CAR_Public/070328.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 28, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 62

                            Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: June Hearing Set in $100M Securities Suit Deal
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in Calif. Federal Court Over Run-Flat Tires
AMERICAN ITALIAN: Mo. Court Certifies Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AMERICA SERVICE: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Complaint
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Still Faces Sales Practice Act Violation Suit

BANDAG INC: Settles Iowa Shareholder Suit Over Bridgestone Deal
CABOT OIL: Suit by W.Va. Royalty Owners to Go to Trial August
CARRIER ACCESS: Reaches $7.4M Settlement in Col. Securities Suit
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Facing Multiple Litigations by Subscribers
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Customer Pursues Bid to Have Case Certified

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Settlement Notices Sent to Card Holder Class
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Still Faces Consumer Litigation in Ala.
G. WILLI-FOOD: Faces Lawsuits in Israel Over Product Content
EXPEDIA INC: Ill. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit in Discovery Stage
EXPEDIA INC: Ohio Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit Still in Discovery

EXPEDIA INC: Ga. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit in Discovery Stage
EXPEDIA INC: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss N.C. Taxes Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Faces Price Fixing Litigation in N.Mex.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Faces Suits Over "Improper" Premiums
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Faces Suits Over Payments on Referrals

MONTANA: BHA Appeals Dismissal of HUD in Indian Tribes' Lawsuit
NATIONAL LIFE: Seeks Explanation, Amendment of Final Judgment
PRISON HEALTH: Still Faces Pa. Suit Over Fees Paid to Physicians
SABRE HOLDINGS: Enters Settlement for Lawsuits Over Merger
STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Tex. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

SUNWEST MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit for Alleged Inadequate Services
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit
TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Consolidation Motion Hearing Set March 29
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Sanchez"
TRIPLE-S INC: Fla. Court Dismisses Lawsuit by Medical Groups

TRIPLE-S INC: Mediation Still Ongoing in Fla. Physicians' Suit
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces Tex. Suit Over Welsh, Carson Merger
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Units Continue to Face Labor Suit in Calif.
US AIRWAYS: Sued Over Additional Fees on "Lap Children" Fare
WEB.COM INC: Pa. Court Refuses to Certify Class in TCPA Lawsuit

* Hagens Berman Brings Class Action Practice to San Francisco


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

RADIOSHACK CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Announces Securities Lawsuit
USANA HEALTH: Dreier Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
WORLDSPACE INC: Federman Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing


                            *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: June Hearing Set in $100M Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a final fairness hearing on June 4 at 10:00 a.m. for a
proposed settlement in the matter, "In re American Express
Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Master File No. 04
Civ. 1773 (DAB)."

The hearing will be held before Judge Deborah A. Batts of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room
24B, New York, NY 10007.

The settlement covers all persons and entities who, at any time
from and including March 10, 1999 through and including April 1,
2006:

      -- paid a fee for financial advisory services as described
         in the American Express or Ameriprise Financial
         Advisory Services Brochure and the Financial Advisory
         Service Agreement;

      -- purchased through American Express Financial Advisors
         (now Ameriprise) any mutual fund in the American
         Express or Ameriprise Preferred Provider Program,
         Select Group Program, or other similar program;
     
      -- purchased through American Express Financial Advisors  
         any mutual fund sold under the American Express, AXP,
         or RiverSource brand;

      -- paid a fee for financial advice, financial planning, or
         other financial advisory services rendered in
         connection with the American Express or Ameriprise
         Strategic Portfolio Service program, Wealth Management
         Service program, or Separately Managed Account program.

Generally, plaintiffs in the consolidated action, assert claims
against Defendants under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933; Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rules
10b-5(a)-(c) and 10b-10 promulgated thereunder; Section 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. Sections 80b-5, 80b-6; the
Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Minnesota
Consumer Fraud Act; Minnesota False Advertisement Act; Minnesota
Unlawful Trade Practices Act; and for breach of fiduciary duty
and unjust enrichment.

In October 2005, a comprehensive settlement was reached
regarding the consolidated securities class action filed against
the company, its former parent and affiliates in October 2004.  

The settlement, under which the company denies any liability,
includes a one-time payment of $100 million to the class
members.  

On Feb. 14, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and
set a final fairness hearing for June 4.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before May 7.  Deadline for submission of claim forms
is July 10.

For more information, contact AEFA Securities Litigation
Settlement c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9089,
Dublin, OH 43017-0989, Phone: 1-888-212-5605, Web site:
http://www.financialfeesettlement.com.

The suit is "In Re American Express Financial Advisors
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Deborah A. Batts.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jules Brody, Aaron Lee Brody, Stull, Stull & Brody, 6  
         East 45th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:  
         (212) 687-7230, Fax: (212) 490-2022, E-mail:  
         ssbny@aol.com;
  
     (2) Sharon M. Lee, Andrei V. Rado, Michael Robert Reese,  
         Steven G. Schulman and Peter Edward Seidman, Milberg,  
         Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, L.L.P., One  
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)  
         594-5300, E-mail: mreese@milberg.com,
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com, pseidman@milberg.com; and
  
     (3) Jonathan K. Levine, Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo,  
         L.L.P., 601 California Street Suite 1400, San  
         Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: (415) 981-4800, Fax: (415)  
         981-4846, E-mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com.

Representing the company is Peter Kristian Vigeland of Wilmer,
Cutler & Pickering (NYC), 399 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York,
NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail:
Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com.


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in Calif. Federal Court Over Run-Flat Tires
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelin North America and American Honda Motor Co. Inc. are
facing a class action alleging fraud in relation to the
companies' run-flat tires, an innovation that allows motorists
to continue to drive even after a car's tire has lost some air.

The suit, filed in U.S. district court in Los Angeles on March
6, doesn't dispute that the tires offer a safety advantage, but
says buyers were deceived about replacement costs and repairs.

The tire at the center of the suit is the Michelin Energy LX4
PAX run-flat, as fitted to the 2005-7 U.S. market Honda Odyssey
Touring and available as an option on the 2006-7 Acura RL.

PAX has a supportive internal polyurethane ring that allows for
a more comfortable ride and better fuel economy as there is no
need for the tire's sidewall to be as stiff as in other run-flat
designs.  However, this feature also makes the PAX more
difficult to repair.

The suit is "Jean Carper et al. v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01481-MMM-AJW," filed in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge
Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Andrew J. Wistrich.

Representing plaintiffs Jean Carper and Michael Muhlfelder are:

     (1) Mark F. Anderson at Kemnitzer Anderson Barron and
         Ogilvie, 445 Bush Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA
         94108, Phone: 415-861-2265, E-mail: mark@kabolaw.com;
         and

     (2) Natalie Finkelman Bennett at Shephard Finkelman Miller
         and Shah, 35 East State Street, Media, PA 19063, U.S.,
         Phone: 610-891-9880.


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Mo. Court Certifies Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ortrie Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri granted certification to a shareholder
lawsuit charging American Italian Pasta Co. with fraud,
bizjournals.com reports.

The ruling affects those who bought American Italian Pasta stock
on or after Jan. 23, 2002, and who owned shares on Aug. 9, 2005.

Shareholders have filed lawsuits against American Italian since
August 2005 when the firm started reviewing its accounting
practices.
   
The suits accuse the company of improper inventory,
underreporting marketing allowances paid to distributors and
improperly capitalizing costs that should have been listed as
expenses.

American Italian then said it is withdrawing financial results
for the last three years because they contained errors in
accounting for product promotion and overhead costs.

Seven suits were consolidated in December 2005 (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).  Judge Smith designated three Iron
Workers' Union locals as lead plaintiffs.  The ironworkers'
locals had used Kent T. Perry & Co. LC of Overland Park for
local counsel.  Judge Smith accepted Perry & Co.'s motion to
make the New York law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman &
Gross lead counsel.

The suit is "In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:05-cv-00725-ODS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge
Ortrie D. Smith.  Plaintiff firms involved in the case:

     (1) Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th St., New York, NY,
         10016, Phone: 212-889-3700, E-mail:
         info@abbeygardy.com;

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

     (3) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third
         Ave., 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212-687-
         1980, Fax: 212-687-7714, E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com;

     (4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410-332-0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200
         Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;
     (6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main St., Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800-797-5499, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

     (7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E., Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-
         7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (8) Schneider & Wallace, 180 Montgomery St., Suite 2000,
         San Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: (415) 421-7100, Fax:
         (415) 421-7105, E-mail: info@schneiderwallace.com;

     (9) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
         St., Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877-891-9880, Fax:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com;

    (10) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215-638-4847, Fax: 215-638-
         4867; and

    (11) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th St., New
         York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310-209-2468, Fax: 310-209-
         2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.


AMERICA SERVICE: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
America Service Group Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries are
seeking the dismissal of an amended complaint filed in a
consolidated securities fraud suit pending against the company
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

On April 6, 2006, plaintiffs filed the first of four similar
securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against the company and the
company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer.

