca 93729, Phone: (559) 438-8500,
Fax: (559) 438-6959, E-mail: bettswrightlaw@sbcglobal.net.


CANADA: Caledonia Land Row Suit Certification Hearing Set June
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the certification of a suit over the occupation of
the Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia is set June 18 to 20
before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, AM900 CHML
(Canada) reports.

In June 2006, John Findlay at Findlay McCarthy LLP represented
two unnamed businesses in Caledonia in filing a class action
complaining of financial losses arising from a road closure
after native protesters barricaded roads to the Douglas Creek
Estates property in 2006 (Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2006).

The suit was filed on June 12 against the Corporation of
Haldimand County, the Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner
Gwen Boniface and the Cayuga Detachment Commander of the OPP.  
The Government of Ontario was put on notice as additional
defendant.

The suit is based on the alleged failure of the parties to keep
roads open and follow court injunctions issued in March to
remove the protesters from Douglas Creek Estates.


CANADA: Same Sex Partners Win Partial Retroactive Pension Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada has granted in part and denied in
part a motion by Canadian gay couples seeking retroactive
pension payment under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) survivor
pensions.   

The court did not allow retroactive Canada Pension Plan survivor
benefits to gay couples way back 1985, but it did allow for
payment of 12 months of retroactive compensation.

The class members are gay men and lesbians whose partners died
between April 17, 1985 and Jan. 1, 1998.  Those partners paid
into the government run Canada Pension Plan but unlike
heterosexual pensioners, when they died their survivor benefits
were not paid to their surviving partners.

In 2000, the federal government enacted the Modernization of
Benefits and Obligations Act, which allowed same-sex surviving
partners to collect the pensions but restricted payments to
those whose partners had died after January 1998.  There is no
such restriction for heterosexual survivors.

The late gay activist George Hislop sued claiming discrimination
by the government.  Ontario's highest court later ruled that
denying retroactive same-sex benefits to widowed gays and
lesbians violates their rights and is unconstitutional.

The class members, in their appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada, are seeking to restore the decision of the trial judge,
which guarantees a full and equal pension to heterosexual
survivors.  The class members also seek a full and equal pension
for the estates of survivors.

On March 1, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that the federal
government breached equality rights when it granted benefits
only to survivors whose mates died after Jan. 1, 1998.  The
ruling potentially affects about 1,500 people or their estates.

The suit is "Hislop et al. v. Attorney General of Canada."

Representing the survivor benefit claimants is lawyer Doug
Elliott.


DELAWARE: N.Y. Convict Could be Part of Suit Over Death Penalty
---------------------------------------------------------------
A jury has recommended death penalty for a man who raped and
murdered a university student from Westchester County in New
York, according to The Associated Press.

Judge Jerome O. Herlihy will now have to decide whether James
Cooke Jr. will be executed by lethal injection.  If Judge
Herlihy imposes a death sentence, Mr. Cooke will become part of
a suit that was granted class-action status in February.  That
case is scheduled for July.

                   The Robert W. Jackson Case

In February, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware granted class-action status to a civil case that raises
constitutional questions about how the state's death penalty is
carried out (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2006).

In an eight-page opinion, Judge Sue L. Robinson basically  
included all state inmates facing the death penalty into a suit,  
which charges that lethal injection is unconstitutionally cruel  
and unusual.  A September bench trial is now scheduled before
Judge Robinson.    

                         Case Background

Mr. Jackson's lawsuit, which was filed on May 8, 2006, questions  
the chemicals used in lethal injections -- supposed to be nearly  
instantaneous -- and the training of people who carry them out  
(Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006).

Specifically, the suit questions whether lethal injection is  
truly quick and a humane way to die.  It alleges that some  
prisoners actually die a slow, lingering death by suffocation.

Mr. Jackson, 33, was convicted and sentenced to death for the  
1992 ax murder of 47-year-old Elizabeth Girardi during a  
burglary of her Hockessin home.

His suit placed an indefinite and unofficial hold on state's  
death penalty, including his May 19 execution.   

Mr. Jackson's lawsuit was filed less than two weeks before his  
scheduled execution.  At that time, Judge Robinson issued a  
preliminary injunction blocking Mr. Jackson's execution, pending  
a June 2006 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding inmates'
rights to raise constitutional questions about lethal injection
in federal court.  The Supreme Court has ruled that inmates may
do so.

The suit is "Jackson v. Taylor et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00300-
SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of  
Delaware under Judge Sue L. Robinson.

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael Wiseman, Federal  
Community Defender for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,  
Capital Habeas Unit, Federal Court Division, Defender  
Association of Philadelphia, Curtis Center, Suite 545 West, 601  
Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, US, Phone: (215) 928-
0520, Fax: (215) 928-0825, E-mail: Michael_Wiseman@fd.org.  

Representing the defendants is Loren C. Meyers, Department of  
Justice, State of Delaware, 820 N. French Street, 8th Floor,  
Carvel Office Building, Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone: (302) 577-
8500, E-mail: loren.meyers@state.de.us.


EATON VANCE: 2nd Circuit Rejects Fund Investors' ICA Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
A 2nd Circuit court ruled that a group of mutual fund investors
suing Eaton Vance Corp. could not claim damages under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 for their complaints that company
managers paid kickbacks to brokers who agreed to promote fund
shares, The CourtHouse News reports.  

The circuit court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the act
implied private rights of action in every section of the
Investment Company Act of 1940, saying this "was clearly not
Congress' intent," according to the report.

In 2004, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against:

     -- Eaton Vance Corp.;
     -- Eaton Vance Management;
     -- Boston Management and Research;
     -- Eaton Vance, Inc.;
     -- Eaton Vance Distributors, Inc.;
     -- Lloyd George Investment Management (Bermuda) Limited;
     -- OrbiMed Advisors LLC;
     -- Lloyd George Investment Management (B.V.I.) Limited;
     -- nine current or past trustees of 81 Eaton Vance funds  
        named as nominal defendants; and
     -- 12 current or past officers and portfolio managers of
        the Funds.  

The plaintiffs were seven alleged shareholders of four of the 81
Funds.  The suit, a purported class action, alleged violations
of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940, New York law and the common law, and breaches of
fiduciary duties to the Funds and their shareholders.

The suit is "In Re Eaton Vance Mutual Funds Fee Litigation."


EXELON CORP: Suit Over Ill. Tritium Spill Denied Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Suzanne Conlon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois denied class-action status to a lawsuit
against Exelon Corp. over allegations that the company spilled
more than 6 million gallons of tritium-laced water from its
Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant into the surrounding community
over a 10-year period and failed to notify residents and
regulatory officials, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The judge concluded that attorneys who filed the suit went too
far in defining the potential plaintiffs, or class, as up to
6,500 people living in a 25-square-mile area surrounding the
Braidwood Generating Station.

"The class area is defined in geographic terms unrelated to
evidence of actual tritium contamination," the judge wrote.  As
defined, the area includes about 2,500 properties, but only
three were contaminated, based on Exelon measurements and
plaintiff contamination models, she said in a ruling.

"Plaintiffs provide no evidence that tritiated groundwater has
contaminated properties throughout the proposed class area," she
said.

In late 2005, Exelon's nuclea unit Exelon Nuclear announced
elevated tritium levels were found in groundwater outside the
plant.  It later said most of the contamination resulted from
two major spills in 1998 and 2000, although the company
determined tritium had been spilled at least 22 times.

