CAR_Public/070327.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, March 27, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 61

                            Headlines


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Sued in Del. Over Founder's Buyout Offer
AMEREN ILLINOIS: Electric Rate Hike Unconstitutional, Suit Says
AVON PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Calif. Suit by Sales Reps.
AVON PRODUCTS: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y. Court
AVON PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Fla. Marketing Fraud Lawsuit

AVON PRODUCTS: N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal Motion Opposed
AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
BEAZER HOMES: Sued Over Financing of "Unqualified" Home Buyers
BIG 5: Calif. Store Managers Sue Over Alleged Labor Violations
BOEING CORP: Faces Negligence Suit Over Indonesian Air Accidents

CONAGRA FOODS: Lawsuit Over Contaminated Peanut Butter Amended
CRUM & FORSTER: Seeks Nixing of Suit Over Contingent Commissions
DIALYSIS CORP: Seeks to Settle Lawsuits Over Medicore Merger
DISCOVERY HEALTH: Could Face Suit Over Ancillary Services Fee
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Calif. RESPA Suit Over Escrow Services

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Consumer Suit Over Title Insurance
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Recording Fees
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces RESPA Violations Suits in Mich., Ohio
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sued Over Loan Scheme With Mortgage Brokers
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Use of "Unauthorized" Agents

FLORIDA: No Overtime Pay for Deerfield Firemen's Extra Work
GLOBE LIFE: Faces DPPA Suit in Tex. Over Marketing Activities
ILLINOIS: Oakwood Hills Accused of Civil Rights Violation
LIBERTY NATIONAL: Settles Suit Over Funeral Services Insurance
MAMMA.COM INC: July Hearing Set for $3.15M Securities Suit Deal

MENU FOODS: Nev. Woman Hopes to Join Suit Over Recalled Pet Food
MENU FOODS: Oregon Man Files Lawsuit Over Recalled Pet Food
MERCK & CO: N.J. High Court Hears Third-Party Vioxx Payors' Suit
MICHIGAN: Judge Sets 2007 Hearing Dates for Proposal 2 Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Securities Fraud Suit Class Period Expanded

NEW CENTURY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 10
PHILIP SERVICES: $79.75M Securities Suit Settlement Approved
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April
TRIAD HOSPITALS: Faces Suits in Tex. Over Panthera Merger Plan
VERIZON COMMS: Faces Suit Over Intelligence-Gathering Activities

VERIZON WIRELESS: June 4 Hearing Set in Consumer Suit Settlement
VIACOM INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over 2004 Blockbuster Split-Off
VIVENDI: Court Allows European Investors to Join U.S. Suit
WEST VIRGINIA: Bill to Amend Natural Gas Source Lease Terms


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCREDITED HOME: Charles H. Johnson Announces Securities Suit
ACCREDITED HOME: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Fraud Suit
ACCREDITED HOME Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
COAST FINANCIAL: Brian Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing

COAST FINANCIAL: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Suit in Fla.
RADIOSHACK CORP: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit
RADIOSHACK CORP: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
WORLDSPACE INC: Rosen Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Sued in Del. Over Founder's Buyout Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a
class action has been commenced in the Delaware Court of
Chancery on behalf of shareholders of Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc. in connection with the offer by the company's
founder to acquire all of the outstanding shares of ACS.

The goal of the lawsuit is to seek the highest possible offer
for the public shares.  It will seek an injunction against the
completion of an unfair bid or damages from certain Affiliated
Computer Services, Inc. officers and directors.

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


AMEREN ILLINOIS: Electric Rate Hike Unconstitutional, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Dix, Jefferson County resident is suing Ameren Illinois over
an electric rate increase the utility company made earlier this
year.

Frederick Price filed a 28-page lawsuit in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois asking for "protection of
justice" from Ameren Illinois, The Southern reports.  The
lawsuit also asks for protection against violations of civil
and/or constitutional law.

More than 1 million customers of Ameren's three Illinois
subsidiaries have seen their monthly bills rise in some cases
more than 50 percent this year, according to The St. Louis Post-
Dispatch.

Mr. Price, a disabled Vietnam veteran, says he has taken up the
fight because he feels the increase is unfair to everyone,
especially the poor, the disabled and senior citizens.  He said
he is all three, and feels he can best represent those groups.

"This is not about 15 minutes of fame," Mr. Price said.  Mr.
Price wants Ameren investigated.  He would also like to see his
initial effort in federal court turn into a class action
resulting in an injunction being placed on Ameren until an
investigation is completed.

Ameren spokeswoman Erica Abbett said the utility company will
not comment on pending litigation.

The suit is "Price v. Ameren Illinois, Case No. 3:07-cv-00183-
MJR-PMF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, under Judge Michael J. Reagan, with
referral to Judge Philip M. Frazier.


AVON PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Calif. Suit by Sales Reps.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products Inc. remains a defendant in a nationwide class
action, "Blakemore, et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al.,"
which is pending in the Superior Court of the state of
California, Los Angeles County.  

Commenced in March 2003, the purported class action was filed on
behalf of Avon sales representatives who, "since March 24, 1999,
received products from Avon they did not order, thereafter
returned the unordered products to Avon, and did not receive
credit for those returned products."   

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, restitution and injunctive relief for alleged unjust
enrichment and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code.  

The company filed demurrers to the original complaint and three
subsequent amended complaints, asserting that they failed to
state a cause of action.   

The Superior Court sustained the company demurrers and dismissed
plaintiffs' causes of action except for the unjust enrichment
claim of one plaintiff.  

The court also struck plaintiffs' class allegations.  Plaintiffs
sought review of these decisions by the Court of Appeal of the
State of California and, in May 2005, the Court of Appeal
reinstated the dismissed causes of action and the class
allegations.  

In January 2006, the company filed a motion to strike the
plaintiffs' asserted nationwide class.  In February 2006, the
trial court declined to grant the motion, but instead certified
the issue to the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory basis.  

In April 2006, the Court of Appeal denied the company's motion
and instructed the trial court to consider the issue at a
subsequent point in the proceedings.

The company believes that this action is a dispute over
purported customer service issues and is an inappropriate
subject for consideration as a class action.  It did not report
any development in the case at its form 10-k filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2006.

The suit is "Blakemore et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., B174825,  
B175973" filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County under Judge Wendell Mortimer.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey Huron of the Huron Law  
Group, 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA  
90067, Phone: 310-284-3400, Fax: 310-772-0037, Web site:  
http://www.huronlaw.com.  


AVON PRODUCTS: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products Inc. continues to face a lawsuit filed by a
retired employee of Avon who, before retirement, had been on
paid disability leave for approximately 19 years.

The suit, "Kendall v. Employees' Retirement Plan of Avon
Products and the Retirement Board" is a purported class action
commenced in April 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  

The initial complaint alleged that the Employees' Retirement
Plan of Avon Products violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and, as a consequence, unlawfully reduced the
amount of plaintiff's pension.

Plaintiff sought a reformation of the Retirement Plan and
recalculation of benefits under the terms of the Retirement
Plan, as reformed for plaintiff and for the purported class.  In
November 2003, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
additional Retirement Plan violations of ERISA and seeking,
among other things, elimination of a social security offset in
the Retirement Plan.