Plaintiffs' allegations in these class actions are substantially
identical.  They are brought on behalf of a putative class of
individuals who purchased the company's common stock between
Sept. 24, 2003 and March 16, 2006.

Allegedly, prior to the company's announcement of the Audit
Committee investigation, the company and/or the company's chief
executive officer and chief financial officer violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements, or concealing information about
the company's business, forecasts and financial performance.

The complaints seek certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief.  By order dated Aug. 3, 2006, the district court
consolidated the lawsuits into one consolidated action.  

On Oct. 31, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding as
defendants:

      -- Secure Pharmacy Plus, LLC;
      -- Enoch E. Hartman III; and
      -- Grant J. Bryson.

The amended complaint also generally alleges that defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning the company's
business, which caused the company's securities to trade at
inflated prices during the class period.

Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages in the form of
restitution; compensatory damages, including interest; and
reasonable costs and expenses.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Jan. 19,
and the company expects briefing on the motion to be complete by
May 2007, according to its March 9 Form 10-K Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: American Service Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00323," filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee under Judge William J. Haynes.

Representing plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension
Fund are:

     (1) Ramzi Abadou at Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, E-mail:
         general_efile@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) George Edward Barrett at Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
         217 Second Avenue, N, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: (615)
         244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com.

Representing defendant Peoria Police Pension Fund is Marcia
Meredith Eason at Miller & Martin, Volunteer Building, 832
Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000, Chattanooga, TN 37402, Phone: (423)
756-8304, Fax: (423) 785-8480, E-mail: meason@millermartin.com.

Representing defendant America Service Group, Inc. is Benjamin
Lee, King & Spalding LLC, 1180 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA
30309-3521, Phone: (404) 572-4600, Fax: (404) 572-5100, E-mail:
blee@kslaw.com.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Still Faces Sales Practice Act Violation Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc. remains a defendant in several
purported class actions pending in state or federal courts for
selling alcoholic beverages to underage drinkers, according to
company's March 9 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In 2004, the company was served with a complaint brought by two
individuals seeking to bring a class action on behalf of all
California residents who, while they were under 21 years of age,
purchased alcohol beverages manufactured by the company and
another defendant during the last four years.

The suit sought disgorgement of unspecified profits earned by
the company in the past and other unspecified damages and
equitable relief.

By order dated Jan. 28, 2005, the California state court granted
the defendants judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case
in its entirety.  The plaintiffs in that action have appealed.

Additionally, the company has been served with similar
complaints in putative class actions in Michigan, Ohio,
Wisconsin and West Virginia.

In these suits, which name a large number of other brewers and
distillers, the parents of illegal underage drinkers are suing
to recover the sums that their offspring purportedly spent
illegally buying alcohol from persons or entities other than the
defendants.

The claims asserted against the company vary depending on the
suit, but include negligence, unjust enrichment, violation of
the state's Sales Practice Act or other statutory provisions,
nuisance, fraudulent concealment and civil conspiracy.  The suit
filed in Michigan includes a claim under the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act.  

Each suit seeks money damages, punitive damages and injunctive
and equitable relief, including so-called disgorgement of
profits allegedly attributable to illegal underage drinking.

The company removed the Ohio case to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio in June 2004, removed the West
Virginia case to U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of West Virginia in May 2005, and removed the Michigan case to
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in July
2005.

It later filed motions to dismiss the Ohio and Wisconsin cases,
and the Ohio federal court and the Wisconsin state court
dismissed the entire cases with prejudice.  A motion to dismiss
is pending in Michigan.

The same law firm in New York and Florida filed similar actions,
but the company was not served in either case, and the
plaintiffs in the Florida suit have voluntarily dismissed their
case.

Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.anheuser-busch.com/.


BANDAG INC: Settles Iowa Shareholder Suit Over Bridgestone Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bandag Inc. has tentatively agreed to settle a potential class
action that had threatened to block the company's $1.05 billion
acquisition by Japan's Bridgestone Corp., Reuters reports.

The retread tires supplier also agreed to pay $610,000 in fees
and expenses to the lawyers for the plaintiffs as part of the
settlement.  The agreement is still subject to court approval.

Bandag was named a defendant in a purported shareholder class
action filed in Muscatine County District Court in Iowa in
relation to its proposed merger with Bridgestone Americas
Holding, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, March 22, 2007).

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

The complaint names as defendants:

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

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

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

Bandag vigorously denied claims it did not solicit other
potential bids and created deterrents to potential rival offers
in its merger with Grip Acquisition Corp., and then with
Bridgestone, but wanted to avoid delaying or otherwise
imperiling the deal, the report said.

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


CABOT OIL: Suit by W.Va. Royalty Owners to Go to Trial August
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the West Virginia Royalty Litigation against Cabot Oil
& Gas Corp. is set Aug. 13, 2007.

In December 2001, Cabot Oil was sued by two royalty owners in
West Virginia state court for an unspecified amount of damages.  
The plaintiffs have requested class certification and allege
that the company: failed to pay royalty based upon the wholesale
market value of the gas; had taken improper deductions from the
royalty; and failed to properly inform royalty owners of the
deductions.

The plaintiffs also claimed that they are entitled to a 1/8th
royalty share of the gas sales contract settlement that the
company reached with Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. in 1995
bankruptcy proceedings.

Discovery and pleadings necessary to place the class
certification issue before the state court have been ongoing.
The Court entered an order on June 1, 2005 granting the motion
for class certification.  The parties have negotiated a
modification to the order, which will result in the dismissal of
the claims related to the gas sales contract settlement in
connection with the Columbia Gas Transmission bankruptcy
proceedings and that will limit the claims to those arising on
and after Dec. 17, 1991.

The court postponed the trial date from April 17, 2006, in light
of the case involving an unrelated party pending before the West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.  The company said it intends
to challenge the class certification order by filing a Petition
for Writ of Prohibition with the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals.

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals issued a decision in
2006 in a case against another producer (the Tawney case) that
raised some of the same issues as are raised in the case.  This
recent decision may negatively impact some of the defenses the
company have raised in the litigation with respect to the issue
of deductibility of post-production expenses under certain
leases, but the company believe that in a significant number of
leases the company have lease language, factual distinctions and
defenses that are not implicated by the ruling.

The Tawney case involves claims concerning the deductibility of
post-production expenses and the failure to properly inform,
issues shared with the case, but also involves additional claims
not raised in the case.

The most significant additional claims are related to sales
under long-term, fixed-price agreements at prices considered
significantly below market value, as well as claims for certain
volume reductions and unmetered production.

The Tawney case went to trial in January 2007, and the jury
returned a verdict against the producer for $130 million in
compensatory damages and $270 million in punitive damages.

Judgment has not yet been entered in the Tawney case, and an
appeal is expected.  The company is closely monitoring
developments in the Tawney case, and it continues to investigate
how this recent ruling may impact the company's defense of the
case.  The case against the company has been re-activated to the
docket and trial is set for Aug. 13, 2007.


CARRIER ACCESS: Reaches $7.4M Settlement in Col. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Access Corp. reached an agreement in principle for the
settlement of a securities-related class action filed in June
2005 against the company and certain of its executive officers
and directors upon the company's announcement that it would
restate financial statements.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Carrier Access would
pay $7.4 million in satisfaction of the claims, all of which
would be funded by proceeds of the company's directors and
officers insurance policy.

The $7.4 million insurance recovery has been reported in prepaid
expenses and other current assets, and the $7.4 million
settlement liability is reported in accrued expenses and other
current liabilities in the company's Form 10-K for the year
ending Dec. 31, 2006, filed March 16, 2007.

While Carrier Access continues to deny any wrongdoing, it
believes the settlement is in the best interest of the company
and its shareholders to avoid the distraction and expense of
continued litigation.

The settlement is subject to court approval.

Beginning on Jun. 2, 2005, three purported shareholder class
actions were filed against the company and certain company
officials.  The cases were:

      -- "Croker v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case No.  
         05-cv-1011-LTB,"  

      -- "Chisman v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case  
         No. 05-cv-1078-REB," and  

      -- "Sved v. Carrier Access Corp., et al, Case No.  
         05-cv-1280-EWN."

On Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The action is purportedly brought on behalf of those who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Oct.
21, 2003 and May 20, 2005.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, purported to assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and sought unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

The complaint was primarily based upon allegations of wrongdoing
in connection with the company's announcement of the company's
intention to restate previously issued financial statements for
the years ended Dec. 31, 2003 and 2004 and certain interim
periods in each of the years ended Dec. 31, 2003 and 2004.

On Mar. 17, 2006, the company moved to dismiss on numerous
grounds, including:

      -- failure to state a claim;

      -- failure to adequately plead a claim based upon
         purported failure to disclose "saturation" and product
         development delays;

      -- failure to plead specific facts giving rise to a strong  
         inference that defendants knew or were reckless in not  
         knowing that the 2003 and 2004 Annual Reports on Form
         10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q contained
         materially false financial statements; and

      -- failure to plead motive for defendants to commit fraud  
         and failure to plead a violation of Section 20A of the  
         Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Section 78t-1(a)).