Tritium, a byproduct of nuclear generation, can enter the body
through ingestion, absorption or inhalation.  Exposure can
increase the risk of cancer, birth defects and genetic damage.

On March 13, 2006, a class action was filed against the company,
Exelon Generation Co. and Commonwealth Edison Co., as the prior
owner of Braidwood, in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, on behalf of all persons who live or own
property within 10 miles of Braidwood.

The plaintiffs primarily seek:

      -- a court-supervised fund for medical monitoring for
         risks associated with alleged exposures to tritium; and

      -- compensation for diminished property values.

Exelon filed a motion to dismiss the case, contending that the
plaintiffs cannot meet the dose threshold required to maintain a
public liability action under the Price-Anderson Act.   This
motion was denied.

On March 14 and 23, 2006, 37 area residents filed two separate
but identical lawsuits against the same defendants in the
Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois alleging property
contamination and seeking compensation for diminished property
values.

The company removed these cases to federal court, and all three
cases were assigned to the same judge.   It has submitted its
answer to the class action.  The company's motions to dismiss
the amended complaints in the other two lawsuits were denied in
part on July 19, 2006.

The court dismissed all claims premised on violations of
Illinois environmental statutes.  The court has set a schedule
for a class certification motion and discovery for all three
suits.

On Sept. 29, 2006, amended complaints were filed in all three
cases.  Seven plaintiffs withdrew from the cases, and 18
additional plaintiffs were added.

On Oct. 11, 2006, two area residents filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
defendants.

The allegations in the complaint are substantially similar to
the lawsuits described above, and the case has been transferred
to the judge overseeing the other federal cases.

Company officials said testing of private wells near the plant
showed elevated tritium levels -- which were well below federal
drinking water limits -- in only one private well.  They said
groundwater contamination was confined to the plant site and
nearby areas.  Exelon, state and federal officials have said the
contamination near Braidwood poses no threat to public health.

In a recent announcement, Exelon Nuclear officials said they had
significantly reduced tritium contamination at and near the
plant.

The first federal suit is "Duffin et al. v. Exelon Corp. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01382," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Suzanne B. Conlon.

Representing the plaintiffs is Nicholas Evans Sakellariou of
McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner, Buck, Hutchison & Ruttle, 2455
Glenwood Avenue, Joliet, IL 60432, Phone: (815) 729-4800.


FAIRVIEW HEALTH: Settles Lawsuit by Class of Uninsured Patients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Judge Marilyn Justman of the Hennepin County District
Court will hold a fairness hearing on May 31, 2007 at 8:30 a.m.
on a proposed settlement of a class action filed against
Fairview Health Services by uninsured patients who received
services from the company.

The class includes uninsured patients who received medically
necessary services (this settlement excludes cosmetic and other
elective services such as LASIK surgery) between Feb. 17, 1999
and April 1, 2005 from:

     * the University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview
       (formerly known as Fairview-University Medical Center);

     * Fairview Ridges Hospital;
  
     * Fairview Southdale Hospital;

     * Fairview Northland Medical Center;

     * Fairview Lakes Medical Center; or

     * any of associated hospital-based clinics.

and were billed by Fairview at 100% of Fairview's applicable
list of charges, and did not receive at least a 25% discount on
bill (patients who received discounts or Community Care which
reduced their original charges by 25% or more do not qualify for
this settlement).  The suit was certified as a class action on
Feb. 6, 2007.

This settlement will be carried out as:

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

     -- those class members who paid more than 75% of an
        eligible bill that had original charges of $500 or more,
        may be entitled to a credit voucher to use on future
        Fairview services.

The credit voucher will be equal to the amount the patient paid
in excess of 75% of the eligible bill.  Credit voucher request
and application must be filed with:

     Fairview Health Services
     Legal Review
     400 Stinson Boulevard NE
     Minneapolis MN 55413-2614
     (612) 672-2212 or Toll Free 1-866-447-8117

The Settlement on the Net: http://www.fairview.org/settlement.


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Units Still Face Suits Over Credit Reporting
-------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of First Advantage Corp. remain defendants in
several class actions in relation to credit reporting that are
pending in New York, California, and New Jersey, according to
the company's March 1 form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.   

                      New York Litigation

On such litigation was pending in a federal court in New York
against one of the company's subsidiary.  The parties reached a
settlement agreement in principle pending court approval.

The plaintiffs allege that the company's subsidiary, directly
and through its agents, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
New York's Fair Credit Reporting Act and New York's Deceptive
Practices Act by failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure
the maximum possible accuracy when issuing tenant reports.

The action sought injunctive and declaratory relief,
compensatory, punitive and statutory damages, plus attorneys'
fees and costs.

If approved by the court, the settlement does not have a
material adverse affect on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

                      California Litigation

Two subsidiaries are defendants in separate class actions that
are pending in state court in California.  The plaintiffs in
both cases allege that the company's subsidiaries, directly and
through their agents, violated the California Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act and California Business and Professions
Code by failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure the
maximum possible accuracy when issuing tenant reports.

The actions seek injunctive relief, an accounting, restitution,
statutory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.  In one of the cases, the court has denied the
plaintiff's motion of class certification.  The company does not
believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have
a material adverse affect on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

                      New Jersey Litigation

Recently, one subsidiary has been named in a class action in New
Jersey in which certain plaintiff health care professionals
allege that the company acting as a third party administrator
for state or governmental licensing boards or agencies
improperly employed a certain type of substance testing which
the plaintiffs contend is unreliable and rendered results which
led to suspension or revocation of their health care licenses.

The actions seek damages, interest, punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

First Advantage Corp. on the Net: http://www.fadv.com/.


FIRST NLC: Continues to Face FCRA Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
First NLC Financial Services, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc., remains a defendant in a
purported class action alleging violations of Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The putative class action, "Cerda v. First NLC Financial
Services, LLC," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 8, 2006.

Friedman reported no development in the case at its March 1 form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is Case No. 1:06-cv-00735.  It is before Judge Mark
Filip.

Representing the plaintiff is Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 South LaSalle Street, 18th
Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, E-mail:
courtecl@edcombs.com.

Representing the defendant is Mitchel H. Kider of Weiner,
Brodsky, Sidman & Kider, 1300 Nineteenth Street, NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 628-2000, E-mail:
kider@wbsk.com.


FIRST NLC: Calif. Court Certifies FLSA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Northern District of California granted conditional class
certification to a purported class action filed against First
NLC Financial Services, LLC over alleged violations of Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The putative class action, "Stanfield, et al. v. First NLC
Financial Services, LLC, Case No. C 06-3892 SBA," was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on June 22, 2006.

It was brought on behalf of former and current First NLC
employees who worked as loan officers, loan processors, and
account managers, for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The complaint alleges violations of California wage and hour
laws, including claims for Unfair Competition, waiting-time
penalties, and damages for missed meal and rest periods under
California law.

The court granted conditional class certification on Nov. 1,
2006 for violations of the FLSA and ordered circulation of a
notice about the case on Dec. 5, 2006.  

First NLC Financial is a wholly owned subsidiary of Friedman,
Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc.

The suit is "Stanfield et al. v. First NLC Financial Services,
LLC, Case No. 4:06-cv-03892-SBA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Saundra Brown Armstrong with referral to Judge James Larson.