The purported class includes "all Plan participants, whether
active, inactive or retired, and their beneficiaries and/or
Estates, with one hour of service on or after Jan. 1, 1976,
whose accrued benefits, pensions or survivor's benefits have
been or will be calculated and paid based on the Plan's unlawful
provisions."

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which motion is still pending before the
court, according to the company's form 10-k filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2006.


AVON PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Fla. Marketing Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the suit, "Roqueta v. Avon Products, Inc., et al."
has indicated her intention to voluntarily dismiss the matter,
but has not yet done so, according to the company's form 10-k
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The case is a purported class action commenced in April 2005 in
the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The action seeks general damages, special damages and punitive
damages for alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and Florida statutes regarding
misleading advertisements, and for negligent and fraudulent
misrepresentation.  

The purported class includes "all persons who have purchased
skin care products from the Defendant that have been falsely
advertised to have an 'anti-cellulite' or cellulite reducing
effect."  The company removed the action to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida and moved to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.

In August 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff's claims for
negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, with prejudice.  The
court also dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims but granted
plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, which she has done.  

In July 2006, the court issued an order denying a motion by the
plaintiff to certify this action as a class action.  Plaintiff
has indicated her intention to voluntarily dismiss the matter
but has not yet done so.

The suit is "Roqueta v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., Case No.  
1:05-cv-21315-PAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Patricia A. Seitz with
referral to Judge Chris M. McAliley.

Representing the plaintiffs is Benjamin Raul Alvarez of Alvarez  
Eljaiek & Rodriguez, PL, 2601 S Bayshore Drive, Suite 700,  
Miami, FL 33133, Phone: 305-444-5885, Fax: 444-8986.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Jude Christopher Cooper of Wasserstrom Weinreb &  
         Wealcatch, Wachovia Center - Penthouse, 1909 Tayler  
         Street, Hollywood, FL 33021, Phone: 954-922-3240, Fax:
         922-3431, E-mail: jude@hollywoodcounsel.com; and

     (2) Christopher Rebel Jude Pace of Weil Gotshal & Manges,
         1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200, Miami, FL 33131,  
         Phone: 305-577-3100, Fax: 374-7159, E-mail:
         christopher.pace@weil.com; and

     (3) Jeffrey Clark Schneider of Tew Cardenas, LLP, Four  
         Seasons Tower, 1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor,  
         Miami, FL 33131-3407, Phone: 305-536-1112, Fax: 536-
         1116, E-mail: jcs@tewlaw.com.


AVON PRODUCTS: N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal Motion Opposed
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against
Avon Products Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York is opposing a motion by the company to
dismiss the suit.

In August 2005, the company reported the filing of class action
complaints for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
in actions:

     -- "Nilesh Patel v. Avon Products, Inc. et al.," and

     -- "Michael Cascio v. Avon Products, Inc. et al.,"         

which subsequently have been consolidated.

A consolidated amended class action complaint for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the
consolidated action in December 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Master File Number 05-CV-
06803) under the caption "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities
Litigation naming Avon, an officer and two officer/directors."

The consolidated action, brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Feb. 3, 2004 and Sept. 20, 2005,
seeks damages for alleged false and misleading statements
"concerning Avon's operations and performance in China, the U.S.
. . . and Mexico."

The consolidated amended complaint also asserts that during the
class period certain officers and directors sold shares of the
company's common stock.  

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint, asserting, among
other things, that it failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, and the plaintiffs have opposed that motion,
according to the company's form 10-k filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2006.

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation,  
Case No. 1:05-cv-06803-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A.  
Kaplan.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Brian Philip Murray of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275  
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:  
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:  
         bmurray@murrayfrank.com; and  

     (2) Joel P. Laitman of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti,  
         P.C., 19 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10038, Phone:  
         (212) 964-0046.

Representing the defendants is Peter C. Hein of Wachtell,  
Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019,  
Phone: 212-403-1237, Fax: (212) 403-2000, E-mail:  
PCHein@wlrk.com.


AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. asked the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District Court of New York to dismiss a consolidated
class action filed against it and certain other defendants over
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security  
Act.

In October 2005, the company reported the filing of class
actions for alleged violations of ERISA in actions entitled:

      -- "John Rogati v. Andrea Jung, et al.;" and

      -- "Carolyn Jane Perry v. Andrea Jung, et al."  

The cases were subsequently consolidated and a consolidated
complaint for alleged violations of ERISA was filed in the
consolidated action in December 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption: "In re
Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File Number 05-CV-
06803," naming the company, certain officers, its Retirement
Board and others.  

The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the  
Avon Products, Inc. Personal Savings Account Plan and the Avon  
Products, Inc. Personal Retirement Account Plan and on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan "for whose individual
accounts the Plan purchased or held an interest in Avon  
Products, Inc. . . . common stock from Feb. 20, 2004 to the
present."  

The consolidated complaint asserts breaches of fiduciary duties
and prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA arising out
of, inter alia, alleged false and misleading public statements
regarding the company's business made during the class period
and investments in company stock by the Plan and Plan
participants.  

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, asserting that it failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, and the plaintiffs have
opposed that motion.

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

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master  
File Number 05-CV-06803," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joel P. Laitman of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti,
         P.C., 19 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10038, Phone:
         (212) 964-0046; and

     (2) Brian Philip Murray of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275  
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:  
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
         bmurray@murrayfrank.com.  

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Peter C. Hein Wachtell of Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West  
         52nd Street, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-403-1237,  
         Fax: (212) 403-2000, E-mail: PCHein@wlrk.com; and

    (ii) Melissa C. Rodriguez of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP,  
         (New York), 101 Park Avenue, 37th Floor, New York, NY  
         10178, Phone: 212 309-6394, Fax: 212 309-6273, E-mail:
         mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com.


BEAZER HOMES: Sued Over Financing of "Unqualified" Home Buyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed against
Beazer Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corp., according to
Andresen & Associates and The Jackson Law Group PLLC.

The case, pending in Mecklenburg County Superior Court (North
Carolina) on behalf of proposed class Representatives Mark and
Lea Tingley, alleges violations of North Carolina General
Statutes Chapter 75, a consumer protection statute which
proscribes unfair and deceptive trade practices.

The action is with respect to numerous "low income" subdivisions
in North Carolina where Beazer Homes Corp. built and sold newly
constructed homes.

The suit alleges that Beazer Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage
Corp. conspired to illegally finance unqualified purchasers to
buy newly constructed homes, thus making widespread foreclosure
and abnormal property devaluation inevitable.

Andresen & Associates contact info: on the Net:
http://www.charlottelawyer.com,Colleen Brannan, Phone: +1-704-
378-0123, E-mail: colleen@branstorm.com.


BIG 5: Calif. Store Managers Sue Over Alleged Labor Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. is facing a purported class action
filed in California Superior Court in the County of Orange over
alleged violations of California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code.

The complaint, "Jack Lima v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp., et al.,
Case No. 06CC00243," was served on the company on Dec. 1, 2006.

It was brought as a purported class action on behalf of the
company's California store managers.  The plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that the company improperly classified store
managers as exempt employees not entitled to overtime pay for
work in excess of forty hours per week and failed to provide
store managers with paid meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, back pay for
overtime allegedly not paid, pre-judgment interest, statutory
penalties including an additional thirty days' wages for each
employee whose employment terminated in the four years preceding
the filing of the complaint, an award of attorneys' fees and
costs and injunctive relief to require the company to treat
store managers as non-exempt.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. on the Net:
http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/.