On July 18, 2006, the court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.  

The consolidated suit is "Croker v. Carrier Access Corp, et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-01011-LTB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado under Judge Lewis T. Babcock.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kip Brian Shuman, Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th  
         Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A., Phone: 303-861-
         3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail: Shuman@DyerShuman.com;
  
     (2) Matthew M. Wolf, Allen & Vellone, P.C., 1600 Stout  
         Street, #1100 Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-534-
         4499, E-mail: mwolf@allen-vellone.com; and
  
     (3) Karen Jean Cody-Hopkins and Charles Walter Lilley,  
         Lilley & Garcia, LLP, 1600 Stout Street #1100, Denver,  
         CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-293-9800, Fax: 303-298-
         8975, E-mail: kcody-hopkins@lilleygarcia.com or  
         clilley@lilleygarcia.com.

Representing the company is Karen Thomas Stefano of Wilson,  
Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA  
94304-1050, U.S.A., Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-493-6811, E-
mail: kstefano@wsgr.com.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Facing Multiple Litigations by Subscribers
----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. is a defendant in multiple purported class
actions filed by subscribers in various Israeli courts between
2000 and 2007, according to the company's March 12 Form 20-F
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

                         2000 Litigation

In September 2000, a purported class action was filed against
the company in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by one of
its subscribers in connection with VAT charges in respect of
insurance premiums and the provision of insurance services that
were allegedly not provided in accordance with the law.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount of the
claim is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS402 million
($95,688,382.41).  

In February 2006, the motion for certification as a class action
was denied.  In March 2006, an appeal was filed with the Supreme
Court challenging the dismissal.  

                         2001 Litigation

In May 2001 a purported class action, alleging, inter alia, the
company unlawfully collected Value Added Taxes from its
subscribers who were residents of or while staying at the city
of Eilat in Israel, was denied with the consent of the
plaintiffs.

In August 2001, a purported class action was filed against the
company in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by one of its
subscribers in connection with the company's outgoing call
tariffs on the "Talkman" (pre-paid) plan and the collection of a
distribution fee for "Talkman" calling cards.  

If the claim is certified as a class action, the amount claimed
is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS135 million
($32,153,365.23).  

In June 2004, the motion for certification as a class action was
denied.  In September 2004, this decision was appealed to the
Israeli Supreme Court.

In August 2001, another purported class action was filed against
the company in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by one of
its subscribers in connection with air time tariffs and
subscriber fees that were allegedly collected not in accordance
with the language of the agreement signed by subscribers at the
time of their joining the company's network.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS1.26 billion
($299,661,447.08), plus punitive damages at a rate of not less
than 100% of the amount of the judgment.

In February 2004, the motion for certification as a class action
was denied.  In March 2004, this decision was appealed to the
Israeli Supreme Court.

In January 2006, the Supreme Court approved the plaintiff's
motion to amend his complaint to reflect the amendment to the
Consumer Protection Law and return to the District Court in
order to examine the amendment's effect, if any, on the District
Court ruling, which remains in effect.

In October 2006, a separate motion was accepted allowing the
plaintiff to further revise his complaint as a result of
enactment of the Class Action Claims Law.

                        2002 Litigation

In December 2002, a purported class action was filed against
Pelephone and the company in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-
Jaffa in connection with the company's incoming call tariff to
subscribers of other operators when calling its subscribers
during the period before the regulation of interconnect fees.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS1.6 billion
($380,500,328.09).

                         2003 Litigation

In April 2003, a purported class action was filed against the
company and two other cellular operators, with the District
Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa in connection with its incoming SMS
tariff to subscribers of other operators when sending SMS
messages to the company's subscribers during the period before
the regulation of SMS interconnect fees.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS90 million
($21,406,206.23), without specifying the amount claimed from the
company.

In August 2003, a purported class action was filed against the
company in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by one of its
subscribers in connection with the company's method of rounding
the rates of calls, its method of linking rates of calls to the
consumer price index and a certain rate that was approved by the
Ministry of Communications in 1996 was illegally approved.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS150 million
($35,672,026.87).

Following the amendment to the Consumer Protection Law in
December 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of its
claim in March 2006.  No hearing has as yet been held on the
merits of that motion.

                         2006 Litigation
  
In August 2006, a purported class action was filed against the
company and two other cellular operators in the District Court
of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by one of its subscribers in connection with
sums allegedly unlawfully charged for a segment of a call that
was not actually carried out.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiffs as exceeding NIS100
million ($23,812,953.41) without specifying the amount claimed
from the company individually.

In November 2006, a purported class action was filed against the
company, two other cellular operators and two landline operators
in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by four plaintiffs
claiming to be subscribers of the three cellular operators, in
connection with sums allegedly unlawfully charged for a segment
of a call that was not actually carried out.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed from the company, as well as from each of the other
cellular operators, is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately NIS53 million ($12,624,220.48) [the amount claimed
from all five operators is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately NIS159 million ($37,824,219.53)].

In November 2006, the company filed a motion to transfer this
lawsuit to the judge handling the lawsuit filed in August 2006,
mentioned above, and seeking further instructions from this
judge as to the manner in which the two purported class actions
should be heard, on the basis of the similarity of the two
lawsuits.

                         2007 Litigation

In January 2007, a purported class action was filed against the
company, two other cellular operators and two landline operators
in the District Court of Jerusalem by three plaintiffs claiming
to be subscribers of some of the defendants, in connection with
an alleged violation of the defendants' statutory duty to allow
their subscribers to transfer with their number to another
operator, thus, allegedly, causing monetary damage to the
subscribers.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiffs to be at least NIS10.6
billion ($2,520,969,734.93), without specifying the amount
claimed from the company and subject to increase in as much as
the alleged violation is prolonged.

The amount of damages alleged by the plaintiffs is at least
NIS1000 per subscriber (the plaintiffs are alleging that the
damage for business customers is at least double the amount and
are maintaining the right to increase the claim accordingly),
and the company have been attributed 2.82 million subscribers in
the claim.

In February 2007, a purported class action was filed against the
company, in the District Court of Tel-Aviv, by a plaintiff who
claims to be the company's subscriber, in connection with Value
Added Tax allegedly unlawfully collected from the company's
subscribers who are residents of the city of Eilat in Israel and
alleged misleading conduct and lack of disclosure thereof.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS33
million ($7,848,997.04), calculated by multiplying an alleged
damage of NIS6,600 per subscriber by the number of the
subscribers allegedly damaged, estimated by the plaintiff to be
at least 5,000.

In March 2007, a purported class action was filed against the
company and two other cellular operators in the District Court
of Tel-Aviv, by plaintiffs claiming to be subscribers of the
three cellular operators, in connection with sums that were
allegedly overcharged in breach of the cellular operators'
licenses, based on charge units larger than the charge units the
company was allegedly authorized to charge under its licenses
for calls initiated or received by the subscribers while abroad.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed from the cellular operators is estimated by the
plaintiffs to be approximately NIS449 million ($106,806,745.02),
of which approximately NIS193.5 million ($46,045,436.24) is
attributed to the company.

Cellcom Israel Ltd. on the Net:
http://cellcom.channel.co.il/english/content/about/03/.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Customer Pursues Bid to Have Case Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
A vehicle buyer is appealing a decision denying certification of
a suit he filed against Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc.

In June 2004, plaintiff Jeremy Henry filed a lawsuit against the
company in California Superior Court, San Diego County, alleging
improper practices related to the notice given after the
repossession of a vehicle that he purchased.

The plaintiff asked to certify the suit as a class action, but
was denied.  He is now appealing the case before the California
Court of Appeal.  

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

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.consumerportfolio.com/.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Settlement Notices Sent to Card Holder Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notices with regards to a settlement of two purported class
actions filed against Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois have
been sent.

In August and September 2005, two plaintiffs represented by the
same law firm filed substantially identical lawsuits, each of
which purports to be a class action, and each of which alleges
that the company improperly accessed consumer credit
information.

The company has reached agreements in principle to settle these
cases.  One of the settlements has received final approval from
the court and the other has received preliminary approval.

Notice of the settlements has been sent to the class, according
to the company's March 9 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suits are "Cavin v. Bill Jacobs Joliet, L.L.C. et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-05025," and "Smith v. Rockenbach Chevrolet Sales Inc
et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-05454," both filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Charles
R. Norgle, Sr. and Judge Ruben Castillo, respectively.  

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


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Still Faces Consumer Litigation in Ala.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. is still a defendant in a
consumer class action pending in an Alabama bankruptcy court.

On June 2, 2004, Delmar Coleman filed a lawsuit in the Circuit
Court of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, alleging that plaintiff Coleman
was harmed by an alleged failure to refer, in the notice given
after repossession of her vehicle, to the right to purchase the
vehicle by tender of the full amount owed under the retail
installment contract.  Plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, on behalf of a purported nationwide class.