Representing the plaintiffs is Peter S. Rukin of Rukin Hyland
Doria & Tindall, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 725, San Francisco,
CA 94111, Phone: 415-421-1800 Ext. 201, Fax: 415-421-1700, E-
mail: peterrukin@rhdtlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Michael D. Weil of Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, 405 Howard Street, San Francisco,
CA 94105-2669, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: 415-773-5759, E-mail:
mweil@orrick.com.


FIRST NLC: "Funders" File FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
First NLC Financial Services, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc., was named as a defendant
in a purported class action alleging violations of Fair Labor
Standards Act by a group of plaintiffs who work (or worked) for
First NLC as "funders."

The suit, "Sparrow-Milrot, et al. v. First NLC Financial
Services, LLC, Case No. SA CV 07-0119 AHS RCX," was filed on
Jan. 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  

Plaintiffs have not obtained class or collective action
certification and First NLC has not answered the complaint,
according to Friedman's March 1 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The case is before Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler with referral to
Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman.

Representing the plaintiffs are Bryan J. Schwartz of Nichols
Kaster and Anderson, One Embarcadero Center, 301 Clay Street,
Suite 720, San Francisco, CA 94111, US, Phone: 415-277-7236, E-
mail: schwartz@nka.com.


FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Still Faces N.Y. Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Friedman Billings Ramsey Group, Inc. remains a defendant in a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Initially, the company and certain of its current and former
senior officers and directors were named in a series of putative
securities class actions filed in the second quarter of 2005.

The complaints in these actions are brought under various
sections of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and allege misstatements and omissions concerning the
investigation conducted by the staff of the Division of
Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
staff of the Department of Market Regulation of National
Association of Securities Dealers, concerning insider trading
and other charges related to the company's trading in a company
account and the offering of a private investment in public
equity on behalf of CompuDyne, Inc. in October 2001.  

The suits also allege misstatements and omissions with regard to
the company's expected earnings, including the potential adverse
impact on the company of changes in interest rates.

These cases have been consolidated under, "In re FBR Inc.
Securities Litigation."  A consolidated amended complaint has
been filed asserting claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The company did not report any development in the case at its
March 1 form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: FBR, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
05-CV-04617," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Richard J. Holwell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,      
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite
         200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax:
         631-367-1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com;

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

     (3) Nancy Kaboolian of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, US,
         Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax: (212) 684-5191, E-mail:
         nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com.

Representing the defendants is George Anthony Borden Williams &
Connolly, LLP, 725 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005, Phoen:
(202) 434-5563, Fax: (202) 434-5029, E-mail: gborden@wc.com.


GANNETT CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gannett Co. Inc. remains a defendant in a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Dec. 31, 2003, two employees of the company's television
station KUSA in Denver filed the suit against the company and
the Gannett Retirement Plan on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals who participated in the Plan
after Jan. 1, 1998, the date that certain amendments to the Plan
took effect.  

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the current pension
plan formula adopted in that amendment violated the age
discrimination accrual provisions of the ERISA.  They seek to
have their post-1997 benefits recalculated and seek other
equitable relief.

The court has granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

The company reported no development in the case in its March 1
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Wells, et al. v. Gannett Retire Plan, et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-02671-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Richard P. Matsch.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John Hathaway Evans, Jr. and Robert F. Hill of Hill &
         Robbins, P.C., 1441 - 18th Street #100, Denver, CO
         80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-296-8100, Fax: 303-296-2388,
         E-mail: johnevans@hillandrobbins.com and
         roberthill@hillandrobbins.com; and

     (2) Douglas R. Sprong of Korein Tillery, LLC, 701 Market
         Street #300, St. Louis, MO 63101, U.S.A, Phone: 314-
         241-4844, Fax: 314-588-7036, E-mail:
         dsprong@koreintillery.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Kerri Atencio, Michael S. Beaver and Parker Whitfield
         Dragovich of Holland & Hart, LLP, Phone: 719-475-6474
         and 303-290-1600, Fax: 303-290-1606, E-mail:
         kjatencio@hollandhart.com, mbeaver@hollandhart.com and
         pdragovich@hollandhart.com; and
  
    (ii) Margaret A. Clemens of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Clinton
         Square, P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY 14603, U.S.A,
         Phone: 585-263-1453, Fax: 585-263-1600, E-mail:
         MClemens@nixonpeabody.com.


GENESEE & WYOMING: Rail Yard Case Settlement Conference Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
A 2007 settlement conference was scheduled for a class action
over noise pollution that was filed against Genesee & Wyoming,
Inc. in the Quebec Superior Court.

On February 2002, an individual living adjacent to the Outremont
rail yard filed a motion for authorization of class
certification in the Quebec Superior Court in Canada in
connection with a claim against:

     -- two of the company's subsidiaries:
         
        * Genesee Rail-One Inc., now Genesee & Wyoming Canada  
          Inc., and  

        * Quebec-Gatineau Railway Inc.; and
    
     -- Canadian Pacific Railways, which owns the rail yard.   

The individual alleged that the noise emanating from the
Outremont rail yard causes significant nuisance problems to the
residents who live near the rail yard.  The rail yard has a part
of it leased to and operated by Quebec-Gatineau Railway.  

The plaintiff described the proposed class as comprised of all
owners and tenants of dwellings who have lived within a defined
section of the Outremont neighborhood in Montreal, which is
adjacent to the rail yard.  

Plaintiff requested the issuance of an injunction in order to
limit the hours when the rail yard may operate.  The plaintiff
has not alleged any specific monetary claim with respect to the
damages of other members of the class, but is seeking to recover
for his "trouble and inconvenience" as well as for "potential
devaluation of the value of his property."  

On May 27, 2004, the Quebec Superior Court dismissed the
plaintiff's request to institute the class action, and the
plaintiff filed an appeal with Quebec Court of Appeal.  

On Nov. 11, 2005, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the
Quebec Superior Court's finding a class could not be certified,
but noted the proposed class could only include owners and
tenants within the defined geographic area since 1999.  

This case was remanded back to the same judge who previously
dismissed the plaintiff's request to institute a class action.  
On Jan. 9, 2006, Genesee & Wyoming Canada Inc., Quebec-Gatineau  
Railway and Canadian Pacific Rail, filed applications for leave
to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the Quebec Court
of Appeal's decision to allow the class action to proceed.

On May 18, 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its
decision, rejected the application for leave and remanded the
matter back to the Quebec Superior Court, where the class action
will be heard in accordance with the ruling of the Quebec Court
of Appeal.  

The plaintiff published notices of the class action in local
newspapers on June 7, 2006.  On June 26, 2006, the plaintiff
filed a Bill of Costs before the Quebec Court of Appeal and was
awarded immaterial costs.

The plaintiff has not yet commenced proceedings on the merits of
the underlying claim and has requested a settlement conference
be held prior to any proceedings being instituted.  The
settlement conference is expected to take place by early 2007.

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

Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. on the Net: http://www.gwrr.com/.


GIANT INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit in Ariz. Over Western Refining Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Giant Industries, Inc. was named a defendant in a purported
class action over its proposed merger with Western Refining,
Inc., according to the company's March 1 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Nov. 22, 2006, Timothy Bisset filed a class action complaint
in Arizona state court against the company, its directors and
Western in connection with the merger.

Among other things, Mr. Bisset alleges that the company and its
directors breached their fiduciary duty in voting to amend the
plan of merger on Nov. 12, 2006 to provide for, among other
things, a lower acquisition price of $77.00 per share.  Mr.
Bisset also alleges that Western aided and abetted this breach
of fiduciary duty.  