BOEING CORP: Faces Negligence Suit Over Indonesian Air Accidents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Relatives of two passengers killed when Indonesian airline
Garuda Indonesia Airline crashed early in March plan to join a
class action against the manufacturers of the plane, The Jakarta
Post reports.

Lawyer David Abraham said his law firm received verbal
confirmations from the relatives of two passengers, and from one
surviving passenger, that they wanted to sue the aircraft and
its component manufacturers.

Twenty-one of 140 passengers in the Garuda Indonesia plane were
killed when the carrier erupted in fire after a high-speed
landing on March 7.

Mr. Abraham said his law firm had already filed a lawsuit, on
Jan. 16, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of the families of 75 victims of the Mandala
Air crash in Medan on Sept. 5, 2005 -- which killed 147 people -
- and 11 victims of the recent Adam Air accident.

The negligence lawsuit -- filed in collaboration with U.S.-based
law firm, Lieff Global, LLP -- was filed against the Boeing
Corp. and United Technologies.

Mr. Abraham said the lawsuit has been accepted and they expect
trial to commence on April 26.

The suit is "Adiputra et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00250," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
under Judge John F. Grady.

Representing plaintiffs are Brian J. Lawler of Lieff Global LLP,
275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
(415) 788-8000; and Floyd A. Wisner of the Wisner Law Firm, 934
South Fourth St., St. Charles, IL 60174, Phone: (630) 513-9434,
E-mail: faw@wisner-law.com.


CONAGRA FOODS: Lawsuit Over Contaminated Peanut Butter Amended
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty-two consumers, including the parents of nine children who
became seriously ill after eating Peter Pan or Great Value
peanut butter, have filed an amended class action complaint,
according to attorney Kathryn E. Barnett at Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, plaintiffs' counsel in a nationwide
class action against ConAgra Foods Inc.

The proposed class consists of all persons nationwide that
contracted Salmonella Tennessee from eating ConAgra's
contaminated peanut butter, which was all manufactured and
packaged in a single location -- ConAgra's plant in Sylvester,
Georgia.

The plaintiffs in the nationwide class action reside in:

     -- Albertville and Flomaton, Alabama;
     -- Cabot and Romance, Arkansas;
     -- Oakley, California;
     -- Manalapan, Palm City and Winter Garden, Florida;
     -- Chatsworth and Dalton, Georgia;
     -- Hymera, Indiana;
     -- Paducah, Kentucky;
     -- Lake Charles and Slidell, Louisiana;
     -- Holly Springs, Mississippi;
     -- Jackson, Ohio;
     -- Camden, Friendship and Nashville, Tennessee;
     -- Richmond, Texas;
     -- Manning and Newberry, South Carolina;
     -- Jackson, Ohio;
     -- Grandview, Washington; and
     -- Lenore, West Virginia.

Named plaintiffs Grady and Francis Ware of Chatsworth, Georgia,
and Ricky Bunn of Nashville, Tennessee, filed the suit in the
U.S. District Court in Rome, Georgia (Class Action Reporter,
Mar. 5, 2007).  The Wares and Mr. Bunn allege that they were
infected with Salmonella Tennessee from eating Peter Pan brand
peanut butter produced by ConAgra.

"This case shows that the number of 425 persons made ill from
eating Salmonella tainted peanut butter as reported by the
Center for Diseases Control constitutes a gross underestimate,"
stated Kathryn Barnett of the national plaintiffs' law firm
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

"We believe thousands of consumers have been made sick over the
past two years. Since the recall was announced in February, our
law firm alone has been contacted by over a thousand persons
that have reported symptoms of Salmonella poisoning, including
fever, stomach cramps and severe diarrhea which in many cases
required hospitalization."

"My husband and I were terrified when our son became so sick. We
called our pediatrician and raced to the Emergency Room with
him," stated plaintiff Kelli Hamman of Flomaton, Alabama. "I
never dreamed it could have been caused by peanut butter.  I
don't understand why my son and other children had to suffer
like this, and I hope ConAgra will take responsibility and
answer to every family that has suffered."

Ms. Barnett advised consumers, "If you have suffered symptoms of
contaminated peanut butter, do not discard the evidence; instead
mark the peanut butter with 'Do Not Eat' or 'Contaminated' and
make certain the jar is stored in a safe place that is beyond
the reach of children.  The peanut butter can be tested for the
presence of Salmonella."

Consumers stricken by Salmonella poisoning who wish to learn
more about the lawsuit and report their experiences to
plaintiffs' counsel should visit
http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.comor contact injury  
attorney Kathryn E. Barnett toll free at 1-866-313-1973.

The suit is "Ware et al. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:07-
cv-00040-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under Judge Harold L. Murphy.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kathryn E. Barnett of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
         Bernstein, LLP, One Nashville Place, 150 Fourth Ave. N.
         Ste.1650, Nashville, TN 37219-2415, Phone: (615) 313-
         9000, Fax: (615) 313-9965; and

     (2) Robert H. Smalley III of McCamy, Phillips, Tuggle &
         Fordham, LLP, 411 West Crawford St., Dalton, GA 30722-
         1105, Phone: (706) 278-4499, Fax: (706) 278-5002.


CRUM & FORSTER: Seeks Nixing of Suit Over Contingent Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. filed a renewed motion seeking the
dismissal of a purported class action pending against it in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey over its
contingent commissions practices.

The company and U.S. Fire, among numerous other insurance
company and insurance broker defendants, have been named as
defendants in a class action filed by policyholders alleging,
among other things, that the defendants used the contingent
commission structure to deprive policyholders of free
competition in the market for insurance.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class consisting
of all persons who between Aug. 26, 1994 and the date of the
class certification engaged the services of any one of the
broker defendants and who entered into or renewed a contract of
insurance with one of the insurer defendants.

In October 2006, the court partially granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, subject to plaintiffs'
filing an amended statement of their case.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed their "supplemental statement of
particularity" and amended case statement.  In response,
defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss.  

The motion will be argued before the court in March 2007,
according to the company's March 9 Form 10-K Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. on the Net: http://www.cfins.com.


DIALYSIS CORP: Seeks to Settle Lawsuits Over Medicore Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Dialysis Corp. of America is working to settle purported class
actions filed in Florida and Maryland over its merger with
Medicore, Inc., the company's former parent.

The suits were filed in April 2005 -- two in Florida and one in
Maryland -- as putative class and derivative actions, each by
alleged holders of the company's commons tock, against directors
of the company and against Medicore, Inc., the company's former
parent which merged with the company on Sept. 21, 2005.

They are generally alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the merger.

The merger was approved by the company's and Medicore's
shareholders at each company's annual meeting on Sept. 21, 2005,
the effective date of the merger.

The board of directors, each of whom is a defendant, and the
special committee and its special counsel which investigated the
charges in the complaints, determined that maintenance of the
derivative suits is not in the best interest of the company, and
the actions are without merit, and defendants deny having
committed any violation of law or breach of duty, or otherwise
having acted in any improper manner.

The parties are engaged in good faith discussions with respect
to the possible settlement of all the actions, according to the
company's Jan. 1 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Dialysis Corp. of America on the Net:
http://www.dialysiscorporation.com/.