The company removed the case to federal bankruptcy court, and
filed a motion for summary judgment as part of its adversary
proceeding against the plaintiff in the bankruptcy court.  The
federal bankruptcy court granted the plaintiff's motion to send
the matter back to Alabama state court.

The company appealed that ruling to the federal district court,
which later ordered the bankruptcy court to decide whether the
plaintiff has standing to pursue her claims, and, if standing is
found, to reconsider its remand decision.

The matter is currently pending before the bankruptcy court,
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.

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.consumerportfolio.com/.


G. WILLI-FOOD: Faces Lawsuits in Israel Over Product Content
------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. faces several purported class
actions in Tel-Aviv, Israel regarding reductions in the contents
of Willi-Food products, according to the company's March 20 Form
20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Five lawsuits and class action certification motions were filed
against Willi-Food in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District Court, which
were all based on claims regarding reductions in the contents of
Willi-Food products.

Plaintiffs' claims in all of the motions are similar: "The
consumers who purchased the products were misled, since the
contents of the packages were reduced without notifying the
consumer public and without reducing the prices of the products
in direct proportion."

Pursuant to a procedural arrangement reached with the attorney
representing the abovementioned five Plaintiffs-Petitioners (who
are all represented by the same attorney), Willifood's responses
to the various motions will all be filed by April 30.  

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. on the Net:
http://www.willi-food.co.il/.


EXPEDIA INC: Ill. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit in Discovery Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certification discovery is ongoing in a suit filed by the city
of Fairview Heights (Ill.) against several Expedia Inc.
companies over hotel occupancy taxes.

On Oct. 5, 2005, the city of Fairview Heights, Illinois filed a
purported state wide class action, "City of Fairview Heights et
al. v. Orbitz, Inc., et al., No. 05L0576" in the Circuit Court
for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County against a
number of internet travel companies, including Hotels.com,
Hotwire and Expedia Washington, a Washington corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of Expedia Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint purports to assert claims for
violation of that ordinance, violation of the consumer
protection act, conversion and unjust enrichment.  The complaint
seeks damages and other relief in an unspecified amount.

On Nov. 28, 2005, defendants removed this action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  On Jan.
17, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  On
July 12, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.  

Certification discovery is ongoing, according to Expedia's Feb.
26 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


EXPEDIA INC: Ohio Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit Still in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a suit filed by the city of Findlay, Ohio
against several Expedia Inc. companies over hotel occupancy
taxes.

On Oct. 25, 2005, the city of Findlay, Ohio filed a purported
state wide class action, "City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
et al., No. 2005-CV-673" in Court of Common Pleas of Hancock
County, Ohio against a number of internet travel companies,
including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia Washington, a
Washington corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Expedia
Inc.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint purports to assert claims for
violation of that ordinance, violation of the consumer
protection act, conversion imposition of a constructive trust
and declaratory relief.  The complaint seeks damages and other
relief in an unspecified amount.  

On Nov. 22, 2005, defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  On Jan. 30,
2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the case.  On July 26,
2006, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss.  

Discovery is ongoing, according to Expedia's Feb. 26 form 10-k
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


EXPEDIA INC: Ga. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit in Discovery Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certification discovery is ongoing in a suit filed by the city
of Rome, Georgia against Expedia Inc. companies over hotel
occupancy taxes.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the city of Rome, Georgia, Hart County,
Georgia, and the city of Cartersville, Georgia filed a purported
state wide class action "City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 4:05-CV-249," in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia against a number of
internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia Washington, a Washington corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Expedia Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the county and cities the hotel accommodations taxes as required
by municipal ordinances.  The complaint purports to assert
claims for violation of excise and sales and use tax ordinances,
conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive
trust, declaratory relief and injunctive relief.

The complaint seeks damages and other relief in an unspecified
amount.  On Feb. 6, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint.  On May 9, 2006, the Court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss.

On June 8, 2006, plaintiffs' filed an amended complaint adding
16 more municipalities and political subdivisions as named
plaintiffs.  Certification discovery is ongoing, according to
Expedia's Feb. 26 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

According to a court filing, defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on Feb. 9, 2007.

The case is "City of Rome, Georgia et al. v. Hotels.Com, LP et
al.," Case No. 4:05-cv-00249-HLM filed in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Harold L.
Murphy.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) David G. Archer, Office of David G. Archer, P.O. Box
         1024, 336 South Tennessee Street, Cartersville, GA
         30120, Phone: 770-386-1116, E-mail:
         dgapc@bellsouth.net; and

     (2) Robert Maddox Brinson at Brinson Askew Berry Siegler
         Richardson & Davis, P.O. Box 5513, 615 West First
         Street, Omberg House, Rome, GA 30162-5513, Phone: 706-
         291-8853; E-mail: bbrinson@brinson-askew.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Paul E. Chronis at McDermott Will & Emery-Chicago, 227
         West Monroe Street, Suite 3100, Chicago, IL 60606-5096,
         Phone: 312-372-2000, E-mail: pchronis@mwe.com; and

     (2) Michael A. Barlow at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
         Flom, LLP, P.O. Box 636, Wilmington, DE 19899-0636,
         Phone: 302-651-3000, Fax: mbarlow@skadden.com.


EXPEDIA INC: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss N.C. Taxes Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A North Carolina state court has yet to rule on a motion to
dismiss a suit filed by the Pitt County (North Carolina) against
Expedia Inc. companies over hotel occupancy taxes.

On Dec. 1, 2005, Pitt County filed a purported statewide class
action, "Pitt County, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No. 05-
CVS-3017" in Pitt County, General Court of Justice, Superior
Court Division against a number of internet travel companies,
including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia Washington, a
Washington corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Expedia
Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint purports to assert claims for
violation of that ordinance, violation of the deceptive trade
practices act, conversion, imposition of a constructive trust
and a declaratory judgment that defendants have engaged in
unlawful business practices.

The complaint seeks damages and other relief in an unspecified
amount.  On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants removed the action to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina.  On March 14, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.

Defendants removed the case to federal court on Feb. 13, 2006.  
A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held on Oct. 17,
2006.  The Court has not yet issued a ruling on that motion,
according to Expedia's Feb. 26 form 10-k filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Faces Price Fixing Litigation in N.Mex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. remains a defendant in a
purported class action filed in New Mexico, which alleges that
the company has engaged in anti-competitive price fixing in the
state, 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 suit, "Murphy v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. and Fidelity
National Title Insurance Co.," was filed on April 27, 2005 in
the First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe.

The suit seeks an injunction against price fixing and writs
issued to the State regulators mandating the law be interpreted
to provide a competitive market, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, statutory damages, interest and attorney's fees for the
injured class.

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


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Faces Suits Over "Improper" Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. remains a defendant in several
purported class actions alleging the company charges improper
premiums for title insurance, 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.

These actions are:

     -- "Wooley v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co." and
         Williams v. Ticor Title Insurance Co. of Florida,"
         filed on Nov. 28, 2006 and Dec. 19, 2006, respectively,
         in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         Alabama);

     -- "Lentini v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. of New
         York," filed on April 13, 2006 in the U.S. District
         Court for the District of Connecticut;

     -- "Turner v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.," filed Sept. 20,
         2004 in the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial District, in
         and for Nassau County, Florida;

     -- "Randleman v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co.,"
         filed on Feb. 15, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
         the Northern District of Ohio; and "Dubin v. Security
         Union Title Insurance Co.," filed on March 12, 2003, in
         the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio);

     -- "Woodard v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc.," filed on
         Dec. 6, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
         District of New Mexico;

     -- "Anderson v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co.,"
         filed on Sept. 25, 2006, in New Hampshire State Court,
         County of Hillsborough, Northern District;

     -- "Patterson v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co." of
         New York, filed on Oct. 27, 2003 in the Court of Common
         Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; "O'Day v.
         Ticor Title Insurance Co. of Florida," filed on Oct.
         18, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of Pennsylvania; "Cohen v. Chicago Title
         Insurance Co.," filed on Jan. 27, 2006 in the Court of
         Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania; and
        "Guizarri v. Ticor Title Insurance Co.," filed on Oct.
         17, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of Pennsylvania); and

     -- "Jepson v. Ticor Title Insurance Co.," filed on Nov.
         29, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
         District of Washington; and "Braunstein v. Chicago
         Title Insurance Co.," filed on Nov. 22, 2006 in the
         U.S. District Court for the Western District of
         Washington.

The cases allege that the named defendant companies failed to
provide notice of premium discounts to consumers refinancing
their mortgages, and failed to give discounts in refinancing
transactions in violation of the filed rates.  

The actions seek refunds of the premiums charged and punitive
damages.  

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


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Faces Suits Over Payments on Referrals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. remains a defendant in two
purported class actions filed in Illinois over its alleged
paying of incentives to attorneys for referring business to the
company, 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.