Mr. Bisset alleges that he and other public stockholders of the
company's common stock are entitled to enjoin the proposed
amended transaction or, alternatively, to recover damages in the
event the transaction is completed.

Giant Industries, Inc. on the Net: http://www.giant.com/.  


LOUDEYE CORP: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loudeye Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Nokia Corp., was
named a defendant in several purported securities fraud class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, according to Nokia's March 12 Form 20-F
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Oct. 4, 2006, a securities class action was filed against
Loudeye Corp. alleging that Loudeye management had materially
misled the investing public between May 19, 2003 and Nov. 9,
2005.  Two nearly identical complaints were subsequently filed.

The suits generally claim that the Loudeye executives made
overly optimistic statements about the success of a
reorganization, provided overly optimistic business projections,
issued incomplete and misleading financial statements and were
in possession of material adverse information that was not
disclosed to the investing public.

The first identified complaint is "Corso et al. v. Loudeye
Corp,, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01442-MJP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington under
Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

      (1) David Daniel Hoff of Tousley Brain Stephens, 1700
          Seventh Ave., STE. 2200, Seattle, WA 98101-1332,
          Phone: 206-682-5600, E-mail: dhoff@tousley.com;

      (2) Kim E. Miller of Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (NY), 114 E.
          39th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 1-914-723-0619,
          E-mail: kim.miller@kglg.com; and

      (3) David R. Scott of Scott + Scott LLP (CT), 108 Norwich
          Ave., P.O. BOX 192, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone: 860-
          537-5537, E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com.

Representing the defendants is Steven P. Caplow of Davis Wright
Tremaine, LLP, 1501 4th Ave., Ste. 2600, Seattle, WA 98101-1688,
Phone: 206-628-7617, Fax: 628-7699, E-mail:
stevencaplow@dwt.com.


LOUISIANA: Caddo School Sued Over Special Education Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers backed by Montgomery, Ala.-based civil rights
organization The Southern Poverty Law Center has filed a class
action complaint against the Caddo Parish school system over its
special education offering, it emerged in a report by The
Shreveport Times.

The suit was filed on behalf of six students in middle or high
school in December.  State Education Department officials
visited Caddo early in March to investigate the complaint,
including that teachers and administrators fail to follow
behavior and instruction plans listed in a student's education
plan.

In a parent forum not related to the complaint, parents said
they can't get their children evaluated for special services
despite repeated requests.  They also said that putting pressure
on the school system to provide services sometimes leads to
threats, according to the report.  Also, other parents reported
of sanctions against their children despite paperwork showing
the children have disabilities.

The complaint alleges Caddo is suspending or expelling those
students and others with the same problems instead of providing
counseling, social workers, extra tutoring and other services
outlined in the students' education plans.

According to the report, the suit is asking the Education
Department force Caddo to:

     -- strictly comply with federal special education law
        discipline requirements;

     -- reduce the number of emotionally disturbed students in
        self-contained classrooms;

     -- provide individual education plan services at all
        alternative schools;

     -- start reading and math remediation programs at all
        elementary schools with emotionally disturbed students;
        and

     -- start a program that provides positive behavior supports
        to keep students in regular classes.


MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Ontario Court Over Pet Food Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
A national class action has been commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on behalf of pet owners who have
purchased certain types of dog and cat food manufactured by Menu
Foods Inc.

The suit alleges that Menu Foods failed to implement quality
assurance procedures and failed to adequately test the dog and
cat food prior to introducing it into the Canadian market.

The claim seeks compensation for all those who have purchased
dog or cat food manufactured by Menu Foods between Dec. 3, 2006
and March 6, 2007.

On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American wide
recall of 48 brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food that
they manufacture, distribute, market and sell throughout Canada
and the U.S.

This recall was in response to reported deaths of cats and dogs
in the U.S.

The proposed representative plaintiff's cat died as a result of
kidney failure after ingesting Menu Foods cat food.  Acute renal
failure and death are allegedly linked to the ingestion of
certain types of dog and cat food manufactured by Menu Foods.

"Not only does a chronically ill pet come with a financial
impact, it can be devastating to a family," said Joel P. Rochon
co-lead counsel.  "Pet Food companies have an obligation to
ensure there are quality control mechanisms in place,
particularly since this is a largely self regulating sector in
Canada" added David Himelfarb co-lead counsel.

Amanda Whiting, the proposed Canadian representative plaintiff,
stated, "My veterinarian does not think that my cat will live
much longer than another day.  If Menu Foods recalled the food
in a timely manner, I would not have to deal with the death of
my cat."

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court.  The plaintiff and the prospective class members are
represented by the law firms of Rochon Genova LLP and Himelfarb
Proszanski LLP.

For more information, contact 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.


MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Wis. Court Over Recalled Pet Food
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Jablonski of the Progressive Law Group, filed a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court in Madison, Wisconsin, against Menu
Foods, Inc., saying it produced and distributed pet food that
might be dangerous, and possibly deadly, to animals, reports
say.

Filed on behalf of Jacqueline Johnson of Madison, Wisconsin, the
complaint contends her gray tabby, Gumbie, became ill after
eating food produced by Menu Foods in early February.

Ms. Johnson claims Gumbie became lethargic, refused food and
lost weight, and a veterinarian diagnosed acute renal failure.
The cat was "pet-hospitalized" and prescribed intravenous
fluids, costing Mr. Johnson more than $3,000.

The lawsuit is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.  Courts
will have to certify the class and what venue will hear the
case.

Mr. Jablonski said more than 95 people have joined the suit
since it was filed, and he expects many more.

Earlier, the company has recalled 60 million cans and pouches of
"cuts and gravy" style dog and cat food sold throughout North
America (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 23, 2007).

The food is sold under 95 brand names, including store brands
carried by Wal-Mart and other large retailers, as well as
private labels like Iams, Nutro and Eukanuba.

Menu Foods spokesperson Sam Bornstein declined to comment on the
lawsuit, but said the company has received tens of thousands of
consumer inquiries and is doing its best to respond to them.

Menu Foods, Inc. has identified the potentially contaminated
products on the Internet at http://www.menufoods.com/recall.

Plaintiffs' lawyer, Frank John Jablonski, is with the
Progressive Law Group LLC, 354 Main St., Madison, WI 53703,
Phone: (608) 258-8511, Web site:
http://www.progressivelawgroup.comor  
http://www.progressivelaw.com.


MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Units Still Face Natural Gas Suit in Kans.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. remains a
defendant in a nationwide class action pending in the 26th
Judicial District, District Court, Stevens County, Kansas, Civil
Department, according to the company's March 1 Form 10-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

On June 8, 2001, two subsidiaries of MidAmerican, namely,
Northern Natural Gas Co., and Kern River Gas Transmission Co.,
along with a number of interstate pipeline companies, were named
in the suit.  

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

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a fourth amended petition alleging a class of gas royalty owners
in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.  The court granted the motion
for leave to amend on July 28, 2003.  

Kern River was not a named defendant in the amended complaint
and has been dismissed from the action.  Northern Natural Gas
filed an answer to the fourth amended petition on Aug. 22, 2003.

On Jan. 4, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their class certification
motion and brief in support of that motion.  Northern Natural
Gas filed its joint brief and expert affidavits in opposition to
class certification on Feb. 22, 2005.  

The plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of class
certification on March 18, 2005.  Northern Natural Gas believes
that this claim is without merit.

On Nov. 9, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a request for a new
briefing schedule on class certification in light of a new
Kansas Supreme Court case on class actions which ruled that in
that case the trial court failed to engage in properly rigorous
analysis of class certification and choice of law issues and
remanded a denial of class certification for such an analysis.
Plaintiffs hope to use this as grounds for further class
certification briefing.

MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. on the Net:
http://www.midamerican.com/.


MOLSON COORS: Continues to Face Suits Related to 2005 Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Co., formerly Adolph Coors Co., remains a
defendant in several purported class actions in both the U.S.
and Canada in relation to its 2005 merger with Molson Inc.

Beginning in May 2005, several purported class actions were
filed against the company in the U.S. and Canada, including
federal courts in Delaware and Colorado and provincial courts in
Ontario and Quebec.  The suits allege, among other things, that
the company, including Molson Inc., and certain officers and
directors misled stockholders by failing to disclose first
quarter (January-March) 2005 U.S. business trends prior to a
merger vote in January 2005.

The Colorado federal case has been transferred to the Delaware
federal court.  The Delaware federal lawsuits also allege that
the company failed to comply with U.S. Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.  

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

Molson Coors Brewing Co. on the Net: http://www.molsoncoors.com.


NL INDUSTRIES: Appeals Court Affirms Quapaw Tribe Suit Rulings
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court has affirmed the rulings made by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in the
purported class action, "The Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma et al. v.
ASARCO Inc.," which names NL Industries, Inc. as a defendant.

The suit was filed on Dec. 10, 2003, alleging public nuisance,
private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, strict liability,
deceit by false representation and asserts claims under
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
against the company and six other mining companies with respect
to former operations in the Tar Creek mining district in
Oklahoma.

The complaint seeks class action status for former and current
owners, and possessors of real property located within the
Quapaw Reservation.  Among other things, the complaint seeks
actual and punitive damages from defendants.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint and denied all of
plaintiffs' allegations.  In June 2004, the court dismissed
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and fraud as well as
one of the RCRA claims.

In February 2006, the court of appeals affirmed the trial
court's ruling that plaintiffs waived their sovereign immunity
to defendants' counter claim for contribution and indemnity,
according to the company's March 13 Form 10-K Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, et al. v. Asarco Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:03-cv-00846-GKF-PJC," on appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma under Judge
Gregory K. Frizzell with referral to Judge Paul J. Cleary.

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Joseph H. Bates, III of Cauley Bowman Carney &
         Williams, LLC, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221,
         US, Phone: 501-312-8500, Fax: 502-312-8505, E-mail:
         hbates@cauleybowman.com; and

     (2) Michael A. Caddell of Caddell & Chapman, 1331 Lamar
         Ste. 1070, Houston, TX 77010, US, Phone: 713-751-0400,
         Fax: 713-751-0906, E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Steven A. Engel of Kirkland & Ellis (Washington DC),
         655 15th St. NW, Ste. 1200, Washington, DC 20005,
         Phone: 202-879-5000, Fax: 879-5200; and

    (ii) Paul David Kingsolver of Johnson Jones Dornblaser
         Coffman & Shorb, 15 W 6th St., Ste. 2200, Tulsa, OK
         74119-5416, Phone: 918-584-6644, Fax: 918-584-6645, E-
         mail: kingsolver@jjdcs.com.


NOKIA CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Headset for Hand-Helds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Corp. is seeking the dismissal of certain product-related
lawsuits pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, according to the company's March 12 Form
20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The company and several other mobile device manufacturers,
distributors and network operators were initially named as
defendants in a series of class actions filed in various U.S.
jurisdictions.

The cases were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland.  The actions were brought on behalf of
a purported class of persons in the U.S. as a whole consisting
of all individuals who purchased mobile phones without a
headset.

In general, the complaints allege that the defendants should
have included a headset with every hand-held mobile telephone as
a means of reducing any potential health risk associated with
the telephone's use, and assert causes of action based on
negligence, fraud and misrepresentation.

The relief sought by the complaint included unspecified amounts
of compensation for phone and headset costs, and attorneys'
fees.

The district court dismissed all of the cases on March 5, 2003,
on the theory that the issues raised are primarily within the
jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, not the
courts.

In 2005, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal and remanded the cases back to the courts of origin.
After the cases were remanded, the plaintiffs added a new
defendant that created removal under the Class Action Fairness
Act.

In 2006, each case was returned to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland.  At the current time, according to the
regulatory filing, all but two of the cases have been withdrawn
or dismissed.  

The remaining two cases are currently subject to a motion to
dismiss and a request to defer technical issues to the Federal
Communications Commission.

Nokia Corp. on the Net: http://www.nokia.com/.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a consolidated securities class
action filed against OmniVision Technologies, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On June 10, 2004, the first of several putative class actions
were filed against the company and certain of its present and
former directors and officers on behalf of investors who
purchased the company's common stock at various times from
February 2003 to June 9, 2004.

Those actions were consolidated as, "In re OmniVision
Technologies, Inc., No. C-04-2297-SC."  It asserts claims on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between June
11, 2003 and June 9, 2004.  It is seeking unspecified damages.

The suit generally alleges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
allegedly engaging in improper accounting practices that
purportedly led to the company's financial restatement.  

On July 29, 2005, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint and discovery commenced thereafter.  The
parties engaged in settlement discussions and in November 2006,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this
litigation.

The parties are currently drafting a written settlement
agreement and other customary documentation.  As a result of the
pending statement, the parties have agreed to stay discovery and
other proceedings.

The company reported no development in the matter in its March 9
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Jan. 31.

The suit is "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2297," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Samuel  
L. Conti with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marc Louis Ackerman of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala  
         Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 94104, Phone: 610-
         667-6200, Fax: 610-667-9029, E-mail:  
         mackerman@brodsky-smith.com;   

     (2) Peter A. Binkow of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801  
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-mail:
         pbinkow@glancylaw.com; and  

     (3) Jeffery C. Block of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt  
         & Pucillo, 8th Floor, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA  
         02109, Phone: (617) 542-8300, Fax: 6175421194, E-mail:
         jblock@bermanesq.com.   

Representing the defendants are Jenny L. Dixon, Cameron Powers  
Hoffman and Claudia N. Main of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,  
Phone: 415-947-2000, (650) 493-9300 and 415-947-2053, Fax: 415-
947-2099, E-mail: jldixon@wsgr.com, choffman@wsgr.com and  
cmain@wsgr.com.


PHILIP SERVICES: $79.75M Securities Suit Settlement Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave final approval to a $79,750,000 settlement in the matter,
"In re Philip Services Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 98
CV 835 (AKH)."

The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Philip Services during
the period Feb. 28, 1996 through May 7, 1998.

It is the largest sum ever paid by a Canadian accounting firm in
a securities fraud class-action case, according to plaintiffs'
attorney Neil Selinger, Esq. of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad &
Selinger P.C.

                         Case Background

Commencing in February 1998, several purported class actions
were filed in the U.S. against Philip, the individual defendants
(who were certain of its officers and directors), the
underwriter defendants and Deloitte & Touche LLP, Philip's
outside auditors.