DISCOVERY HEALTH: Could Face Suit Over Ancillary Services Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
An independent financial adviser in South Africa plans to sue
Discovery Health medical scheme administrator, and/or Discovery
Health Medical Scheme, the country's leading private healthcare
provider, for alleged illegal charging of ancillary services
fee, Laura du Preez of Personal Finance reports.

Wynand Venter of Wynsam Wealth in the city of Pietermaritzburg
claims he has senior counsel's advice that Discovery contravened
the Medical Schemes Act when it billed individual members and
groups of less than 35 members the extra fee, called the
ancillary service fee, according to the report.  

This fee was paid to the administrator for extra services, such
as access to the DiscoveryWorld website, daily SMS or email
notification of claims payments, and an emergency response
service.  The fee is allegedly made to appear compulsory.  
Discovery stopped charging all its members the fee in 2005.

Mr. Venter wants to recover R39 ($5.39) a month or R468 ($64.81)
annually for the Discovery members who paid the fee.  He is
pursuing the case at no cost to the members.

The medical scheme has 240,000 members.  The first 25 members
have already signed up in the suit, but Mr. Venter has not filed
court papers yet, according to the report.  He is inviting
members to sign a "power of attorney" for Wynsam Wealth at
http://www.wynsam.co.za.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Calif. RESPA Suit Over Escrow Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. is a defendant in a purported
class action filed in Superior Court of the state of California,
County of San Francisco, alleging violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The suit, "Lane v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.," was filed on
Nov. 4, 1999.  It alleges that the company violated RESPA and
state law by giving favorable discounts or rates to builders and
developers for escrow fees and requiring purchasers to use
Chicago Title Insurance Co. for escrow services.

The action seeks refunds of the premiums charged and additional
damages.

Fidelity National 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.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.fnf.com.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Consumer Suit Over Title Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. is a defendant in a purported
class action, Braunstein v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.,"
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington at Seattle.

The suit was filed on Nov. 22, 2006.  It alleges that the
company has violated state law by making prohibited payments for
the referral of business increasing the cost of title insurance
to consumers.

The suit seeks compensatory damages, and attorney's fees,
according to company's March 1 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.fnf.com.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Recording Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. is a defendant in several
purported class actions that accuse it of overcharging on
recording fees, the company said 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 class actions were filed in Texas: "Alevaro v. Chicago Title
Insurance Co." and "Ticor Title Insurance Co.," filed on March
24, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, San Antonio Division.  Others were filed in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

The suits seek to recover the recording fees for the class that
was overcharged, interest and attorney's fees.  

Additionally, similar suits are pending in:

      -- Indiana: "Roark v. Ticor Title Insurance Co." and
         "Gresh v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.," each filed on
         April 29, 2003 in the Superior Court of Indiana, Lake
         County);

      -- Kansas: "Doll v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.," filed
         on Sept. 28, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
         District of Kansas; and

      -- Missouri: "Krause v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.,"
         filed on Sept. 2, 2005 in the Circuit Court of Jackson
         County, Missouri.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.fnf.com.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces RESPA Violations Suits in Mich., Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. is a defendant in two
purported class actions in Michigan and Ohio that allege
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
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 Michigan case is "Egerer v. Woodland Title Agency LLC,"
which was filed on Sept. 29, 2006 in the Circuit Court for the
County of Muskegon, Michigan.  

The Ohio case is "Carter v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.," which
was filed on Nov. 9, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

Both allege that the company has violated RESPA by engaging in
affiliated business arrangements.  The suits seek to recover
three times the title charges, interest and attorney's fees.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.fnf.com.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sued Over Loan Scheme With Mortgage Brokers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. is a defendant in a purported
class action pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Alameda over allegations
that the company participated in a fraudulent loan scheme with
mortgage brokers.

The suit, "Garcia v. Ticor Title Insurance Co.," was filed Oct.
31, 2006.  It seeks compensatory damages, and attorney's fees,
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.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.fnf.com.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Use of "Unauthorized" Agents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. is a defendant in a purported
class action that alleges that the company uses unauthorized
agents in violation of state law.

The case, "Gale v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.," was filed on
Oct. 16, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  It seeks compensatory damages, attorney's fees and
injunctive relief to terminate the practice, 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.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.fnf.com.


FLORIDA: No Overtime Pay for Deerfield Firemen's Extra Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks has ruled against firefighters who
are suing Deerfield Beach to recover an estimated $1 million in
overtime wages for work as paramedics, the South Florida Sun-
Sentinel reports.

Twenty-one city firefighters, including retired firefighter
Arnie Gonzalez, sued Deerfield Beach, alleging they were owed
overtime pay by working as paramedics.  Plaintiffs' attorney,
Bill Pincus, argued that while Mr. Gonzalez and others are
trained as both firefighters and paramedics, they spent almost
all their time as the latter.

They sought three years' worth of unpaid overtime wages and
other damages for working more than 40 hours a week.  

Judge Middlebrooks ruled against the firefighters saying city
employees are exempt from standard labor laws.  He said that
while Mr. Gonzales work as a paramedic, he could not deny being
employed as someone legally responsible for extinguishing fires,
regardless of whether he actually spent most of his time doing
so, according to the report.

The case began in late August and cost the city $85,000.  The
city's outside trial attorney is Stuart Michelson.

The suit is "Gonzalez v. City of Deerfield, Case No. 0:06-cv-
61341-DMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.  

Representing the plaintiff is William Hoffman Pincus at 328 N
Lakeside Court, West Palm Beach, FL 33407, Phone: 561-868-1340,
Fax: 366-1310, E-mail: whpincus@lycos.com.

Representing the defendant is Stuart R. Michelson at 800 SE 3rd
Avenue, 4th Floor, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316, Phone: 954-463-
6100, Fax: 954-463-5599, E-mail: Smichelson@Smichelsonlaw.com.


GLOBE LIFE: Faces DPPA Suit in Tex. Over Marketing Activities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Globe Life and Accident Insurance Co., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Torchmark Corp., was named defendant in a purported class
action alleging violations of the Driver Privacy Protection Act,
according to the Torchmark'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, "Taylor v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 2-07-CV-014," was filed on Jan. 10 against Globe Life
and additional unaffiliated defendants in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the DPPA in Globe's marketing
activities.  DPPA is federal legislation restricting the ability
to obtain and use driver's license and motor vehicle
registration title information maintained by each state.

Initially, DPPA allowed use of such personal information for
marketing activities so long as the states provided individuals
the opportunity to prohibit disclosure of their information.

DPPA was amended effective June 1, 2000 to provide that using or
obtaining personal information from motor vehicle records for
marketing purposes is permitted only if the state involved
obtained the express consent (opt-in) of the person whose data
is being released.

Plaintiffs, all residents and holders of Texas drivers licenses,
allege that Globe wrongfully obtained, possessed and/or used
motor vehicle record information from the Texas Department of
Public Safety after the June 1, 2000 effective date of the "opt-
in" amendment to the DPPA.

They seek, in a jury trial, liquidated damages as provided in
the DPPA for each purported class member in the amount of $2,500
for each use of the personal information, punitive damages, the
destruction of any personal information determined to be
illegally obtained from motor vehicle records and other
appropriate equitable relief.

The suit is "Taylor v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 2-07-CV-014," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas Mathew Corea of The Corea
Firm, 325 N. St. Paul St., Suite 4150, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone:
214/953-3900, E-mail: tcorea@corealaw.com.