The cases are:

      -- "Chultum v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Chicago
         Title and Trust Co. and Ticor Title Insurance
         Co.," and

      -- "Collella v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Chicago
         Title and Trust Co. and Ticor Title Insurance
         Co.,"

Both were filed on May 11, 2006 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division.  They
allege that the company has paid attorneys to refer business to
the company by paying them for core title services in
conjunction with orders when the attorneys, in fact, did not
perform any core title services and the payments were to steer
business to the company.

The suits seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and
injunctive relief to terminate the practice.

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


MONTANA: BHA Appeals Dismissal of HUD in Indian Tribes' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Five American Indian tribes have filed documents supporting
Blackfeet Housing Authority's appeal against a decision by the
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss claims by Blackfeet
tribal members against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, The Missoula Independent reports.

In mid-2006, the circuit court reversed a 2002 dismissal of a
civil suit filed against the Blackfeet Housing Authority, but
agreed with the dismissal of a suit against the federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development (Class Action
Reporter, July 31, 2006).

                        Case Background

The class action was filed in 2002 by eight Blackfeet tribal
members over allegations that substandard homes built for them
some 30 years ago made residents ill.

Plaintiffs Martin Marceau, Candice LaMott, Julie and Joseph
Rattler Jr., John Edwards Jr., Deana Mountain Chief and Gary and
Mary Grant filed the suit on behalf of owners of 153 Housing and
Urban Development homes that were built with wooden foundations
on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in the late 1970s and early
1980s.

The residents said the unstable foundations caused structural
damage and water leaks, which in some instances have prompted
the explosive growth of mildew and toxic molds.  Wood used for
the foundations was also treated with a highly toxic
preservative, chromated copper arsenate, a substance the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has since decided should be
removed from commercial sale because of health concerns.

The plaintiffs argue that Housing and Urban Development and
Blackfeet Housing officials built and arranged the mortgaging of
the homes under Housing and Urban Development's Mutual Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program while knowing that the
foundations were inferior and potentially harmful.  

In January 2004, Judge Sam Haddon of U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana ruled that the Housing and Urban Development
couldn't be sued under the various laws that apply to the
housing projects and that the Blackfeet Housing Authority had
"sovereign immunity."  But the appellate court said on July 21,
2006 that the housing authority had forfeited its immunity when
it was first established by the Blackfeet Tribe as a separate
entity in 1977.

The ruling remanded the case against the housing authority to
the Montana district court.

The lawsuit asks for unspecified monetary damages and for the
homes to be repaired or replaced -- an undertaking that was
estimated to cost $30 million in 2004.

                    Review of Ruling Sought

In recent developments, The Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes, Crow Tribe and Fort Peck Tribe in Montana have joined
the Navajo Nation in filing documents supporting a motion to
review the appellate court's ruling.

Attorneys for the tribes say they're concerned the case could
set bad precedent, triggering unintended consequences throughout
Indian country, like setting a pattern of similar court rulings.  

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes attorney John Harrison,
said the concern is not the Glacier Homes residents' claims, but
rather the larger implications of who's held responsible:
"Obviously there are some wronged tribal members, but our
position is that the remedy isn't against the tribe but against
HUD."

The Blackfeet Housing Authority has also asked the court to
reevaluate whether it must answer residents' claims.  The court
hasn't acted on that request, according to the report.

The suit is "Marceau, et al. v. Blackfeet Housing, et al., Case
No. 4:02-cv-00073-SHE."  Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Timothy J. Cavan at the Office Of The U.S. Attorney
         P.O. Box 1478, Billings, MT 59103-1478, Phone: 406-657-
         6101, Fax: 657-6058, E-mail: Tim.Cavan@usdoj.gov; and

     (2) Patrick L. Smith at Smith & Doherty, PC, 815 E Front
         Suite 3, Missoula, MT 59802, Phone: 406-721-1070.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Towe at Towe Ball Enright Mackey &
         Sommerfeld, 2525 Sixth Avenue North, P.O. Box 30457
         Billings, MT 59107-0457, Phone: 406-248-7337, Fax: 248-
         2647, E-mail: towe@tbems.com; and

     (2) Jeffrey A. Simkovic, Attorney At Law, P.O. Box 1077
         Billings, MT 59103, Phone: 406-248-7000.


NATIONAL LIFE: Seeks Explanation, Amendment of Final Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Life Insurance Co. along with Torchmark Corp. sought
clarification, or in the alternative, an amendment of a final
judgment approving a settlement of a consolidated class action
filed against them over cancer policies.  

The companies were parties to purported class action, "Roberts
v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co., Case No. CV-2002-009-B,"
filed in the Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama on behalf
of all persons who currently or in the past were insured under
Liberty cancer policies, which were no longer being marketed,
regardless of whether the policies remained in force or lapsed.  

The case was based on allegations of breach of contract in the
implementation of premium rate increases, misrepresentation
regarding the premium rate increases, fraud and suppression
concerning the closed block of business and unjust enrichment.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion
granting Liberty's and Torchmark's petition for a writ of
mandamus, concluding that the Choctaw Circuit Court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction and ordering that Circuit Court to
dismiss the action.

Plaintiffs then filed their purported class action, "Roberts v.
Liberty National Life Insurance Co., Civil Action No. CV-03-
0137," against Liberty and Torchmark in the Circuit Court of
Barbour County, Alabama on Dec. 30, 2003.

On April 16, 2004 the parties filed a written Stipulation of
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement with the Barbour County,
Alabama Circuit Court seeking potential settlement of the
Roberts case.  

A fairness hearing on the potential settlement was held by the
Barbour County Circuit Court on July 15, 2004.  After receipt of
briefs on certain issues and submission of materials relating to
objections to the proposed settlement to the court-appointed
independent special master, the court reconvened the previously
continued fairness hearing on Sept. 23, 2004.  

After the Sept. 23, 2004 hearing, the court, after hearing from
the objectors to the potential settlement, ordered the
appointment of an independent actuary to report back to the
court on certain issues.  The report of the independent actuary
was subsequently furnished to the special master and the court
on a timely basis.

On Nov. 22, 2004, the court entered an order and final judgment
in Roberts whereby the court consolidated Roberts with
"Robertson v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co., CV-92-021,"
for purposes of the Roberts stipulation of settlement and
certified the Roberts class as a new subclass of the class
previously certified by that court in Robertson.  

The court approved the stipulation and settlement and ordered
and enjoined Liberty to perform its obligations under the
stipulation.  

Subject to the stipulation, Liberty and Torchmark were
permanently enjoined from:

      -- instituting, engaging or participating in, maintaining,
         authorizing or continuing premium rate increases
         inconsistent with the Stipulation;

      -- failing to implement temporary premium waivers in
         accordance with the Stipulation;

      -- failing to implement the new benefits procedure
         described in the Stipulation; and

      -- failing to implement the special schedules and special
         provisions of the stipulation for subclass members who
         have cancer and are receiving benefits and for subclass
         members who have no other cancer or medical insurance
         and/or are not covered by Medicare.

The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims, released the defendants,
enjoined Roberts subclass members from any further prosecution
of released claims and retained continuing jurisdiction of all
matters relating to the Roberts settlement.  

In an order issued Feb. 1, 2005, the court denied the objectors'
motion to alter, amend or vacate its earlier final judgment on
class settlement and certification.  

The companies proceeded to implement the settlement terms.  On
March 10, 2005, the Roberts plaintiffs filed notice of appeal to
the Alabama Supreme Court.

In an opinion issued on Sept. 29, 2006, the Alabama Supreme
Court voided the Barbour County Circuit Court's final judgment
and dismissed the Roberts appeal.  

The Supreme Court held that the Barbour County Court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction in Roberts to certify the Roberts
class as a subclass of the Robertson class and to enter a final
judgment approving the settlement since Roberts was filed as an
independent class action collaterally attacking Robertson rather
than being filed in Robertson under the Barbour County Court's
reserved continuing jurisdiction over that case.  

On Oct. 23, 2006, Liberty filed a petition with the Barbour
County Circuit Court under its continuing jurisdiction in
Robertson for clarification, or in the alternative, to amend the
Robertson final judgment.

Liberty seeks an order from the Circuit Court declaring that
Liberty pay benefits to Robertson class members based upon the
amounts accepted by providers in full payment of charges.

A hearing on Liberty's petition was heard on March 13, 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. in the Net: http://www.torchmarkcorp.com.


PRISON HEALTH: Still Faces Pa. Suit Over Fees Paid to Physicians
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Philadelphia and Prison Health Services, Inc., an
operating subsidiary of America Service Group, Inc., remain
defendants in a purported class action filed by Andrew
Berkowitz, an individual physician independent contractor in
Philadelphia.

The plaintiff filed the suit as a putative class action on or
about Aug. 2, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Trial Division.  The suit is seeking unspecified damages
for the class, but damages in the amount of at least $9,588
individually.