Pursuant to May 19, 2006 court order, as modified, the
consolidated actions pending in the U.S. were certified as a
class action consisting of a class of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Philip
Services during the period Feb. 28, 1996 through May 7, 1998,
and who are members of one or more of these sub-classes:

      -- all persons and entities who, during the class period,
         (a) purchased the common stock of Philip on any U.S.
         stock exchange, and/or (b) purchased the common stock
         of Philip on any Canadian stock exchange and were
         residents or citizens of the U.S. at the time of said
         purchases (Open MarketSub-Class);

      -- all purchasers of Philip common stock issued in the
         secondary public offering by Philip on or about Nov. 6,
         1997 of approximately 23 million shares of stock,
         issued exclusively to U.S. residents (November 1997
         Offering), pursuant to the Form S-1 filed by Philip
         with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on or
         about Nov. 6, 1997 (November 1997 Registration
         Statement) (November 1997 Registration Statement Sub-
         Class);

      -- all persons whose shares of Allwaste Inc. common stock
         were exchanged for Philip common stock (the exchange
         thereby accomplished is hereinafter referred to as the
         "Allwaste Offering"), pursuant to the Form F-4 filed by
         Philip with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
         on or about June 24, 1997 relating to Philip's
         acquisition of Allwaste (Allwaste Registration
         Statement) (Allwaste Sub-Class); and

      -- all persons whose shares of Serv-Tech Inc. common stock
         were exchanged for Philip common stock (the exchange
         thereby accomplished is hereinafter referred to as the
         "Serv-Tech Offering"), pursuant to the Form F-4 filed
         by Philip with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
         Commission on or about June 24, 1997 relating to
         Philip's acquisition of Serv-Tech (Serv-Tech
         Registration Statement) (Serv-Tech Sub-Class).

Lead Plaintiffs Gabriel DiRienzo, Robert Gans, Robert Gans IRA,
Gregory Mappus, and Michael and Sophia Isaacs were appointed as
the representatives of the Open Market Sub-Class; Lead
Plaintiffs Gregory Mappus, Charles Fasold, and Lee Pittman were
appointed as the representatives of the November 1997
Registration Statement Sub-Class; Lead Plaintiffs Richard
Hershey, Albert Solkov, and James Collins were appointed as the
representatives of the Allwaste Sub-Class; and Lead Plaintiffs
Michael and Sophia Isaacs and Robert McElroy were appointed as
representatives of the Serv-Tech Sub-Class.

Mr. Selinger, Esq. and Jeffrey C. Block,Esq. of Berman DeValerio
Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo were appointed as Co-Lead Counsel
for the class.

In the consolidated and amended class action complaint,
plaintiffs asserted claims against the various defendants under
some or all of Sections 11,12(a), and 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Philip Services Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o Berdon
         Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY
         11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810,
         Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims;

     (2) Neil L. Selinger, Esq. of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad &
         Selinger, P.C., One North Lexington Avenue, White
         Plains, NY 10601, Phone: (914) 997-0500, Fax: (914)
         997-0035, Web site: http://www.ldbs.com/;and

     (3) Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease
         Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: 800-516-9926, E-mail: law@bermanesq.com,
         Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com.


PNC FINANCIAL: Approval of Adelphia Suit Settlement Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain parties have appealed the approval of a settlement of a
consolidated class action against a number of subsidiaries of
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. in relation to their lending
and securities underwriting activities with Adelphia
Communications Corp.

Some of the company's subsidiaries are defendants (or have
potential contractual contribution obligations to other
defendants) in several pending lawsuits brought during late 2002
and 2003 arising out of the bankruptcy of Adelphia
Communications and its subsidiaries.

There also are threatened additional proceedings arising out of
the same matters.  One of the lawsuits was brought, on
Adelphia's behalf by the unsecured creditors' committee and
equity committee in Adelphia's consolidated bankruptcy
proceeding and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by order dated Feb. 9, 2006.

The other lawsuits, one of which is a putative consolidated
class action, were brought by holders of debt and equity
securities of Adelphia and have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes in that district court.

These lawsuits arise out of lending and securities underwriting
activities engaged in by these PNC subsidiaries together with
other financial services companies.  

In the aggregate, more than 400 other financial services
companies and numerous other companies and individuals have been
named as defendants in one or more of the lawsuits.

Collectively, with respect to some or all of the defendants, the
lawsuits allege federal law claims, including violations of
federal securities and other federal laws, violations of common
law duties, aiding and abetting such violations, voidable
preference payments, and fraudulent transfers, among other
matters.

The lawsuits seek unquantified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other expenses, and a return of the alleged
voidable preference and fraudulent transfer payments, among
other remedies.

The bank defendants, including the PNC defendants, have entered
into a settlement of the consolidated class action referred to
above.  That settlement was approved by the district court in
November 2006.

In December 2006, a group of class members appealed the order
approving the settlement agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 2nd Circuit.

The company reported no development in the case in its March 1
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.pnc.com/.


PNC FINANCIAL: ERISA Suit Plaintiffs Seek Rehearing of Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. asked the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss a
consolidated amended class action filed against it over alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.  

On April 29, 2005, an amended complaint was filed in the
putative class action against PNC, PNC Bank N.A., the company's
Pension Plan and its Pension Committee in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (originally filed
in December 2004).  

The complaint alleges ERISA violations arising out of the Jan.
1, 1999 conversion of the company's Pension Plan from a
traditional defined benefit formula into a "cash balance"
formula, the design and continued operation of the Plan, and
other related matters.

The suit seeks to represent a class of all current and former
employee-participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of
Dec. 31, 1998 and thereafter.  

It also seeks to represent a subclass of all current and former
employee-participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of
Dec. 31, 1998 and thereafter who were or would have become
eligible for an early retirement subsidy under the former Plan
at some time prior to the date of the amended complaint.  

Plaintiffs are seeking damages and equitable relief available
under ERISA, including interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 21, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  Plaintiffs have appealed this
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which
affirmed the district court ruling in an opinion dated Jan. 30.

On Feb. 13, plaintiffs filed in the court of appeals a petition
for rehearing.  Plaintiffs may seek further judicial review of
the dismissal of their complaint, according to the company's
March 1 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Register, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-06097-LDD," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge Legrome D. Davis.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael S. Tarringer, Miller
Faucher and Caferty, LLP, One Logan Sq., 18th and Cherry
Streets, Ste 1700, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800,
E-mail: mtarringer@millerfaucher.com.  

Representing the company is William A. Slaughter, Ballard Spahr
Andrews and Ingersoll, 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor,
Philadelphia PA 19103, Phone: 215-665-8500, E-mail:
slaughter@ballardspahr.com.


QUICKSILVER INC: Customer Files FACTA Violations Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quicksilver Inc. was named a defendant in a purported federal
class action alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transaction Act (FACTA), according to its March 12 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Jan. 31.

The suit, "Burnis L. Simon, Jr. v. Quicksilver, Inc. (sic), Case
No. CV07-01326," was filed on Feb. 27 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  

The company has yet to be served with the complaint.  The suit
specifically alleges willful violation of FACTA based upon
certain of the company's retail stores' alleged electronic
printing of receipts on which appeared more than the last five
digits of customers' credit or debit card number and/or the
expiration of such customers' credit or debit card.

The complaint seeks statutory damages of not less than $100 and
not more than $1,000 for each violation, as well as unspecified
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and a permanent injunction
from further engaging in violations of FACTA.  It does not
allege that any class member has suffered actual damages.  