Representing the company is Kirsten Marisol Castaneda of Locke
Liddell & Sapp - Dallas, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2200, Dallas, TX
75201-6776, Phone: 214/740-8687, Fax: 12147408800, E-mail:
kcastaneda@lockeliddell.com.


ILLINOIS: Oakwood Hills Accused of Civil Rights Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
The Village of Oakwood Hills and certain of its police officers
are facing a class action over alleged illegal detention of
residents, the Northwest Herald (Ill.) reports.

The village's police officers are accused of violating civil
rights of three people in a suit filed in the U.S. District
Court in Chicago.  Liam Biner, 17, Colin Davis, 18, and Angela
Berger, whose age is unknown claim they were subjected to
illegal searches and seizures by village officers in 2005 and
2006.  Officers Ramtin Sabet and James Weber were allegedly
involved in these unconstitutional searches and seizures.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages against the individual
officers and the village.

The attorney who filed the suit for the three is seeking class-
action status.  He claims in court documents that a potential
class could include as many as 30 to 50 individuals.


LIBERTY NATIONAL: Settles Suit Over Funeral Services Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty National Insurance Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Torchmark Corp., settled a purported class action relating to
its funeral services insurance policies.

The suit, "Gibson v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co., Case
No. BC344178," was brought on behalf of California holders of
certain funeral services insurance policies.  It was filed on
Dec. 8, 2005 in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County,
California.

Plaintiff in "Gibson" asserted claims for breach of contractual
duty to pay a covered claim under a funeral services insurance
policy, breach of the implied obligation of good faith and fair
dealing by unreasonably failing to pay and/or delaying payments
of insurance benefits, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and
unfair business practices in violation of California Business
and Professions Code Section 17000 et seq.

The suit is seeking unspecified compensatory and general
damages, exemplary damages, injunctive and declaratory relief
and attorneys' fees and costs.

In October 2006, the matter was confidentially settled for a
nominal amount, according to Torchmark Corp.'s March 1 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Torchmark Corp. on the Net: http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/.


MAMMA.COM INC: July Hearing Set for $3.15M Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on July 9 at 2:00 p.m. for the
proposed $3,150,000 settlement in the class action, "Montoya, et
al. v. Mamma.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-02313 (HB)"

The court will hold the hearing at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007-
1312.

Generally, the complaint alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading press release and other
statements regarding Mamma.com's financial condition during the
class period March 2, 2004 to Feb. 16, 2005 in a scheme to
artificially inflate the value of Mamma.com's common stock.

The lawsuit seeks money damages against the defendants for
violations of the federal securities laws.

The proposed settlement covers all persons or entities that
purchased Mamma.com common stock between March 2, 2004 through
and including Feb. 16, 2005 and were damaged thereby, including,
but not limited to, shares purchased on the NASDAQ Small Cap
Stock Market and/or the Third Market Segment of the Frankfurt
and Berlin stock exchanges in Germany.

Any objections or exclusion to and from the settlement must be
made on or before June 14.  Deadline for the submission of claim
forms is Aug. 9.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Mamma.com Securities Litigation, c/o Analytics
         Incorporated, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 2002,
         Chanhassen, MN 55317-2002, Phone: (888) 598-7657, Web
         site: http://www.mammasecuritieslitigation.com/;

     (2) Peter E. Seidman, Esq., Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP,
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119-0165,
         Phone: (212) 594-5300, Web site:
         http://www.milbergweiss.com/;and

     (3) Daniel S. Sommers, Esq., Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
         Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., West Tower,
         Suite 500, Washington, DC  20005-3934, Phone (202) 408-
         4600, E-mail: dsommers@cmht.com, Web site:
         http://www.cmht.com.


MENU FOODS: Nev. Woman Hopes to Join Suit Over Recalled Pet Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
Truckee, Nevada resident Toni Robinson is hoping to join a class
action against Menu Foods, Inc., an Ontario-based supplier of
private-label wet pet food, the Reno Gazette-Journal Reports.

Ms. Robinson claims she has put her dog, Lhotse, to sleep in
February when the malamute mix suffered kidney failure.

She said she had fed her dog Priority Dog Food, a brand now
being recalled by Menu Foods Inc.

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.

The pet food producer has reported 14 animal deaths to the Food
and Drug Administration.  The causes of death are reported as
kidney failure due to consumption of Menu Foods products.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Paul Henderson, chief
executive and president of Menu Foods, said the company was
looking at a single ingredient.  He wouldn't identify it, but
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said the investigation
was focusing on wheat gluten.

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


MENU FOODS: Oregon Man Files Lawsuit Over Recalled Pet Food
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seattle attorney, Michael Myers filed a request for a class
action against Menu Foods, Inc., a pet food manufacturer that
recently recalled dozens of its products, KTVB reports.

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.

Tom Whaley of Ontario believes his cat Samoya, was put down
earlier this month after experiencing kidney failure.

Mr. Whaley says Samoya was fed "Iams Tuna and White Fish in
Sauce" -- one of many brands of recalled cat food across the
country, before they learned those foods were being blamed for
kidney failure in cats and dogs.    

He believes his cat's death was avoidable and says he filed the
lawsuit to prove a point.

"We want to make a point to the pet food companies that this
isn't going to be tolerated," said Mr. Whaley.

Mr. Myers said they plan to add as many as 20 more plaintiffs to
the civil complaint.

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

Plaintiff's attorney, Michael Myers, is with Myers & Co.,
P.L.L.C., 1809 Seventh Avenue, Suite 700, Seattle, Washington
98101, Phone: (206) 398-1188 ext. 101, Fax: (206) 398-1189, E-
mail: mmyers@myers-company.com, Website:
http://www.myers-company.com/.


MERCK & CO: N.J. High Court Hears Third-Party Vioxx Payors' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court heard on March 19 an appeal by
Merck & Co. Inc. against a March 2006 certification of a
nationwide suit against it over its painkiller Vioxx, reports
say.

In the hearing, a lawyer for Merck argued that health insurers
and union health plans nationwide should not be allowed to sue
Merck jointly to recover money they paid for Vioxx
prescriptions.

The court said it would take the case under advisement.  A
ruling is not expected for at least a few months, according to
Associated Press.

                        Case Background

On July 29, 2005, a New Jersey state trial court certified a
nationwide class of third-party payors (such as unions and
health insurance plans) that paid in whole or in part for the
Vioxx used by their plan members or insureds.

The named plaintiff in that case seeks recovery of certain Vioxx
purchase costs (plus penalties) based on allegations that the
purported class members paid more for Vioxx than they would have
had they known of the product's alleged risks.  

Merck believed that the class was improperly certified.  The
trial court's ruling is procedural only; it does not address the
merits of plaintiffs' allegations, according to the company.

On March 31, 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate
Division, affirmed the class certification order.  On July 19,
2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided to exercise its
discretion to hear the company's appeal of the Appellate
Division's decision.

On Aug. 24, 2006, the Appellate Division ordered a stay of the
proceedings in Superior Court pending a ruling by the Supreme
Court.  

                         Oral Arguments

During the hearing, Merck lawyer John Beisner told the judges
that health insurance plans each used different information and
made individual decisions about whether their plan would cover
Vioxx and which formulary tier and co-payment to assign to the
drug, according to the report.

Mr. Beisner also said consumer fraud laws in the home states of
each health insurer should apply, rather than imposing New
Jersey law on other states.