Plaintiff alleges that he provided services to inmates in the
Philadelphia Prison System at the request of the defendants and
that the defendants breached the alleged contractual duties owed
to him by paying an amount alleged to be less than the full
amount plaintiff billed for his medical services.

On Sept. 22, 2006, the City of Philadelphia filed a New Matter
Cross claim against Philadelphia Prison alleging breach of
contract, negligence and seeking indemnification.  

On Sept. 29, 2006, Prison Health filed its answer to plaintiff's
complaint, which answer included a crossclaim against the City
of Philadelphia for contribution and indemnification.

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

America Service Group, Inc. on the Net: http://www.asgr.com/.


SABRE HOLDINGS: Enters Settlement for Lawsuits Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Holdings Corp. entered into memoranda of understanding
with plaintiffs' counsel and other named defendants regarding
the settlement of a purported class action, the McBride case,
and a purported derivative action, the Holowach case, brought on
behalf of Sabre Holdings stockholders.

Under the terms of the memoranda, Sabre Holdings, the other
named defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle both
lawsuits, subject to definitive documentation, any applicable
procedural requirements under Texas law and other conditions,
and the settlements will be presented to the courts in which
each case is pending for approval after the transaction has
closed.

In addition, the settlements will not affect the timing of the
special meeting of stockholders of Sabre Holdings to vote upon
the proposal to adopt the merger agreement by and among Sabre
Holdings and subsidiaries of Silver Lake Partners and Texas
Pacific Group, which is scheduled for March 29, 2007.  The
company anticipates that its stockholders will approve the
acquisition at the special meeting of stockholders and that the
acquisition will close on or about March 30, 2007.

Both the McBride and Holowach cases were filed in the District
Court for the State of Texas in Tarrant County following the
Dec. 12, 2006 announcement of the Agreement and Plan of Merger.

The suits are:

      -- "Jack McBride v. Sabre Holdings Corp., et al., Case No.
         236-221611-06,"and

      -- "Lillian Chait v. Sabre Holdings Corp., et al., Case
         No. 067-221619-06."

Both complaints name as defendants Sabre Holdings and its Board
of Directors.  

The complaints allege that Sabre Holdings' directors breached
their fiduciary duties by adopting the merger agreement and
approving the merger.

They purport to seek declaratory relief, an injunction
preventing completion of the merger, the recovery of unspecified
damages, and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 22, 2007, Ms. Chait voluntarily dismissed her complaint.
On Feb. 7, 2007, an amended complaint was filed in the McBride
Action (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 1, 2007).

The amended complaint contains similar allegations to the
original complaint and adds allegations that Sabre Holdings'
directors have not fully and fairly disclosed all material
information relating to the merger.

The settlements will not affect the amount of merger
consideration to be paid to stockholders of Sabre Holdings in
connection with the proposed merger.

Sabre Holdings Corp. on the Net: http://www.sabre.com.


STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Tex. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
dismissed, in its entirety, a securities fraud class action
filed against Staktek Holdings, Inc. and two of its executive
officers.

On Oct. 22, 2004, a class action complaint for violations of
U.S. federal securities laws was filed against the company in
the U.S. District Court in New Mexico.

Plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to disclose to the
public an anticipated shortage of computer memory chips and that
they knew or recklessly disregarded that the anticipated
shortage would have a materially adverse impact on its revenue
and earnings.

In addition, the plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to
disclose to investors that the industry's transition to a new
generation of higher-capacity memory chips was causing computer
makers to stockpile supplies of older memory chips, increasing
the shortage.  The suit covers individuals who purchased the
company's stock between Nov. 26, 2003 and May 19, 2004.

In April 2005, the case was transferred to federal district
court in Austin, Texas, and in June the plaintiff amended her
complaint, adding the company's chairman of the board as a
defendant.

Wayne R. Lieberman, Staktek's president and chief executive,
stated, "We are very pleased that the case has been dismissed.  
This result allows us to focus on creating value for our
stockholders through the introduction of new products and
solutions for existing and future customers."

The suit is "Holzwasser v. Staktek Holdings, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-00239-LY," filed in the U.S. District Court for
Western District of Texas under Judge Lee Yeakel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Peter A. Binkow and Dale MacDiarmid of Glancy Binkow &   
         Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of The Stars, #311, Los   
         Angeles, CA 90067, US, Phone: (310) 201-9150, Fax:   
         (310) 201-9160; and   

     (2) Howard G. Smith of Smith & Smith, L.L.P., 3070 Bristol   
         Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone: (215) 638-  
         4847, Fax: (215) 638-4867.  

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Robert W. Brownlie and Jennifer A. Lloyd of DLA Piper   
         Rudnick Gray Cary, US, Phone: (619) 699-3665 and (512)   
         457-7000, Fax: 619/699-2701 and 512/457-7001, E-mail:   
         jenny.lloyd@dlapiper.com; and  

    (ii) Stephanie Lucie, 8900 Shoak Creek Blvd., #125 Austin,   
         TX 78757, US, Phone: (512) 454-9531, Fax: (512) 454-  
         2598.


SUNWEST MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit for Alleged Inadequate Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
California lawyer Kathryn Stebner filed a class action in
Multnomah County Circuit Court (Oregon) on behalf of residents
of 50 Oregon nursing homes operated by Salem-based Sunwest
Management, the Albany Democrat-Herald reports.

Named plaintiffs in the suit are Cathleen Naylor, 81, and Gwen
Olmstead, 80, residents of Sunwest-operated Deer Meadow Assisted
Living in Sheridan.

The complaint contends that the homes for seniors charge for
services that the management is not providing.  It claims that
residents' contracts promise care and services of a certain
quality.

The suit states that both women signed contracts for services at
Deer Meadow that were never provided.

Ms. Stebner alleges the contract fails to state that the
facilities and Sunwest Management cannot and don't provide those
services.

The suit also charges the facility is in violation of state laws
governing the operation of residential facilities.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Kathryn Stebner is with Stebner and
Associates, 870 Market Street, Suite 1212, San Francisco, CA
94102, Phone: 1-888-362-9199 (Toll-Free) or (415) 362-9800, Fax:
(415) 362-9801, E-mail: info@stebnerassociates.com


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. remains a defendant in a
consolidated securities fraud class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according
to the company's March 20 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

On Aug. 2, 2004, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements during
the period Feb. 20, 2003 through July 29, 2004 in press
releases, the company's 2003 Annual Report and during conference
calls with analysts which were materially false and misleading
and which artificially inflated the price of the company's
ordinary shares.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Nine additional
purported securities class action complaints were subsequently
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, all containing similar allegations.

The actions have been consolidated and lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel have been appointed.  To date, no consolidated amended
complaint has been filed.

Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, plaintiffs have until
15 days after the filing of its restated financial results to
file an amended complaint.

The first identified complaint is "Zwickel v. Taro
Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05969-
RMB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge Richard M. Berman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212-946-9356, Fax: 212-273-4406, E-mail:
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com;

     (3) Marc L. Ackerman of Scott & Scott, 11 Bala Avenue, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 668-1955; and

     (4) Jules Brody of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street,
         5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)-687-7230,
         Fax: (212)-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com.


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Consolidation Motion Hearing Set March 29
------------------------------------------------------------
A March 29 hearing is set for motions seeking to consolidate
several purported class actions filed against Technical Olympic
USA, Inc. (TOUSA), according to the company's March 19 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Beginning in December 2006, various stockholder plaintiffs
brought lawsuits seeking class-action status in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The actions allege that Technical Olympic and certain of its
current and former officers violated the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose:

      -- certain guaranties entered into by Technical Olympic in
         connection with the Transeastern JV's acquisition of
         Transeastern Properties, Inc. and related potential
         liability;

      -- declining conditions in the housing market in Florida;
         and

      -- that, as a consequence of market declines, Technical
         Olympic could lose value in its investment in the joint
         venture.

One of the complaints also alleges that the defendants violated
the Securities Act of 1933 by omitting material facts about the
financing of the Transeastern Properties acquisition from the
offering materials related to Technical Olympic's September 2005
offering of common stock.

Plaintiffs in each of these actions seek compensatory damages,
plus fees and costs, on behalf of themselves and the putative
class of purchasers of Technical Olympic common stock and
purchasers and sellers of options on Technical Olympic common
stock.

Motions are pending to consolidate each of the actions into the
first-filed case, "Durgin v. Technical Olympic USA, Inc., et
al."

A hearing has been scheduled for March 29, 2007 for the court to
consider motions regarding consolidation of the actions and
appointment of the lead plaintiff and counsel.

The first identified complaint is "George Durgin, et al. v.
Technical Olympic USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-61844,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Kenneth A. Marra.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL)
         515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach,
         FL, 33401, Phone: 561.835.9400;

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca
         Raton), 197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         56.750.3364, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

     (3) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
         info@pomerantzlaw.com; and

     (4) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, 2125 Oak Grove
         Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598, Phone:
         925.945.0200, Fax: 925.945.8792, E-mail:
         info@sbtklaw.com.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Sanchez"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal against the dismissal of the class action, "Sanchez,
et al. v. Triple-S Management, et al.," according to the
company's March 20 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The purported class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico, alleges violations under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against:

      -- Triple-S Management Corp.;
      -- certain of its present and former directors;
      -- certain of Triple-S, Inc.'s present and former
         directors and others.