The suit is "Burnis L. Simon, Jr. v. Quicksilver, Inc. (sic),
Case No. CV07-01326," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Margaret M. Morrow
with referral to Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson.

Representing the plaintiffs is the Herbert Hafif Law Offices,
269 W. Bonita Ave., Claremont, CA 91711-4784, 909-624-1671, Web
site: http://www.hafif.com.


SENDTEC INC: Second Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Co-lead plaintiffs Richard F. Thompson and L. Alan Jacoby filed
a Second Amended Complaint in a securities fraud class action
against SendTec, Inc., formerly known as RelationServe Media,
Inc., and individual defendants in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

On July 27, 2006, RelationServe Media announced that it had
completed the change of its name and symbol to SendTec, Inc.
(OTCBB:RSVM).  On or about Aug. 31, 2006, an action was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (Case No. 06-61327) by Richard F. Thompson as
putative class representatives against the company and certain
former officers and directors of the company alleging securities
laws violations in connection with the purchase of company stock
during the period May 24, 2005 to the present.

The complaint alleges that RelationServe and the individual
defendants violated U.S. securities laws, and the securities
laws of the states of Florida and Indiana, causing an artificial
inflation of RelationServe's stock process.

According to the complaint, RelationServe made false and
misleading statements by failing to disclose that it was selling
its securities through unregistered and commissioned agents and
broker/dealers in violation of state and federal law, thereby
creating a substantial risk of civil liability for damages
and/or the rescission of stock purchases.

In February, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida appointed Richard F. Thompson and L. Alan Jacoby as
co-lead plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action against
SendTec, Inc.

The court also approved the plaintiffs' selection of Cohen &
Malad, LLP, as lead counsel, and approved plaintiffs' selection
of Friendman, Rosenwasser & Goldbaum, P.A. as liaison counsel.

Earlier, the Honorable Paul C. Huck of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the putative
class action, giving plaintiffs leave to file a new complaint on
or before March 19, 2007.

The amended complaint claims, among other things, that
RelationServe and its officers and directors violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by:

     (a) selling securities through persons who were not
         registered as broker/dealers with the U.S. Securities
         and Exchange Commission, California, Connecticut,
         Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New
         York, Ohio, or Pennsylvania, and were not affiliated as
         an agent or representative of a registered
         broker/dealer;

     (b) failing to alert the investing public that
         RelationServe had sold securities through unregistered
         broker/dealers, which exposed RelationServe to
         substantial contingent claims of rescission, and civil
         and criminal liability; and,

     (c) by failing to alert the investing public that director,
         Warren Musser, had been sued by stockholders of
         SafeGuard and TyCom, Ltd., for securities violations.

In addition to 10b-5 claims, co-lead plaintiffs claim violation
of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act as to controlling
persons of the company, violations of the state securities laws
for sales of unregistered, non-exempt securities.  Plaintiffs
seek rescission, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
compensatory damages, interest, costs, and attorney's fees.

The suit is "Thompson v. Relationserve Media, et al., Case No.
0:06-cv-61327-PCH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Paul C. Huck with
referral to Judge Andrea M. Simonton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Cohen & Malad, LLP, 1 Indiana Square, Suite 1400,  
         Indianapolis, IN 46204, Phone: 317-636-6481; and

     (2) Friedman Rosenwasser & Goldbaum, 5355 Town Center Road,
         Suite 801, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1092, Phone: 561-395-
         5511, Fax: 368-9274, E-mail: kgoldbaum@frglaw.com.
Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Genovese Joblove & Battista, 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite  
         4400, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-349-2300, Fax: 349-
         2310, Web site: http://www.gjb-law.com;and      

    (ii) Haynes & Boone, LLP, 153 E. 53rd Street, Suite 4900,
         New York, NY 10022, US, Phone: 212-659-4980, Web site:
          http://www.haynesboone.com.


STATE FARM: Judge Senter Denies Class Status Request in "Guice"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge L.T. Senter of the U.S. District Court of Southern
Mississippi refused to certify as class action a suit by Ocean
Spring homeowner Judy Guice against State Farm Fire and Casualty
Co.

Judge Senter heard the case on Feb. 28.  Ms. Guice's attorneys
told the judge all slab cases that State Farm denied because of
water exclusion in its contract should become one class action
in order to speed up the process.  On March 22, Judge Senter
ruled that a class action for "slab cases" is "inconsistent with
the requirements of due process."

"While each of the many 'slab cases' has in common the fact that
the insured property was totally destroyed during Hurricane
Katrina, the many other factual differences between the cases
preclude the relief that Guice is seeking," he wrote in his
ruling, according to Michael Kunzelman of The Associated Press.

In 2006, Judge Senter denied class status to the suit filed by
State Farm policyholders claiming full compensation for
Hurricane Katrina damages (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18,
2006).

The suit seeks to represent those policyholders with "slab" or
"foundation only" claims in Harrison, Hancock and Jackson
counties.  It further seeks to represent homeowners in cases in
which a State Farm adjuster requested an engineering report that
the company subsequently cancelled.  

The point in contention in the case is whether water damage is
covered by the insurance policy offered by State Farm.  State
Farm maintains that the water damage exclusion, as well as the
weather conditions provision, unambiguously bar coverage caused
by a combination of wind and water.  Plaintiff argues that since
she suffered a total loss to her home, caused in part by wind,
then State Farm is liable for the full policy limits
notwithstanding the fact that water damage is excluded from
coverage.

Plaintiff is asking more than $1 million over the loss of her
home.

The suit is "Guice v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00001-LTS-RHW," filed in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L.T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Robert H. Walker.

Representing the defendant are:

     (1) Robert C. Galloway at Butler, Snow, O'mara, Stevens &
         Canada, PLLC, P.O. Drawer 4248, Gulfport, MS 39502-
         4248, Phone: 228864-1170, E-mail:
         bob.galloway@butlersnow.com; and

     (2) William N. Reed at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
         Berkowitz, PC, P.O. Box 14167, Jackson, MS 39236-4167,
         Phone: (601) 351-2400.

Representing the plaintiff is Richard Taylor Phillips at Smith,
Phillips, Mitchell & Scott, P.O. Drawer 1586, Batesville, MS
38606, Phone: 662/563-4613, E-mail: flip@smithphillips.com.


TOWN SPORTS: Consents to Mediation for Overtime Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International, Inc., the parent of New York Sports
Club chains, has agreed to enter into mediation to resolve a
class action alleging violations of various overtime provisions
of the New York State Labor Law by the company.

The suit, "Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town Sports International,
Inc.," was filed on March 1, 2005 in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, New York County.  The plaintiffs are Sarah
Cruz of Union City, New Jersey, and Mathew Dockswell of Forest
Hills, New York.

Plaintiffs contend that they and many other employees routinely
worked more than 40 hours in a week but didn't earn overtime
because the company deliberately misclassified them as managers.  

According to court documents, the lawyers are seeking class-
action status for the lawsuit, which they say could involve
hundreds of personal trainers and assistant fitness managers at
65 New York Sports Clubs in the state, including in New York
City and on Long Island.

The suit covers the past six years.  It states that Ms. Cruz,
30, who has worked for the chain since 1999, often has worked
13-hour days, five days a week, or about 65 hours, and Mr.
Dockswell, who has worked for New York Sports Club since 2002,
has regularly worked more than 40 hours a week.