On the Net: Merck & Co.: http://www.merck.com


MICHIGAN: Judge Sets 2007 Hearing Dates for Proposal 2 Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan has slated hearing dates for a lawsuit
aimed at overturning a voter-approved ban on race and gender
preferences in Michigan.

The purported class action is "Coalition to Defend Affirmative
Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight For Equality
By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) et al. v. Granholm et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-15024-DML-RSW."  BAMN filed the lawsuit on Nov. 8,
2006, alleging that the new constitutional amendment violated
federal law.

In a nutshell, Proposal 2 bans the use of race and gender
preferences in public university admissions and government
hiring and contracting.

The important hearing dates set for the case were for May and
September of this year with a trial likely occurring around
2008, if the suit is allowed to continue.

According to reports, on May 7 Judge Lawson will hold a hearing
related to giving the case class-action status.  In addition on
Sept. 21, the judge will hear arguments on whether the lawsuit
should be thrown out completely.

In the legal arena, BAMN claims that Proposal 2 establishes
separate and unequal procedures in admissions that allows almost
every other group (children of alumni, athletes, artists, etc.)
a chance to request special treatment.  However, according to
the suit, women and minorities are blocked from such
opportunities, creating a second-class standing.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People have also
filed a lawsuit aimed to overturn Proposal 2.  That case is now
combined with the BAMN lawsuit, according to George Washington,
an attorney representing BAMN.

The suit is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge David M. Lawson with referral
to Judge R. Steven Whalen.

Representing the plaintiffs is George B. Washington of Scheff &
Washington (Detroit), 645 Griswold, Suite 1817, Detroit, MI
48226-4113, Phone: 313-963-1921, Fax: 313-963-7587, E-mail:
scheff@ameritech.net.

Representing the defendants is James E. Long of Michigan
Department of Attorney General, P.O. Box 30736, Lansing, MI
48909, Phone: 517-373-6434, E-mail: longj@michigan.gov.


NEW CENTURY: Securities Fraud Suit Class Period Expanded
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
New Century Financial Corp. (NYSE: NEW) (PINKSHEETS: NEWC) and
certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased the publicly traded securities of NEW.

The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
executives violated the federal securities laws during a
proposed a class period of May 4, 2006 through Feb. 7, 2007.

Subsequently, additional securities class actions have been
filed that have expanded the class period so that investors who
purchased NEW publicly traded securities between April 7, 2006
and March 2, 2007 are members of the proposed class.

On March 2, 2007, in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
& Exchange Commission, NEW disclosed that:

     (1) "the staff of the SEC has requested a meeting with the
         company to discuss the events leading up to the
         announcement of the restatements . . . .";

     (2) "the company received a letter dated Feb. 21, 2007
         from the NYSE Regulation Inc. indicating that its
         Market Trading Analysis Department is reviewing
         transactions in the company's securities prior to the
         Feb. 7, 2007 announcement of the restatement
         process"; and

     (3) "on Feb. 28, 2007, the company received a letter
         from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central
         District of California indicating that it was
         conducting a criminal inquiry under the federal
         securities laws in connection with trading in the
         company's securities, as well as accounting errors
         regarding the company's allowance for
         repurchase losses."

The following trading day, NEW shares declined from a closing
price on March 2, 2007 of $14.65 per share, to close at $4.56
per share at the close of trading on March 5, 2007, a decline of
$10.09 per share or approximately 69%, on heavier than usual
volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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

For more information, contact Joel B. Strauss and Jeffrey P.
Campisi, both of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 805 Third Avenue,
22nd Floor, New York, New York 10022, Phone: (800) 290-1952 or
(212) 687-1980, Fax: (212) 687-7714; and Laurence D. King, of
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501,
San Francisco, California 94111, Phone: (415) 772-4700, Fax:  
(415) 772-4707.


NEW CENTURY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 10
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP reminds investors of
New Century Financial Corp. (Pink Sheets:NEWC) that the deadline
to ask the Court to appoint them as Lead Plaintiff is April 10,
2007.

In February, Pomerantz filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, against New
Century and certain officers, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of the company during the period from May 4, 2006
through Feb. 7, 2007, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 15,
2007).

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
there under.

The complaint further alleges that Defendants materially
overstated earnings, understated loan repurchases losses, failed
to establish a sufficient load repurchase loss reserve, and
violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principals in various
press releases and quarterly reports filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In particular, defendants:

     (1) failed to include the expected discount upon
         disposition of loans when estimating allowances for
         loan repurchase losses; and

     (2) refused to properly consider the increasing volume of
         repurchase requests and thereby failed to apply the
         proper methodology for estimating the volume of
         anticipated repurchase claims for calculating the
         repurchase reserve calculation.

On Feb. 7, 2007 defendants issued a press release admitting that
they had failed to properly apply GAAP, withdrawing reliance on
the previously-filed 10-Q quarterly reports for the first three
quarters of 2006, and conceding that they would have to
materially restate New Century's financials to reflect the
proper accounting for loan repurchase losses.

New Century is a real estate investment trust and mortgage
finance company with headquarters in Irvine, California.  The
company operates nationwide through its mortgage origination
subsidiaries, New Century Finance Corp. and Home123 Corp.

For more information, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek
Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Phone: (888) 476-6529 or (888) 4-
POMLAW, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com.


PHILIP SERVICES: $79.75M Securities Suit Settlement Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted 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.

Under the settlement, the company's outside auditor Deloitte &
Touche LLP will pay $50.5 million, former executives of the
company will pay $18.25 million while underwriters led by U.S.-
based Merrill Lynch & Co. and Solomon Brothers, now Citigroup
Capital Markets Inc., will contribute another $11 million.

It is the largest sum ever paid by a Canadian accounting firm in
a securities fraud class action, 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.

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.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of
Powerwave Technologies, Inc. that the deadline to ask the Court
to appoint them as Lead Plaintiff is April 2, 2007.

In February, The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith filed a
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9, 2006, inclusive (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 13, 2007).

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the company's operations and financial
performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Powerwave 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.


TRIAD HOSPITALS: Faces Suits in Tex. Over Panthera Merger Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triad Hospitals, Inc. faces several purported class actions in
the District Court of Collin County, Texas over a proposed
merger with Panthera Partners, LLC.

On Feb. 4, the company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Panthera Partners, a Delaware limited liability
company, Panthera Holdco Corp., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Panthera Partners, and Panthera
Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Panthera Holdco.  

Between Feb. 5, and 8, four putative class-action petitions were
filed on behalf of alleged public stockholders of the company,
naming, among others, the company and members of the company's
Board of Directors.

The petitions allege, among other things, that the directors of
the company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the proposed Merger by failing to maximize stockholder value.

Among other things, the petitions seek to enjoin the company and
the directors from consummating the merger, according to the
company's Feb. 28 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Triad Hospitals, Inc. on the Net: http://www.triadhospitals.com.


VERIZON COMMS: Faces Suit Over Intelligence-Gathering Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications, Inc. remains a defendant in a
consolidated proceeding that is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California over its alleged
participation in intelligence-gathering activities.

Initially, the company and a number of other telecommunications
firms were named as defendants in multiple class actions
concerning alleged its participation in intelligence-gathering
activities that were allegedly carried out by the federal
government, at the direction of the U.S. President, as part of
the government's post-Sept. 11 program to prevent terrorist
attacks.