Filed on Sept. 4, 2003 by Jose Sanchez, the suit specifically
alleges, a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs by acquiring control
of Triple-S, Inc. through illegally capitalizing Triple-S and
later converting it to a for-profit corporation and depriving
the stockholders of their ownership rights.

Plaintiffs base their later allegations on the supposed
decisions of Triple-S' board of directors and stockholders,
allegedly made in 1979, to operate with certain restrictions in
order to turn Triple-S into a charitable corporation, basically
forever.

On March 4, 2005 the court issued an Opinion and Order.  In this
opinion and order, of the 12 counts included in the complaint,
eight counts were dismissed for failing to assert an actionable
injury, six of them for lack of standing and two for failing to
plead with sufficient particularity in compliance with the
Rules.

All shareholder allegations were dismissed in the opinion and
order.  The remaining four counts were found standing, in a
limited way, in the opinion and order.  

Parties finished class certification discovery and fully briefed
the issue of class certification.  While waiting for the court's
decision on the issue of class certification, the court, sua
sponte, issued an Order to Show Cause to plaintiffs as to why
the complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice.

The court's Order to Show Cause is predicated on the parties'
submissions about class certification.  The court then granted
plaintiffs leave to file a sur-reply, which they did on April
21, 2006.

In its Order to Show Cause the court indicated that it would
decide first the sustainability of the complaint before deciding
plaintiffs' request for class certification.  

On May 4, 2006, the court issued an Opinion and Order, which
entered a summary judgment in favor of all the defendants, and
dismissing the case.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 1st Circuit.  The Appeals Court notified the
briefing schedule, and plaintiffs filed their brief on Aug. 21,
2006.

Respondent filed theirs on Sept. 30, 2006.  The parties argued
the case before the First Circuit on Feb. 6, who took the case
under advice.  Judgment is expected within the next 90 days.

The suit is "Sanchez, et al.  v. Triple-S Management, et al.,
Case No. 3:03-cv-01967-JAF," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico under Judge Jose A. Fuste.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert G. Blakey, 1341 East Wayne Street North, South
         Bend, IN 46615, Phone: 219-239-5717;

     (2) Paul H. Hulsey, Marco Tulio Torres-Moncada of
         Hulsey Litigation Group, L.L.C., Charleston Harbor, 2
         Wharfside 3, Charleston, SC 29401, Phone: 843-723-5303,
         Fax: 843-723-5307, E-mail:
         phulsey@hulseylitigationgroup.com; and

     (3) Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan, Quetglas Law Office, PO Box
         16606, San Juan, PR 00908-6606, Phone: 787-722-7745,
         Fax: 787-725-3970, E-mail: quetglaslaw@hotmail.com.  

Representing the company are Seth B. Kosto and Gael Mahony, 10
St. James Avenue, Boston, MA 02114, Phone: 617-523-2700, Fax:
617-523-6850.


TRIPLE-S INC: Fla. Court Dismisses Lawsuit by Medical Groups
------------------------------------------------------------  
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
dismissed a purported class action against Triple-S, Inc. and
several other defendants over alleged reduction of payments to
doctors.

On Dec. 8, 2003 a putative class action was filed by Jeffrey
Solomon, and Orlando Armstrong, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated and:

     -- American Podiatric Medical Association,
     -- Florida Chiropractic Association,
     -- California Podiatric Medical Association,
     -- Florida Podiatric Medical Association,
     -- Texas Podiatric Medical Association, and
     -- Independent Chiropractic Physicians

The suit was filed against the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association and multiple other insurance companies, including
Triple-S and all members of the Blue Cross.
  
The individual plaintiffs brought the suit on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants, which are
alleged to have resulted in a loss of plaintiff's property and a
detriment to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive
relief to end those practices and prevent further losses.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payment due to the doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.

The class action complaint alleges that the company's health
care plans are the agents of Blue Cross licensed entities, and
as such have committed the acts alleged above and acted within
the scope of their agency, with the consent, permission,
authorization and knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of
both their interest and the interests of other defendants.  
  
The company believes that Triple-S was made a party to this
litigation for the sole reason that Triple-S is associated with
the Blue Cross.
  
On June 25, 2004, plaintiffs amended the complaint but the
allegations against Triple-S did not vary.  Triple-S along with
the other defendants, moved to dismiss the complaint on multiple
grounds, including but not limited to arbitration and
applicability of the McCarran Ferguson Act.
  
On June 25, 2004, plaintiffs amended the complaint but the
allegations against Triple-S did not vary.  Triple-S along with
the other defendants, moved to dismiss the complaint on multiple
grounds, including but not limited to arbitration and
applicability of the McCarran Ferguson Act.

During September 2006, the court, sua sponte, ordered the
parties to engage in mediation.  However, the defendants
presented a joint position that they do not which to mediate but
to have the class certification issue decided by the court.

On March 6, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal to
dismiss the complaint without prejudice, against 52 of the 74
defendants, including Triple-S.  

The court dismissed the case without prejudice on March 14,
according to the company's March 20 Form 10-K Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Triple-S, Inc. on the Net: http://www.ssspr.com.


TRIPLE-S INC: Mediation Still Ongoing in Fla. Physicians' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------  
Mediation continues in a purported class action filed against
Triple-S, Inc. and several other defendants in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, according to the
company's March 20 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The class action was filed on May 22, 2003 by medical doctors
Kenneth A. Thomas and Michael Kutell on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated and the Connecticut State Medical
Society against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Assoc. and
multiple other insurance companies including Triple-S.  

The individual plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants, which they
allege have resulted in a loss of their property and a detriment
to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive relief to
end those practices and prevent further losses.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payments due to doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.
  
The class action complaint alleges that the health care plans
are the agents of Blue Cross licensed entities, and as such have
committed the acts alleged above and acted within the scope of
their agency, with the consent, permission, authorization and
knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of both their
interest and the interests of other defendants.
  
The company believes that it was brought to this litigation for
the sole reason of being associated with Blue Cross.  

However, on June 18, 2004 the plaintiffs moved to amend the
complaint to include, as plaintiffs against the company:

      -- the Colegio de Medicos y Cirujanos de Puerto Rico, a
         compulsory association grouping all physicians in
         Puerto Rico;

      -- Marissel Velazquez, president of the Colegio de
         Medicos y Cirujanos de Puerto Rico; and

      -- Andres Melendez,

Later Marissel Velazquez, voluntarily dismissed her complaint
against the company.
  
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds,
including but not limited to arbitration and applicability of
the McCarran Ferguson Act.

The parties are currently engaged in mediation.  Twenty-four
plans have been actively participating in the mediation efforts.  

The mediation resulted in the creation of a settlement
agreement, presently under discussion with the plaintiffs'
lawyers.

The suit is "Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D., et al. v. Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association, Case No. 03-21296-CIV-MORENO," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
under Judge Federico A. Moreno with referral to Judge Andrea M.
Simonton.

Representing the plaintiffs is Nicole Miles Acchione of Trujillo
Rodriguez & Richards 226 W Rittenhouse Square, The Penthouse,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-731-9004, Fax: 731-9044.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Cesar T. Alcover-Costa of Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez,
         254 Munoz Rivera Avenue, PO Box 363507, San Juan, PR
         00936-3507, Phone: 787-753-3113, Fax: 250-7545, E-mail:
         calcover@cabprlaw.com;

     (2) Michael Garrett Austin of McDermott Will & Emery, LLP,
         201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2200, Miami, FL 33131-
         4336, Phone: 305-347-6517, Fax: 347-6500, E-mail:
         maustin@mwe.com; and

     (3) Laura Besvinick of Hogan & Hartson, 1111 Brickell
         Avenue, Suite 1900, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-459-
         6500, Fax: 459-6550, E-mail: lbesvinick@hhlaw.com.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces Tex. Suit Over Welsh, Carson Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
John McMullen filed a class action petition in the 134th
District Court of Dallas County, Texas against Universal Health
Services Inc., Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, and all of the
directors of the company on Jan. 8, 2007.

The petition alleges, among other things, that the company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company's
stockholders in approving the merger agreement with Welsh
Carson, and that Welsh Carson aided and abetted the directors'
alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

The petition seeks, among other things, class certification and
an injunction preventing the proposed merger, and a declaration
that the directors breached their fiduciary duties.

Based in Addison Texas, United Health owns and operates short
stay surgical facilities including surgery centers and private
surgical hospitals in the U.S. and the United Kingdom.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Units Continue to Face Labor Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. and some of its subsidiaries
remain defendants in a purported class action filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court alleging violations of various California
Labor Code sections and applicable wage orders.