On or about Nov. 2, 2005, the lawsuit was stayed upon agreement
of the parties pending mediation.  On or about Nov. 28, 2006,
the plaintiffs gave notice that they wished to lift the stay.

On or about Feb. 7, the plaintiffs made a motion requesting
leave to file a second amended complaint, which seeks to add to
the purported class all New York hourly employees and alleged
additional violations of the provisions of the New York State
Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages.

Town Sports has agreed to enter into mediation with respect to
such employees, as well as trainers and assistant fitness
managers, according to the company's March 12 Form 10-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.mysportsclubs.com.


WIRELESS FACILITIES: J&P Corrects Lead Plaintiff Filing Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson corrects information it issued in a class
action it filed on behalf of plaintiff and a proposed class of
purchasers of securities of Wireless Facilities, Inc. during the
period March 29, 2001 to March 12, 2007 inclusive.

Johnson & Perkinson's prior notice incorrectly stated that
interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
March 16, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.  The correct date
for moving for lead plaintiff is 60 days from March 19, 2007.

Earlier, Johnson & Perkinson filed a class action alleging
Wireless Facilities and certain officers and directors violated
Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning Wireless Facilities' improper and
undisclosed practice of backdating options conferred on certain
executives, which made it appear that such options were issued
upon dates when the market price of Wireless Facilities stock
was lower than actual market price on the actual grant dates,
thereby masking the profits the option recipients obtained
(Class Action Reporter, Mar. 21, 2007).

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

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

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


* EU Unveils Plans to Bring U.S.-Style Class Action to Europe
-------------------------------------------------------------
The European Commission announced proposals to allow individuals
from different European Union member states to use a "collective
redress" system to increase the likelihood of successful claims
against manufacturers of faulty goods or services.

Commissioner of Consumer Affairs Meglena Kuneva announced the
proposals in a speech to the European Parliament on 13 March.  
The EU has asked parties, including law firms, to help assess
the likely impact of the proposals and report back on their
findings.

The proposals are aimed at improving consumer redress at a
European-wide level partly to give shoppers the confidence to
buy across borders.  The Commissioner's announcement coincides
with the call of U.K.'s National Association of Pension Funds
for members to use the courts to recover investment losses.

An estimated $18.3 billion was paid out in collective actions by
U.S. companies in 2006 alone, and it has been suggested that, in
all, some $2.4 billion remains unclaimed by U.K. and European
investors, including pension funds, a statement by NAPF said.

In its new paper, "Securities Litigation - Question for
Trustees," the NAPF says U.K. pension funds are becoming more
active in joining U.S. class actions.  The full paper can be
accessed at http://www.napf.co.uk.

Predictions of mounting securities litigation have been fuelled
by recent moves to target European investors by several of the
U.S.' best-known securities litigation specialists, with Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld & Toll last year launching a London branch,
according to Claire Ruckin of Legalweek.com.

But critics are pointing to the supposed excesses of the U.S.
plaintiff bar, such as high punitive damages.  There are also
fears that U.S.-style class actions could damage small to
medium-sized businesses in Europe.  

A total of 15 EU member states currently have no legal provision
for class actions.  The remaining 12 that have such rules only
have jurisdiction within their own country.  Among them, the
Netherlands is the closest to the U.S. model, while Germany and
Austria have test-case procedures and France allows
representative actions, according to The Financial Express.bd
(Bangladesh).


                New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCREDITED HOME: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. announces that a
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. between Nov. 1, 2005 and
March 12, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements regarding
the company's business and financial results.

As alleged in the complaint, on Feb. 14, 2007, the company
issued a press release announcing poor profitability. Then, on
March 12, 2007, the company issued a press release announcing
that it was exploring strategic alternatives.

It also reported that it had paid approximately $190 million in
margin calls on its facilities since Jan. 1, 2007.  In addition,
the company was also seeking waivers and extensions of certain
financial and operating covenants under its warehouse and
repurchase facilities.

The company's shares reacted negatively to the news, falling
from $11.40 per share to $3.97 per share in heavy trading.

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

For more information, contact Brian Penny, Esq. of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-668-4130.


ACCREDITED HOME: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of Accredited Home Lenders Holding
Co. between Nov. 1, 2005 and March 12, 2007.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the company's operations, financial performance and
prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Accredited Home Lenders securities.

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

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


COAST FINANCIAL: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a
securities class action has been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the common stock of Coast Financial
Holdings Inc. between Oct. 28, 2005 and Jan. 19, 2007,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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


COAST FINANCIAL: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of Coast Financial Holdings Inc.
between Oct. 28, 2005 and Jan. 19, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the company's business and prospects, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Coast Financial securities.

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


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action
has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of Monster Worldwide, Inc. (NASDAQ: MNST)
between May 6, 2006 and June 9, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges Monster and Andrew T. McKelvey, Myron
Olesnyckyj and Charles "Lanny" Baker of violating Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-
5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme and or published a series of materially false
and misleading statements that Defendants knew, and or were
severely reckless in not knowing, were materially false and
misleading, and failed to disclose material information
necessary to render such statements not false and misleading.

During the Class Period, Defendants granted stock options to
themselves and to other Monster officers and directors on dates
that Monster stock had reached its lowest, or next-lowest price
in weeks or months.

These grants almost invariably preceded share gains, and or
followed significant drops in the company's stock price. In
public disclosures, however, Defendants falsely claimed that the
grants were dated and priced as of the date of the actual
grants.

On June 12, 2006, The Wall Street Journal published an article
titled "Monster Worldwide Gave Officials Options Ahead of Share
Run-Ups." The article stated that Monster may have backdated
option grants, and reported that there was a one in nine million
chance that the grant dates of the options The Wall Street
Journal examined were selected at random.

That same day, Monster issued a press release announcing the
receipt of a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York, relating to the company's stock option
granting practices. Shares of Monster reacted negatively to the
news,closing at $38.60, down $3.40 from the prior trading day, a
one day drop of 8.1%, on unusually heavy volume.

Subsequently, Defendant Olesnyckyj has pleaded guilty to
criminal federal securities fraud and conspiracy to commit
securities fraud.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
March 15, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-
337-4983 (toll-free), Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail; SSBNY@aol.com,
Website: http://www.ssbny.com.


RADIOSHACK CORP: 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 Northern
District of Texas on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of RadioShack Corporation
between Jan. 14, 2003 and June 7, 2006, inclusive.

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

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

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


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Federman Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on March 15, 2007, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against Wireless Facilities, Inc.

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

The class period is from March 29, 2001 through March 12, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 18, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Website:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


WORLDSPACE INC: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. announces that a
lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Worldspace, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the company's
initial public offering commencing Aug. 4, 2005.

The complaint alleges that Worldspace, a company that designs,
constructs and deploys a satellite-based radio and data
broadcasting service providing various international and
national radio programming services primarily to subscribers in
India and China, and certain of its officers and directors
violated Federal Securities laws.

Specifically, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements to the investing public and misrepresented or failed
to disclose that expired subscriptions were included in the
company's subscriber count for as many as 90 days following
expiration of an initial three-month promotional period, causing
the company's stock price to become artificially inflated.

It is alleged that subscribers who declined to continue or to
pay for a subscription were not timely removed from the
company's subscriber count; rather than report these
subscriptions as expired, or "churned," defendants continued to
include these subscriptions in the company's subscriber count
for an additional 90 days.

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

For more information, contact Wayne T. Boulton or 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  * * *