Plaintiffs generally allege that Verizon has participated by
permitting the government to gain access to the content of its
subscribers' telephone calls and/or records concerning those
calls and that such actions violate federal and/or state
constitutional and statutory law.  

Relief sought in the cases includes injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and statutory and punitive damages.

On Aug. 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that these actions be transferred, consolidated and
coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The Panel subsequently ordered that a number of "tag along"
actions also be transferred to the Northern District of
California.

Verizon has not answered or otherwise responded to any of the
complaints, 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.

Verizon Communications, Inc. on the Net: http://www.verizon.com.


VERIZON WIRELESS: June 4 Hearing Set in Consumer Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the state of California for the County of
Alameda will hold a fairness hearing on June 4 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in the class actions:

      -- "Nguyen, et al., v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
         Wireless, Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG
         04137703;" and

      -- "Patricia Brown and Harold P. Schroer, on an individual
         basis, and also on a classwide basis on behalf of
         others similarly situated v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a
         Verizon Wireless."

The hearing will be held in Department 22 of the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda, located at
1221 Oak Street, 4th Floor, Oakland, California 94612.

Generally, the suit were alleging that Cellco Partnership d/b/a
Verizon Wireless installed software locks on its wireless phones
to prevent them from being reprogrammed for use with other
wireless carrier networks.

Plaintiffs allege that by locking handsets in this manner,
Verizon Wireless violated California's Unfair Competition Law,
Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750, et seq.,
as well as the Federal Communications Act and similar consumer
protection laws of the states and territories of the U.S.

The settlement covers all persons who have or had a Verizon
Wireless individual account and who purchased a handset for use
with Verizon Wireless service from Verizon Wireless directly or
from a Verizon Wireless indirect retailer from Jan. 1, 2000 to
March 16.

Any objections to it must be made before May 21.  Exclusions
from the settlement must be made on or before May 5.

For more details, visit: www.vzwcellphonesettlement.com.


VIACOM INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over 2004 Blockbuster Split-Off
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viacom Inc. remains a defendant in several purported class
actions over the 2004 split-off of Blockbuster, 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.

Former Viacom, National Amusements, Inc., Blockbuster, and
Viacom, Inc., and certain of the company's respective present
and former officers and directors, are defendants in three
putative class actions relating to the 2004 split-off of
Blockbuster from the former Viacom pursuant to an exchange
offer.

The lawsuits now pending are a consolidated securities action
and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and a
state law action in the Court of Chancery of Delaware.

The lawsuits seek damages in unspecified amounts and other
relief on behalf of various classes of Blockbuster and former
Viacom stockholders and, in the ERISA case, participants in the
Blockbuster Investment Plan and the Plan itself.

The lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities action allege
that the defendants in that case made untrue statements of
material facts and concealed and failed to disclose material
facts in the Prospectus-Offer to Exchange and elsewhere during
the alleged period.

The plaintiff in the ERISA action alleges that the defendants in
that case breached fiduciary obligations to the Blockbuster
Investment Plan by continuing to offer to plan participants
Blockbuster stock from and after November 2003 and by offering
to plan participants the opportunity to exchange their shares of
Former Viacom common stock for the shares of Blockbuster common
stock.

The plaintiff in the Delaware case alleges that the Former
Viacom Board member defendants breached fiduciary duties to
Former Viacom shareholders in connection with the split-off and
that the Blockbuster Board member defendants breached fiduciary
duties to Blockbuster shareholders by disproportionately
favoring Former Viacom in the split-off transaction.

Viacom, Inc. on the Net: http://www.viacom.com.


VIVENDI: Court Allows European Investors to Join U.S. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
ruled that investors who bought Vivendi (formerly, Vivendi
Universal) shares before the French media-to-telecom group
neared bankruptcy in 2002 are allowed to join a U.S. class
action against the company that was initiated by Vivendi
shareholders.

Persons from the U.S., France, England and the Netherlands who
purchased or acquired shares or ADS of Vivendi between Oct. 30,
2000, and Aug. 14, 2002, could be included in the class action
"In re Vivendi Universal S.A. Securities Litigation."

                          Case Background

Sixteen separate putative class actions were filed against
Vivendi Universal, Jean-Marie Messier and (in nine cases)
Guillaume Hannezo in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The original complaint alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements throughout the class period that had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's securities.

Specifically, prior to and during the class period, Mr. Messier
took Vivendi on an acquisition binge that, according to
published reports, resulted in the company amassing
approximately $18 billion in debt as he turned the company from
a water concern into an entertainment powerhouse.

In September 2002, 14 New York cases were consolidated into "In
re Vivendi Universal Securities Litigation (Master File No. 02
CV 5571)," and the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-
lead counsel.

In November 2002, the two California cases were transferred to
New York and consolidated with the New York litigation.

"For the first time, an American judge decided he's competent in
a class action regarding alleged violations of American
securities laws by French managers of a French company at the
expense of French shareholders," French shareholders activist
organization ADAM said in a statement Sunday.

"The ruling is a major win for Vivendi shareholders, who were
largely French at that time and who can now hope to be
compensated for their financial loss," ADAM's representative and
minority shareholders activist Colette Neuville said in a phone
interview with AP WorldStream.

The suit is "In re Vivendi Universal S.A. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:02-cv-05571-RJH-HBP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Richard
J. Holwell, with referral to Judge Henry B. Pitman.

Representing plaintiffs are:

    (1) Peter Arthur Binkow, Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael M.
        Goldberg, all of Glancy & Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the
        Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310)
        201-9150;

     (2) Morris Alexander Bowie, II of Day Pitney, L.L.P. (Third
         Avenue), 875 Third Avenue, 28th Floor, New York, NY,
         10022, Phone: (212) 829-3600, Fax: (212) 829-3601, E-
         mail: mabowie@daypitney.com;

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

     (4) Nadeem Faruqui of Faruqui & Frauqi, 320 East 39th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 983-9330;

     (5) Mark Casser Gardy of Gardy & Notis, LLP, 440 Sylvan
         Avenue, Suite 110, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632, Phone:
         (201) 567-7377, Fax: (201) 567-7337, E-mail:
         mgardy@gardylaw.com; and

     (6) Steven R. Gustavson of Baker Botts L.L.P., 30
         Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112-4498, Phone:
         (212) 705-5000.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Michael J. Malone of King & Spalding, 1185 Avenue of
         the Americas, New York, NY 10036-4003, Phone: (212)
         556-2100, Fax: (212) 556-2222;

     (2) Jennifer Hurley McGay of McKee Nelson LLP (NY), One
         Battery Park Plaza, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10004,
         Phone: (917) 777-4200, Fax: (917) 777-4299, E-mail:
         jhurleymcgay@mckeenelson.com;

     (3) Martin L. Perschetz of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (NY),
         919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-756-
         2247, Fax: 212-593-5955, E-mail:
         martin.perschetz@srz.com; and

     (4) Paul C. Saunders of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 825
         Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 474-
         1000, Fax: (212) 474-3700, E-mail:
         psaunders@cravath.com.


WEST VIRGINIA: Bill to Amend Natural Gas Source Lease Terms
-----------------------------------------------------------
A bill that critics say would "neuter" a class action that
alleges a natural gas company has shortchanged thousands of
Kentucky landowners is under consideration, according to John
Stamper of The Herald-Leader.