On Nov. 1, 2005, the company's management company and several of
its facilities located in California, including Inland Valley
Medical Center, Rancho Springs Medical Center, Del Amo Hospital
and Corona Regional Medical Center were named defendants in a
wage and hour suit, "Lasko-Hoellinger, et al v. UHS of Delaware,
Inc., et al."

While two of the four original plaintiffs in that case
voluntarily requested that they be dismissed as plaintiffs from
the lawsuit, the remaining two plaintiffs are seeking to have
the matter certified as a class action.  

The remaining plaintiffs are alleging, among other things, that
they are entitled to recover damages from the Hospitals for
missed breaks and other alleged violations of various California
Labor Code sections and applicable wage orders for a period of
at least one year prior to the filing of the case.

The hospitals denied liability and are defending the case, which
was yet to be certified as a class action by the court.

Although the company are unable to definitively determine the
extent of the potential financial exposure at this time, during
2006 the company recorded an estimated $10 million pre-tax
provision in connection with this matter.


US AIRWAYS: Sued Over Additional Fees on "Lap Children" Fare
------------------------------------------------------------
US Airways Group, Inc. passengers Daphne Renard and Todd Robins
filed a class action against the airline in San Francisco
Superior Court on Feb. 9, 2007.

The complaint alleges that U.S. Airways breached its contract of
carriage by charging additional fares and fees, after the
purchase of tickets on the usairways.com website, for passengers
under two years of age who travel as "lap children," meaning
that the child does not occupy his or her own seat but travels
instead on the lap of an accompanying adult.

The named plaintiffs allege that they purchased international
tickets through the website for themselves and a lap child.  
Plaintiffs allege that after initially receiving an electronic
confirmation that there would be no charge for the lap child,
they were later charged an additional $242.50.  

The complaint alleges a class period from Feb. 9, 2002 to the
present.  The company has not yet been served with the lawsuit.


WEB.COM INC: Pa. Court Refuses to Certify Class in TCPA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania denied class-action
status to a lawsuit filed against Web.com, Inc., formerly
Interland, Inc., over allegations of Telephone Consumer
Protection Act violations.

In late 2001, Pair Networks, a competing web services company,
attempted to mount a class action against the company under the
TCPA after Pair Networks allegedly received a one-page fax from
the company.

In February 2007, the court in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
denied the motion of the plaintiffs to certify a class in a
case, "Pair Networks et al. v. Interland et al."

This ruling means that the three named plaintiffs in the case
may only proceed with individual claims against the company,
which can amount to not more than $1,500 each.

While the plaintiffs are expected to appeal the court's February
2007 decision dismissing the class action, the company plans to
defend that appeal.

Web.com, Inc. on the Net: http://www.web.com.


* Hagens Berman Brings Class Action Practice to San Francisco
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle-based class action and complex litigation firm, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, announces the opening of a San Francisco
office that will be led by class action attorney Reed R.
Kathrein, formally of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP.

Hagens Berman's managing partner, Steve Berman, sees it as
another large step in the firm's continued growth and strong
national presence.

"San Francisco is a hub of activity and a growing area in our
legal landscape," Mr. Berman said.  "Our new office allows us to
work more effectively with our clients and helps position us as
a leader in class-action and litigation cases."

Hagens Berman currently has an office in Los Angeles and looks
to the new San Francisco office to continue growth in one of the
most vibrant parts of the country.

"California is at the forefront of using the law to hasten
important social and governmental change, and we want to be part
of it," said Berman.  "By having Reed join us in San Francisco
it gives us the power and resources to make that happen."

Hagens Berman said Reed R. Kathrein has made a very strong name
for himself both in California and nationally with several
significant settlements and court victories over the past few
years.  Notably is a recent consumer fraud case involving Tenet
Healthcare, which he worked along side of the company and
resulted in a $1 billion settlement for uninsured patients.

Mr. Kathrein was also responsible for the successful litigation
and mediation in a case involving 3Com Securities, which settled
with $259 million price tag, the second-largest settlement in a
securities litigation case to date.

The San Francisco office, located at 425 Second Street, will
also include attorneys Jeffrey Friedman, Shana Scarlett and
Sylvia Keller, also formerly of Lerach Coughlin.

All three attorneys specialize in large class actions and have
been integral participants in large settlements over the years.

One of Mr. Friedman's most recent wins included a multi-million
dollar settlement with Dell Inc. on behalf of nearly one million
customers.

In addition to the settlement Mr. Friedman also negotiated to
have Dell change its sales and compensation policies to better
protect consumers.

Ms. Scarlett worked along side Mr. Kathrein and Hagens Berman in
the Tenet Healthcare case which settled for $1 billion.  She was
also a member of the litigation team in the Sony BMG Audio
Compact Disc Litigation, where she helped plaintiffs to secure a
multi-million dollar settlement for consumers and an agreement
from Sony BMG to stop using harmful rootkit software that
created a number of serious security, privacy and consumer
protection issues on music CDs.

Ms. Keller specializes in corporate governance and securities
class action.  Some of her most noteworthy settlements involved
a $75 million payout by Krispy Kreme, a $13 million settlement
with CV Therapeutics and a $7 million settlement with Cornell
Companies, Inc.

The law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is based in Seattle with offices in  
Chicago, Cambridge, Los Angeles, Phoenix and San Francisco.
Since the firm's founding in 1993, it has developed a nationally
recognized practice in class-action and complex litigation.

Among recent successes, Hagens Berman has negotiated:

     -- a pending $300 million settlement as lead counsel in the
        DRAM memory antitrust litigation;

     -- a $340 million recovery on behalf of Enron employees
        which is awaiting distribution;

     -- a $150 million settlement involving charges of illegally
        inflated charges for the drug Lupron, and served as co-
        counsel on the Visa/Mastercard litigation which resulted
        in a $3 billion settlement, the largest anti-trust
        settlement to date.

Hagens Berman also served as counsel in a $850 million
settlement in the Washington Public Power Supply litigation and
represented Washington and 12 other states in lawsuits against
the tobacco industry that resulted in the largest settlement in
the history of litigation.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                New Securities Fraud Cases


RADIOSHACK CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Announces Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
announces that a class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all common
stock purchasers of RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) from Jan.
14, 2003 and June 7, 2006, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) that the company's long-term growth strategy was a
         failure;

     (2) that the company's gross margins were declining as its
         expenses were increasing;

     (3) that the company was unable to accurately forecast
         demand for wireless products;

     (4) that the company's sales in wireless and accessory
         product lines were rapidly deteriorating;

     (5) that as a result of the company's switch from carrying
         Verizon wireless products to carrying Cingular and
         Sprint wireless products, the company would be forced
         to carry excess and obsolete Verizon wireless
         inventory;

     (6) that the company was not properly writing down obsolete
         inventory;

     (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
         earnings forecasts were lacking in a reasonable basis
         when made;

     (8) that the company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

     (9) that the company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

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

During multiple identifiable periods in 2005 and early 2006,
shares of the company's stock declined from a high of $24.30 to
a low of $14.99, following company statements, reports and
discoveries that the company was not successfully executing on
its long-term growth strategy.

Further, as reports disclosed that the company's wireless sales
were rapidly declining, and that company was forced to take
significant financial charges to account for its obsolete
inventory, the value of the company's stock suffered multiple
dramatic declines in value.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq., both of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler,
LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-
299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail:
info@sbtklaw.com.


USANA HEALTH: Dreier Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP announces that a class action was commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of USANA Health Sciences, Inc.
during the period July 18, 2006 through March 14, 2007,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint further alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business and financial results and
failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the company's multi-level marketing system was
         operating as a pyramid scheme;

     (2) the majority of the company's Associates did not sell
         to consumers, but sold to other Associates;

     (3) the company was experiencing an exceedingly high
         Associate attrition rate, resulting in an unsustainable
         sales force;

     (4) 74% of the company's new Associates were failing within
         the first year; and

     (5) 87% of the company's Associates were losing money.

The Complaint contends that, as a result of these false
statements and omissions, USANA common stock traded at
artificially inflated or distorted prices.

On March 15, 2007, the Fraud Discovery Institute issued a press
release and The Wall Street Journal published an article
concerning a three-year investigation by the Fraud Discovery
Institute that had revealed that USANA's multi-level marketing
system was an unsustainable pyramid scheme.

In reaction to this news, the price of the company's stock
declined $8.92 per share, or 15%, to close on March 15, 2007 at
$49.85 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all members of
the proposed Class.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 25, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Dreier LLP, Phone: 1-800-952-8897,
E-mail: classlaw@dreierllp.com, Website:
http://www.dreierllp.com.


WORLDSPACE INC: Federman Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Federman & Sherwood announces that on March 15,
2007, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against WorldSpace, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, and was filed on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise publicly traded securities of WorldSpace, Inc.
pursuant to the Initial Public Offering (the "IPO") of
WorldSpace, Inc. commencing on or about Aug. 4, 2005.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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

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