House Bill 543 would amend all existing and future leases
between landowners and natural-gas companies so that royalties
paid by the companies would be based on the sale price of the
gas rather than the market price, according to the report.

The bill passed through the House Natural Resources and
Environment committee on Feb. 22, but has not yet been
considered by the full House, the report said.

A jury in Spencer, West Virginia has recently imposed
approximately $134.3 million in compensatory damages and $270
million in punitive damages against defendants in the case,
"Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources et al.," which is
pending in Roane County Circuit Court.  

Columbia Natural is a former NiSource Inc. subsidiary, which was  
sold in 2003.  NiSource, Columbia Energy Group and Chesapeake  
Appalachia LLC are named as defendants in the lawsuit.

NiSource believes the verdict in the case is clearly excessive  
and should be set aside by the trial court or overturned on  
appeal.   

The result, if left standing, would set a precedent that is  
contrary to existing law and could undermine the legal  
underpinnings of nearly every natural gas royalty contract in  
the state, the company said in a statement.   

The plaintiffs in the case, natural gas royalty owners, filed  
the lawsuit in early 2003 alleging that Columbia Natural  
underpaid royalties by deducting a portion of post-production  
costs incurred in order to gather and transport gas to  
interstate pipelines and by not paying market value for gas  
produced under all leases, even those providing for payment  
based on actual proceeds received for the gas.  Plaintiffs  
sought the alleged royalty underpayment and punitive damages.

The court has certified the case as a class action that includes  
any person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due  
royalties from Columbia Natural, and its predecessors or
successors, on lands lying within the boundary of the state of
West Virginia.  

All claims by the government of the U.S. are excluded  
from the class.  

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed in West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County  
under Judge Thomas Evans III.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Marvin Masters of Charleston
(181 Summers Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301, (Kanawha
Co.), Phone: 304-342-3106, Fax: 304-342-3189.   

Representing the defendants is Timothy Miller, 400 Fifth Third  
Center, 700 Virginia Street, East, P.O. Box 1791 Charleston,  
West Virginia 25326 (Kanawha Co.), Phone: 304-344-5800, Fax:  
304-344-9566.

                New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCREDITED HOME: Charles H. Johnson Announces Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class action
has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Accredited
Home Lenders Holding Corp. publicly traded securities during the
period Nov. 1, 2005 through 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.

On Feb. 14, 2007, Accredited issued a press release announcing
disappointing profitability.

Then, on March 12, 2007, after the market closed, the company
reported that it had paid approximately $190 million in margin
calls on its facilities since Jan. 1, 2007.

In addition, Accredited was seeking waivers and extensions of
waivers of certain financial and operating covenants under its
warehouse and repurchase facilities.

On March 13, 2007, Accredited's stock collapsed $7.43 per share
to close at $3.97 per share, a one-day decline of 65%.

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

For more information, contact Neil Eisenbraun, Esq. of Charles
H. Johnson & Associates, 2599 Mississippi Street, New Brighton,
MN 55112, Phone: (651) 633-5685, E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com.


ACCREDITED HOME: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC 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,
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 Accredited Home Lenders.

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.


ACCREDITED HOME 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 California on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. between Nov. 1,
2005 and March 12, 2007 inclusive.  Also included are those who
acquired Accredited through the acquisition of Aames Investment
Corp.

The complaint alleges that Accredited and certain of its
officers and directors violated Federal Securities laws by
issuing materially false statements regarding the company's
financial results.

Specifically, the defendants concealed the following:

     (i) Accredited lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the company's projections and reported
         results were based upon defective assumptions;

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

   (iii) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in
         the sub-prime market, Accredited would be forced to
         tighten its underwriting guidelines which would have a
         direct material negative impact on its loan productions
         going forward.

On Feb. 14, 2007, Accredited issued a press release announcing
disappointing profitability. Then, on March 12, 2007, after the
market closed, the company reported that it had paid
approximately $190 million in margin calls on its facilities
since Jan. 1, 2007.

In addition, Accredited was seeking waivers and extensions of
waivers of certain financial and operating covenants under its
warehouse and repurchase facilities.

On March 13, 2007, Accredited's stock collapsed $7.43 per share
to close at $3.97 per share, a one-day decline of 65%.

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

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


COAST FINANCIAL: Brian Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a
securities class action has been commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Coast Financial Holdings, Inc.
securities between Oct. 28, 2005 and Jan. 19, 2007, inclusive.

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

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


COAST FINANCIAL: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on March 20, 2007 on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. between Oct. 28,
2005 and Jan. 19, 2007.

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. During the class period, Coast issued a series of
statements relating to Coast's residential loan portfolio.

Coast claimed to have significantly increased its residential
loan portfolio, but failed to disclose the build up and
concentration of loans for residential construction projects
that would be undertaken by Construction Compliance, Inc.

Coast lent millions to individuals to build residential homes,
and much of this construction was undertaken by a single
company, CCI. This increased the risk of loan default by
borrowers and the devaluation of Coast's collateral.

Coast failed to disclose that risk in any of its public filings
and failed to properly reserve for loan losses on its financial
statements. Coast and its officers were well aware of the build
up of construction contracts with CCI, the complaint alleges.

On Jan. 19, 2007, Coast announced that it would likely suffer an
impairment to its loan portfolio because CCI was going out of
business and would not complete many of its construction
projects.

Coast's stock price fell approximately 50%. Later, Coast
disclosed it would add $14 million in loan loss reserves to deal
with the CCI problem.

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

For more information, contact Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. or Julie
Prag Vianale. Esq., both of Vianale & Vianale LLP, 2499 Glades
Road, Suite 112 Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 888- 657-9960 or
561-392-4750 (Toll Free).


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

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.


RADIOSHACK CORP: 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 Northern
District of Texas on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of RadioShack Corp. between Jan. 14, 2003 and June 7, 2006.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants issued highly positive but
false statements about RadioShack's inventory wireless business,
new store format and the company's future prospects.

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

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

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

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

The company primarily engages in the retail sale of consumer
electronics goods and services through the RadioShack store
chain and non-RadioShack branded kiosk operations.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 21, 2008
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.


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
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
Wireless Facilities, Inc. between March 29, 2001 and March 12,
2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges Wireless Facilities and certain officers
and directors of making false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the company's business, accounting practices
and financial results.

Among other things, Defendants concealed Wireless Facilities'
longstanding and improper practice of backdating its stock
option awards to executive management.

Defendants' improper grant of backdated stock options violated
the company's stock option plans, as well as Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

As a result, Defendants informed shareholders on March 12, 2007,
that their financial statements for the fiscal years 2000
through 2006 were materially false and misleading.

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

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


WORLDSPACE INC: Rosen Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm announced that a class action has been filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of the common
stock of WorldSpace, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the
company's Aug. 4, 2005 Initial Public Offering.

The complaint charges that WorldSpace and certain of its present
officers and directors violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by issuing materially false and
misleading statements about the company's subscriber count.

The Complaint alleges that the company included in its
subscriber count accounts that had either expired or been
"churned."

The Complaint further alleges that the company included these
expired or "churned" accounts for at least 90 days after the
accounts had expired or were otherwise non-paying.

As a result of these adverse disclosures the company's stock
fell and members of the Class were damaged.

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

For more information, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip
Kim of The Rosen Law Firm, Phone: 866-767-3653 (toll free), E-
mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com.


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *