CAR_Public/070329.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 29, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 63

                            Headlines

3M CO: Minn. Court Hears Motion to Certify PCF Pollution Lawsuit
AEROTEK INC: Former Workers File Suit for Unpaid Personal Time
BMO BANK: Juroviesky & Ricci Files Suit Over "Withheld" Funds
CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Impoundments of Vehicles
DELTA FINANCIAL: N.Y. Consumer Suit Settlement Hearing Set April

DELTA FINANCIAL: Faces Consumer Privacy Breach Suit in Ill.
DELTA FINANCIAL: N.Y. Processing Fees Suit Settlement Approved
DELTA FINANCIAL: Settles Ill. Lawsuits Over Fax Fees, Loans
EXPEDIA INC: Motion to Dismiss Tex. Suit Over Taxes Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Seeks to Dismiss Ind. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit

EXPEDIA INC: Seeks to Dismiss Tex. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Asks Stay of Fla. Suit Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
EXPEDIA INC: Seeks to Dismiss Ken. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit
FORD MOTOR: Hearing in Suit Over "Flaky" Paint Set Friday
GRETCHEN'S SHOEBOX: Recalls Salad Mixer Over Undeclared Soybean

HANNA ANDERSSON: Recalls Kids' Loungewear that Fail Standards
HOT FUEL LITIGATION: Arkansans File Product Liability Suit
KAPLAN INC: Settles Calif. Antitrust Suit Over BAR/BRI Courses
MEDQUIST INC: Reaches Tentative $7.75M Settlement in "Steiner"
MENU FOODS: Consumer Suit Filed in Calif. Over Pet Food Recall

MENU FOODS: Berding & Weil Files Lawsuit Over Tainted Pet Foods
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Continues to Face ERISA Suit by Plan Members
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Investment Suit
NEBRASKA: Livengood Order Could Spur Suits by Public Employees
REGISTERFLY INC: Faces N.C. Lawsuit Over Internet Domain Names

RENT-A-CENTER INC: April 5 Hearing Set for "Perez" Class Status
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Discovery in Tex. Suit Stayed Until March 30
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Multiple Suits Over "Hot Fuel"
UNITED PARCEL: Calif. Court OKs $87M Overtime Suit Settlement
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Air Cargo Surcharges

UNITED PARCEL: Supervisors Appeal Ruling in Overtime Lawsuit
XL CAPITAL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit

* Penn. Firm Saltz, Mongeluzzi Extends Practice to Class Action


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COAST FINANCIAL: Lerach Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
WORLDSPACE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


3M CO: Minn. Court Hears Motion to Certify PCF Pollution Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to certify a suit accusing 3M Co. of contaminating
drinking water in Washington County, Minnesota was held on March
27-28.

An attorney for plaintiffs accused the company of trying for
decades to cover up the dangers of its chemicals in drinking
water at a hearing before Judge Mary Hannon, Bob Shaw of Pioneer
Press reports.

                        Case Background

In October 2004, two residents of Washington County filed a
purported class action on behalf of other residents in the area
whose properties were allegedly harmed and who have allegedly
suffered personal injury due to emissions from the company's
former perfluorooctanyl production facility at Cottage
Grove.  

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages in excess of $50,000 per
plaintiff and class member.   After the District Court granted
the company's motion to dismiss the claims for medical
monitoring and public nuisance in April 2005, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint adding additional allegations
involving other perfluoronated compounds manufactured by the
company.  

The amended complaint is alleging additional legal theories in
support of their claims, adding four plaintiffs, and seeking
relief based on alleged contamination of the City of Oakdale
municipal water supply and certain private wells in the vicinity
of Lake Elmo, Minnesota.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding two additional plaintiffs.  The two original plaintiffs
thereafter dismissed their claims against the company.

Plaintiffs' counsel has amended their definition of the
purported class.  The current (and fourth) definition includes
all individuals whose residential drinking water in Minnesota is
or has been supplied by one or more wells containing one or more
carboxylated perfluorochemicals at a concentration exceeding 1.0
part per billion, or containing one or more sulfonated
perfluorochemicals at a concentration exceeding 0.6 part per
billion.

                     Certification Hearing

During a hearing on March 27, plaintiff lawyer Marti Wivell
produced a timeline showing that 3M knew as early as 1976 that
massive doses of PFCs cause liver changes" in rats.  Her team
wants 67,700 residents of Washington County included in the
suit.  The class she wants to establish would exclude Woodbury
and Hastings, but include Lake Elmo, Oakdale, Cottage Grove and
St. Paul Park.

3M attorneys claim the plaintiffs' allegations are bogus.  
"There was no illness, disease, injury or bodily harm caused by
PFCs recognized by any licensed professional," said 3M attorney
Cooper Ashley.  3M wants the case to go ahead with only six
plaintiffs.

3M Co. on the Net: http://www.mmm.com/.


AEROTEK INC: Former Workers File Suit for Unpaid Personal Time
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of Aerotek Inc., a Martinsburg (W.Va.) call
center that closed in December, have filed a class action
seeking compensation for unused personal time, Cara Bailey of
the West Virginia Record reports.

Patricia Chambers, Jeffrey Jolles and Jodi McGowan filed the
suit on March 1 in Berkeley Circuit Court.  They are seeking
unpaid personal time hours earned, accrued and to be paid to
employees pursuant to Aerotek's attendance policy.  Employees
who had accumulated personal hours were not paid for the unused
hours, except in a few isolated cases, according to the suit.

In a few isolated cases, Aerotek paid former employees unused
personal time, but the payments excluded pay liquidated damages
or interest.  The suit is seeking payment for liquidated
damages, interest and court fees.

The case seeks to include more than 100 employees of the
company.

Representing the plaintiffs is attorney David Hammer.  The suit
is "Patricia Chambers, Jeffrey Jolles and Jodi McGowan vs.
Aerotek Inc., Case number: 07-C-186."


BMO BANK: Juroviesky & Ricci Files Suit Over "Withheld" Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Juroviesky & Ricci LLP filed a class action
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as against BMO Bank of
Montreal.

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

      -- made one or more deposits into their bank account at
         any time between March 19, 2001 and March 19; and

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Juroviesky & Ricci LLP, Phone: (416)
481-0718, Fax: (416) 481-1792, E-mail: info@jrclassactions.com,
Web site: http://www.jrclassactions.com.


CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Impoundments of Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Los Angeles residents are presenting federal claims for
relief and supplemental state law claims, seeking declaratory,
equitable and injunctive relief for unlawful seizures and
impoundments of vehicles pursuant to the authority of California
Vehicle Code by law enforcement agencies throughout the state.  

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of both plaintiffs and
defendants.

The plaintiffs are:

     -- Juan Jose Salazar, a resident of Los Angeles County,
        whose Oldsmobile touring sedan was stopped, towed and
        impounded by Maywood police on Sept. 7, 2005, because he
        was allegedly driving with tinted windows;

     -- Ricardo Castillo, a resident of Los Angeles County,
        whose Chevy Malibu was stopped, towed and impounded by
        Maywood police on Sept. 9, 2005, because his car windows
        were allegedly "blocked;" and

     -- Efren Ruiz, whose Ford Focus was stopped, towed and
        impounded by Escondido police, because the driver, who
        is a friend of the plaintiff, is driving without a valid
        license.

The case was filed on March 21, 2007 in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Case No. CV07-81854SJ)
against:

     * Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of the state of
       California;
     * City of Maywood;
     * City of Los Angeles;
     * City of Escondido;
     * County of Orange; and
     * John Does 1-10.

The plaintiffs are suing on their own behalf and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals throughout the state of
California who had their cars seized and towed for up to 30 days
for driving without a valid driver's license under the authority
of Vehicle Code 14602.6.  Sub-classes within the class include:

      (a) those whose cars were unlawfully seized and impounded
          under Fourth Amendment standards;

      (b) those whose vehicles were unlawfully seized because
          the driver had, or previously had been issued, a
          driver's license, though not a California driver's
          license;

     (c) those whose vehicles were seized and impounded, whether
         lawfully or not, but unlawfully held pursuant to the 30
         day provision of the Vehicle Code 14602.6.; and

     (d) those who were charged a fee in excess of the costs
         associated with the administration of the seizure and
         impound.

A copy of the complaint is available for free at:

                 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1c50

Representing the plaintiffs are:

      (1) Barrett S. Litt and Paul J. Estuar at Litt, Estuar,
          Harrison & Kitson, LLP, 1055 Wilshire Boulevard Suite
          1880, Los Angeles, California 90017, Phone: (213) 386-
          3114, Fax: (213)380-4585;

      (2) Robert Mann, Donald W. Cook, 3435 Wishire Boulevard,
          Suite 2900, Los Angeles California 90010, Phone:
          (213)252-9444; Fax: (213)252-0091, E-mail:
          doncook@earthlink.net; and

      (3) Cynthia Anderson Barker, 3435 Wilshire Boulevard,
          Suite 2900, Los Angeles California 90010, Phone:
          (213)381-3246, E-mail: cablaw@hotmail.com.


DELTA FINANCIAL: N.Y. Consumer Suit Settlement Hearing Set April
----------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2007 fairness hearing is set for a proposed settlement
of a class action filed against Delta Financial Corp. in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In December 1998, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
that the company had violated the Home Ownership and Equity
Protection Act of 1994, the Truth-in-Lending Act and Section 349
of the New York State General Business Law, which relates to
consumer protection for deceptive practices.

The complaint sought certification of a class of plaintiffs,
declaratory judgment permitting rescission, unspecified actual,
statutory, treble and punitive damages, including attorneys'
fees, injunctive relief and declaratory judgment declaring the
loan transactions as void and unconscionable.

On Dec. 7, 1998, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction, enjoining the
company from conducting foreclosure sales on 11 properties.

The District Court ruled that in order to consider the motion,
plaintiff must move to intervene on behalf of these 11
borrowers.  

Thereafter, plaintiff moved to intervene on behalf of three of
these 11 borrowers and sought injunctive relief on their behalf.
The company opposed the motions.

On Dec. 14, 1998, the District Court granted the motion to
intervene and on Dec. 23, 1998, the District Court issued a
preliminary injunction that enjoined the company from proceeding
with the foreclosure sales of the three interveners' properties.  
The company filed a motion for reconsideration of the Dec. 23,
1998 order.  

In January 1999, the company filed an answer to plaintiffs'
first amended complaint.  In July 1999, the plaintiffs were
granted leave, on consent to file a second amended complaint.

In August 1999, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
that, among other things, added additional parties but contained
the same causes of action alleged in the first amended
complaint.

In September 1999, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was opposed by plaintiffs and, in June 2000,
was denied in part and granted in part by the District Court.  

In October 1999, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order
preventing the company, its attorneys and/or the New York State
Banking Department (NYSBD) from issuing notices to a number of
borrowers, in accordance with the settlement agreement entered
into by and between the NYSBD and the company.  In the fourth
quarter of 1999, the company and the NYSBD submitted opposition
to the plaintiffs' motion.  

In March 2000, the District Court issued an order that permitted
the company to issue an approved form of the notice.  In
September 1999, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the company opposed in February 2000, and
which was ultimately withdrawn without prejudice by the
plaintiffs in January 2001.

In February 2002, the company executed a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs, under which it denied all wrongdoing, but
agreed to resolve the litigation on a class-wide basis.

The District Court preliminarily approved the settlement and a
fairness hearing was held in May 2002.  The company submitted
supplemental briefing at the court's request in or about April
2004.

In August 2004, the District Court conditionally approved the
settlement, subject to the company's submitting supplemental
documentation regarding a change in the settlement agreement and
proposed supplemental notices to be sent to those borrowers who
either opted out or objected.

The company, plaintiffs and certain objectors submitted its
respective supplemental submissions in August 2004 and the
District Court granted its final approval to the settlement in
January 2005.  

In February 2005, certain objectors filed a notice of appeal.  
The objectors filed their appellate brief in July 2005.  The
company filed its appellate papers in opposition in September
2005, and the objectors filed their reply papers in September
2005.

In February 2006, the Appellate Court vacated the District
Court's decision to approve the settlement, not based on the
merits of the settlement, but because a motion to intervene was
decided by the District Court Magistrate Judge and not the
District Court.  

The Appellate Court instructed the District Court to rule on the
motion to intervene and, until then, it cannot be determined if
the District Court will also have to rule on the fairness of the
settlement, or if that issue will have to return to the
Appellate Court.

Briefing on the intervention motion was re-submitted to the
District Court Judge in July 2006, and the motion was denied in
November 2006.

In January 2007, the company executed a proposed amendment to
the settlement with the plaintiffs.  The settlement amount did
not increase, but the court scheduled a fairness hearing for
April 2007.

The suit is "Lopez v. Delta Funding Corp. et al., Case No. 1:98-
cv-07204-MDG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge Marilyn D. Go.

Representing the plaintiffs is Karin E. Fisch, Abbey Gardy, LLP,
212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-889-3700.

Representing the company are:

     (1) Martin C. Bryce, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll,
         LLP, 1735 Market Street, 51st. Floor, Philadelphia, PA
         19103, Phone: (215) 864-8238, Fax: (215) 864-9511, E-
         mail: bryce@ballardspahr.com; and

     (2) Eugene R. Licker, Loeb & Loeb, 345 Park Avenue, New
         York, NY 10154, Phone: 212-407-4157, Fax: 646-219-7454,
         E-mail: elicker@loeb.com.  


DELTA FINANCIAL: Faces Consumer Privacy Breach Suit in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Delta Financial Corp. was named a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging that the company had accessed
certain consumers' credit reports without a permissible purpose
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and sent improper
prescreening offers in Illinois.

In or about February 2007, the company received notice that it
was named as a defendant in the case.  

The case is based upon alleged violations of the FCRA, common
law invasion of privacy, and consumer fraud/unfair acts and
practices.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of plaintiffs,
injunctive relief against further violations, statutory damages
and general and other damages, and attorneys' fees, costs and
litigation expenses.

Delta Financial has not yet filed an answer to the complaint,
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.

Delta Financial Corp. on the Net: http://www.deltafunding.com/.


DELTA FINANCIAL: N.Y. Processing Fees Suit Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
approved the settlement of a purported class action filed
against Delta Financial Corp., alleging that the company had
improperly charged certain borrowers processing fees.  

The complaint sought certification of a class of plaintiffs, an
accounting and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
including attorneys' fees, based upon alleged unjust enrichment,
fraud and deceptive trade practices.

In April 1999, the company filed an answer to the complaint.  In
September 1999, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was opposed by the plaintiffs, and in February
2000, the court denied the motion to dismiss.  

Also, in April 1999, the company filed a motion to change venue
and the plaintiffs opposed the motion.  In July 1999, the Court
denied the motion.  

The company appealed, and in March 2000, the Appellate Court
granted its appeal to change venue from New York County to
Nassau County.  

In August 1999, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the company opposed in July 2000.  In
September 2000, the Appellate Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, from which the company appealed.  
The Appellate Court denied the company's appeal in December
2001.  

In June 2001, the company filed a motion for summary judgment to
dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the Court in October
2001.  

The company appealed that decision, but the Appellate Court
denied its appeal in November 2002.  The company filed a motion
to reargue in December 2002, which was denied by the Appellate
Court in January 2003.

Discovery continued in the lower court.  In October 2006, the
company executed a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs,
under which the company denied all wrongdoing, but agreed to
resolve the litigation on a class-wide basis.  

The court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a
fairness hearing in March 2007, at which the court granted final
approval of the settlement agreement 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.

Delta Financial Corp. on the Net: http://www.deltafunding.com/.


DELTA FINANCIAL: Settles Ill. Lawsuits Over Fax Fees, Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Delta Financial Corp. settled purported class actions filed
against it in the Circuit Court, 3rd Judicial Circuit in Madison
County, Illinois.

One suit alleged that the company had improperly charged certain
borrowers fax fees, and another alleged that the company
improperly retained extra per diem interest when loans were
satisfied.

The complaints seek certification of a class of plaintiffs,
direction to return fax fees charged to borrowers, and
unspecified compensatory and statutory damages, including
prejudgment and post judgment interest and attorneys' fees,
based upon alleged breach of contract, statutory fraud, and
unjust enrichment.

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case
pertaining to fax fees claims.  The plaintiff was granted leave
to file a motion to amend his complaint in the fax fee case,
which rendered the company's February 2004 motion to dismiss
moot.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2004 and the
company filed a new motion to dismiss in August 2004, which the
court denied in January 2005, and the company has since filed an
answer in that case.

In March 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case
pertaining to per diem interest claims, which the court denied
in September 2004.  

The company has since filed an answer in that case and
plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss its affirmative defenses,
which the Circuit Court granted, permitting the company leave to
replead the defenses with more particularity, which the company
has done.  Discovery has commenced in both cases.  

In June 2005, the company filed opposition papers to the
plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case
pertaining to fax fee claims.

In June 2006, the company filed a motion for summary judgment in
the case pertaining to the per diem interest and in July 2006 it
filed a motion for summary judgment in the case pertaining to
fax fees claims.  

In December 2006, both of these matters were settled on an
individual basis, 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.

Delta Financial Corp. on the Net: http://www.deltafunding.com/.


EXPEDIA INC: Motion to Dismiss Tex. Suit Over Taxes Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dismissal and class certification motions are pending in a suit
filed by the city of San Antonio against Expedia Inc. companies
over hotel occupancy taxes.

On May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative
statewide class action "City of San Antonio, et al. v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., SA06CA0381" in the U.S. District
Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division against a
number of internet travel companies, including Hotels.com,
Hotwire, and Expedia Washington, a Washington Corp. 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, common-law conversion, and
declaratory judgment.  The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 30, 2006.  On
Aug. 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Both the motion to dismiss and motion for class
certification are pending, 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.

The suit is before Judge Orlando L. Garcia.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

      (1) Gary Cruciani at Baron & Budd PC, 3102 Oak Lawn
          Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone: (214)521-
          3605, Fax: 214/520-1181, E-mail:
          gcruciani@baronbudd.com; and

      (2) Michael Debs Bernard, City Attorney of San Antonio,
          100 S. Flores, San Antonio, TX 78205, Phone: (210)335-
          2342, Fax: 210/335-2884, E-mail:
          michael.bernard@sanantonio.gov.

Representing the defendants are:

      (1) Michael A. Barlow at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
          Flom LLP, One Rodney Square, Wilmington, DE 19899
          U.S., Phone: (302) 651-3154, Fax: (302) 651-3001, E-
          mail: mbarlow@skadden.com; and

      (2) Ricardo G. Cedillo at Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza,
          McCombs Plaza, 755 E. Mulberry Ave., Suite 500

          San Antonio, TX 78212, Phone: (210) 822-6666, Fax:
          210/822-1151, E-mail: rcedillo@lawdcm.com.


EXPEDIA INC: Seeks to Dismiss Ind. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a suit filed against Expedia Inc. companies by the
Lake County, Indiana Convention and Visitors Bureau are seeking
to dismiss the suit alleging defendants failed to pay hotel
accommodations taxes.

On June 12, 2006, the Lake County Convention and Visitors
Bureau, Inc. and Marshall County filed a putative statewide
class action, "Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc.,
et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, 2:06-CV-207," in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond 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
municipalities hotel accommodations taxes as required by
municipal ordinances.  The complaint purports to assert claims
for violation of those ordinances, conversion, unjust
enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, and declaratory
judgment. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On Aug. 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is pending,
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.

The case is before Judge Philip P. Simon with referral to Andrew
P. Rodovich.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

      (1) Eric L. Kirschner at Beckman Kelly & Smith, 5920
          Hohman Avenue, Hammond, IN 46320, Phone: 219-933-6200,
          Fax: 219-933-6201, E-mail: ekirschner@bkslegal.com;
          and
  
     (2) Michael J. Brickman PHV at Richardson Patrick Westbrook
         & Brickman LLC - Cha/SC, 174 East Bay Street,
         Charleston, SC 29401, Phone: 843-727-6500, Fax: 843-
         727-3103, E-mail: mbrickman@rpwb.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) David L. Hanselman at McDermott Will & Emery - Chi/IL,
         227 W Monroe St Suite 3100, Chicago, IL 60606-5096,
         Phone: 317-372-2000, Fax: 317-984-7700, E-mail:
         dhanselman@mwe.com; and

      (2) Elizabeth B Herrington PHV at McDermott Will & Emery -
          Chi/IL, 227 W Monroe St Suite 3100, Chicago, IL 60606-
          5096, Phone: 312-372-2000, Fax: 312-984-7700, E-mail:
          eherrington@mwe.com.


EXPEDIA INC: Seeks to Dismiss Tex. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a suit filed against Expedia Inc. companies by the
City of Orange, Texas is seeking to dismiss the suit alleging
defendants have failed to pay hotel accommodations taxes.

On July 18, 2006, the city of Orange, Texas filed a putative
statewide class action, "City of Orange, Texas, et al. v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 1:06-CV-0413-RHC-KFG," in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont 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
municipalities hotel accommodations taxes as required by
municipal ordinances.  The complaint purports to assert claims
for violation of those ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy,
and declaratory judgment.  The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 12, 2006, which is
pending, 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.

The suit is before Judge Marcia A. Crone with referral to Judge
Keith F. Giblin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

      (1) Richard Lyle Coffman at The Coffman Law Firm, 1240
          Orleans, Suite 200, Beaumont, TX 77701, Phone:
          409/832-4767, Fax: 866/835-8250, E-mail:
          rc@cofflaw.com; and

      (2) Wyatt B Durrette, Jr. at DurretteBradshaw PLC, 600 E
          Main Street, 20th Floor, Richmond, VA 23219, U.S.,
          Phone: 804/775-6900, Fax: 804/775-6911, E-mail:
          wdurrette@durrettebradshaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

      (1) J Thad Heartfield at The Heartfield Law Firm, 2195
          Dowlen Rd, Beaumont, TX 77706, Phone: 409/866-3318,
          Fax: 14098665789, E-mail: thad@jth-law.com; and

     (2) Darrel Hieber at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom -
         Los Angeles, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400, Los
         Angeles, CA 90071-3144 U.S., Phone: 213/687-5000, Fax:
         213/687-5600, E-mail: dhieber@skadden.com.


EXPEDIA INC: Asks Stay of Fla. Suit Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a suit filed by the city of Jacksonville, Florida
against Expedia Inc. companies have a pending motion to stay the
case.

In July 2006, the city of Jacksonville, Florida filed a putative
statewide class action, "City of Jacksonville, Florida, et al.
v. Hotels.com, LP, et al., 2006-CA-005392-XXXX-MA," in Circuit
Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County,
Florida, 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
municipalities hotel accommodations taxes as required by
municipal ordinances.  The complaint purports to assert claims
for violation of those ordinances, conversion, unjust
enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, and declaratory
judgment.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  

On Sept. 22, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to stay the
case in deference to the lawsuit, "Leon County, et al. v.
Hotels.com, et al., 06-CV-21878," pending in the U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Florida.  That motion is pending,
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: Seeks to Dismiss Ken. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a suit filed against Expedia Inc. companies by the
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government are seeking to
dismiss the suit alleging defendants have failed to pay hotel
accommodations taxes.

On Sept. 21, 2006, the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro
Government filed a putative statewide class action,
"Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v. Hotels.com,
L.P., et al., 3:06CV-480-R," in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, Louisville 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 the
counties and cities in Kentucky hotel accommodation taxes as
required by local ordinances.  The complaint purports to assert
claims for violation of those ordinances, unjust enrichment,
money had and received, conversion, imposition of a constructive
trust, and declaratory judgment.  The complaint seeks damages in
an unspecified amount.

On Dec. 22, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
which is pending, 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.


FORD MOTOR: Hearing in Suit Over "Flaky" Paint Set Friday
---------------------------------------------------------
Madison Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian will take up at a hearing
on March 30 a motion to decertify classes of plaintiffs in a
class action against Ford Motor Co. over paints at some of its
vehicles.

The suit was filed on behalf of a Lakin Law firm secretary,
Joyce Philips, in 1999, who claimed Ford did not disclose a risk
that paint in its vehicles would delaminate and peel away.   
Daniel Schopp later joined the suit.  In 2003, former Madison
County Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis certified the two as
representative of separate classes of people: those whose top
coat delaminated and those whose clear coat delaminated.

After Judge Kardis retired, the case was assigned to Judge
Matoesian.  Last year, Judge Matoesian allowed Ms. Phillips to
withdraw.

Robert Schmieder of the Lakin Law firm is now seeking to certify
Norma Maag, Joseph Gulash, Peter Yaciuk and Beverly Breder as
class representatives.

Ford Motor Co. seeks to decertify both classes, arguing that
they are inadequate class representatives.  Ford attorney Peter
Herzog of St. Louis opposed certification of the new plaintiffs
in February.

Judge Matoesian has not set a hearing on the adequacy of the
plaintiffs.  First he will take up the motion to decertify at a
hearing March 30, according to the report.

Robert W. Schmieder, II is associate at The Lakin Law Firm,
P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois
62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127, Telecopier: 618-
254-0193.

Peter W. Herzog, Jr. is member at Herzog Crebs LLP, 515 N. 6th
Street, Suite 2400, St. Louis, Missouri 63101 (Independent
City), Phone: 314-231-6700, Fax: 314-231-4656.


GRETCHEN'S SHOEBOX: Recalls Salad Mixer Over Undeclared Soybean
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen's Shoebox Express of Seattle, Washington is recalling
packages of Tuna & Garden Salad Mixer because it may contain
undeclared Soybeans (edamames).

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

Tuna & Garden Salad Mixer was distributed solely for sale
onboard Amtrak Cascade trains running between Eugene, Oregon and
Vancouver, British Columbia with stops in-between.

Product is packaged in a clear 3-compartment plastic container,
identified by a large red label on top, stating Gretchen's
Shoebox Express, with a code date label on the bottom bearing
the Enjoy by 3-16-07 date and prior dates.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
product contained soybeans (edamames) in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of soy.  Subsequent investigation indicates
the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's
production and packaging process and has since been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased Gretchen's Shoebox Express Tuna &
Garden Salad Mixer are urged to return it to the place of
purchase for full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Gretchen's at 206-623-8194.


HANNA ANDERSSON: Recalls Kids' Loungewear that Fail Standards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hanna Andersson of Portland, Oregon, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
12,300 units of Hanna Andersson children's crossover tee and
lounge pant sets and cropped johns.

The company said the recalled garments fail to meet the
children's sleepwear flammability standards.  The Crossover Tee
and Lounge Pant sets were marketed as loungewear.  The Cropped
Johns were not marketed as loungewear, but could be used as
loungewear.  The children's sleepwear flammability standards
require sleepwear, including loungewear, to be either snug-
fitting or flame resistant.  No injuries have been reported.

The Children's Crossover Tee and Lounge Pant set and the Cropped
Johns have the name "Hanna Andersson" on the sewn-in label.  The
Crossover Tee and Lounge Pant set and the Cropped Johns were
sold in girls' sizes 80 cm. through 160 cm.  Women's sizes are
not subject to this recall.

These recalled Children's Crossover Tee and Lounge Pant sets
were manufactured in Peru and are sold in Hanna Andersson stores
nationwide, and through the Hanna Andersson catalog and Web site
from Summer 2004 through November 2006 for the average price of
$35.

Picture of the recalled Children's Crossover Tee and Lounge Pant
sets: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07536.jpg.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled garments
immediately, and return them to Hanna Andersson for a full
refund.

For more information, consumers should contact Hanna Andersson
at (800) 222-0544 between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. PT, any day, or go
to their Website: http://www.hannaandersson.com.


HOT FUEL LITIGATION: Arkansans File Product Liability Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pulaski County residents Charles D. Jones and Michael Gauthreaux
filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas over alleged customer
fraud by oil companies and retailers in failing to install
temperature-correction devices on gas pumps, the Baxter Bulletin
reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- E-Z Mart Stores Inc.,  
     -- Flash Market Inc.,  
     -- Fort Smith Petroleum Equipment Inc.,
     -- Frost Petroleum Equipment LLC,  
     -- Hess Oil Co.,  
     -- J & P Flash Inc.,
     -- Magness Oil Co.,  
     -- Murphy Oil USA Inc.,  
     -- Petromark Inc.,  
     -- Rivercity Energy Co. Inc.,  
     -- Thomas Petroleum Inc.,  
     -- B-B Oil Co. Inc.,
     -- Coulson Oil Co., Inc.,  
     -- Diamond State Oil LLC,  
     -- Freeman Oil Co.,  
     -- Gardner Oil Co. Inc.,  
     -- L & L Oil Co. Inc.,  
     -- La Sher Oil Co.,  
     -- Ligon Oil Co. Inc.,  
     -- Port Cities Oil LLC  

The lawsuit alleges the stores and oil companies violated the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by not installing
temperature-correction devices at Arkansas gas pumps.

The 23-page lawsuit accuses the companies sell gasoline to
customers hotter than the national standard of 60 degrees
Fahrenheit, resulting in less fuel for their customers.

According to the lawsuit, motor fuel will increase in volume
when it increases in temperature, resulting in the loss of
energy per gallon of fuel.

The American Petroleum Institute and the National Bureau of
Standards define one gallon as 231 cubic inches in volume when
the temperature is at 60 degrees Fahrenheit.  The same quantity
of gasoline at 90 degrees Fahrenheit has a volume more than 235
cubic inches, the lawsuit states.

Plaintiffs claim the stores and companies have not installed
temperature-correction devices because the petroleum industry
profits from the sale of fuel at nonstandard, nontemperature-
adjusted gallons.

The temperature-correction devices are used to ensure the fuel
remains at 60 degrees.

The temperature adjustment from different retailers also would
prohibit a customer from accurately comparing fuel prices and
tracking his or her own vehicle performance by miles per gallon,
according to the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs are asking that the companies install temperature-
correction devices.  They are also asking for damages to be
determined at trial, attorney's fees and costs and any other
relief the court may deem appropriate, according to the lawsuit.

The suit is "Jones et al. v. E-Z Mart Stores Inc. et al., Case
No. 4:07-cv-00246-JMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge James M. Moody.

Representing plaintiffs are Samuel E. Ledbetter and J. Bruce
McMath, both of McMath Woods, P.A., 711 West Third Street,
Little Rock, AR 72201, Phone: (501) 396-5405 or (501) 396-5403,
E-mail: sam@mcmathlaw.com or jamesmcmath@mcmathlaw.com.


KAPLAN INC: Settles Calif. Antitrust Suit Over BAR/BRI Courses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Inc., a subsidiary of Washington Post Co., reached a
settlement of an antitrust class action filed on April 29, 2005,
by purchasers of BAR/BRI bar review courses in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, according to
Washington Post's March 1 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The case was filed by former law students in California,
Michigan and Louisiana, who had brought it on behalf of all
persons who purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI Bar
Review from August 1997 (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006).

Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/a
BAR/BRI of violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiring
with Kaplan, Inc. to prevent competition in the market for full-
service bar review courses.  Kaplan is an international provider
of educational and career services.

BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. to
assist would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one or
more bar examinations required by each state and the District of
Columbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law.

Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct,
consumers had to pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than
they should have (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2007).  

Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-service
bar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. where
BAR/BRI directly operated a course anytime from August 1997 up
to the present time.

Therefore, any individual who purchased a full-service bar
review course from BAR/BRI to prepare for the winter 1998 bar
examination or any subsequent bar examination is a class member.

In early December 2006, the parties agreed to a settlement of
the litigation.  On Feb. 2, 2007, the parties filed a settlement
agreement with the court together with documents setting forth a
procedure for class notice.

The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al. v. West Publishing Corp. et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eliot G. Disner, Esq. of McGuireWoods, LLP, 1800
         Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-315-8299, Fax: 310-315-8298, E-mail:
         edisner@mcguirewoods.com;

     (2) Noah E Jussim of McGuire Woods, 1800 Century Park East,
         8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-315-8200;

     (3) Sidney K Kanazawa of Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket,
         1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA
         90067, Phone: 310-315-8200, E-mail:
         skanazawa@vsblaw.com;

     (4) Tracy Evans Moyer of Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket, 1800
         Century Park East 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-315-8200;

     (5) Colleen M Regan of Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket, 1800
         Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-315-8200, E-mail: cregan@vsblaw.com; and

     (5) Joanna Shally of Shearman and Sterling, 599 Lexington
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-848-4700.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Edward A Klein of Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine &
         Regenstreif, 1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl, Los Angeles, CA
         90024-3503, Phone: 310-500-3500;

     (2) Stuart N Senator of Munger Tolles & Olson, 355 S Grand
         Ave, 35th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560, Phone: 213-
         683-9100, E-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com;

     (3) Lee Scott Taylor of Munger Tolles & Olson, 355 South
         Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, CA
         90071-1560;

     (4) Jeffrey A LeVee of Jones Day, 555 South Flower Street,
         50th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-489-3939,
         E-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com;

     (5) Courtney M Schaberg of Jones Day, 555 South Flower
         Street, 50th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-
         489-3939, E-mail: cmschaberg@jonesday.com; and

     (6) Brian A Sun of Jones Day, 555 South Flower Street, 50th
         Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-489-3939, E-
         mail: basun@jonesday.com.

For more details, contact BAR/BRI Class Action Administrator,
P.O. Box 24639, West Palm Beach, FL 33416, Phone: 1-888-285-
7850, E-mail: BARBRI@completeclaimsolutions.com, Web site:
http://www.barbri-classaction.com/barbri/default.htm.


MEDQUIST INC: Reaches Tentative $7.75M Settlement in "Steiner"
--------------------------------------------------------------
MedQuist, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding with
plaintiffs in the putative shareholder class action, "William
Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05487-JBS,"
which was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

The original complaint filed on Nov. 8, 2004 asserted claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

Lead Plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Pension Fund subsequently,
on Nov. 15, 2005, filed the operative second amended complaint,
which asserts these same causes of action for violation of the
federal securities laws, and alleges that such violations
occurred from April 23, 2002, through Nov. 2, 2004.  The second
amended complaint names MedQuist and several former officers of
the company as defendants.  

On March 23, MedQuist entered into a memorandum of understanding
with lead plaintiff in which it agreed to pay $7.75 million to
settle all claims, throughout the class period, against all
defendants in the action.

The settlement is subject to formal documentation by the parties
and conditioned on final approval by the court after notice to
the putative class.

The suit is "Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
05487-JBS-JBR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Jerome B. Simandle with
referral to Judge Joel B. Rosen.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Nicole M. Acchione of Trujillo
Rodriguez & Richards, LLP, 8 Kings Highway, West Haddonfield, NJ
08033, Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: nicolem@trrlaw.com.  

Representing the defendant is James S. Richter Of Winston &
Strawn, LLP, The Legal Center, One Riverfront Plaza, 7TH Floor,
Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 621-2230, E-mail:
jrichter@winston.com.


MENU FOODS: Consumer Suit Filed in Calif. Over Pet Food Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP and Kershaw Cutter &
Ratinoff LLP has filed the first California class action
complaint against Menu Foods Inc. amidst what is perceived as
the largest pet food recall in U.S. history.

The lawsuit, file in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, alleges that pets eating Menu Foods
products have been stricken with severe kidney disorders and
have demonstrated symptoms such as dehydration, diarrhea, loss
of appetite, increased thirst, lethargy, and vomiting.  Many
pets have died.

It further alleges that pet owners around the country have spent
as much as several thousand dollars each in veterinary expenses
to treat their pets, sometimes over multiple visits, for illness
relating to kidney failure.  Still other pet owners have
incurred additional costs relating to the death of their pets,
including costs for euthanasia, burial, and cremation.

The lawsuit (Case No. CV 07-01958 GHK) was filed on behalf of
consumers nationwide, alleging that Menu Foods, Inc., Menu Foods
Income Fund, and Menu Foods Midwest Corp. manufactured and sold
poisoned pet food products, and failed to inform customers that
these products were toxic, and potentially lethal, to their
pets.

It seeks recovery of all financial loss associated with the
recall, including veterinary bills and food replacement costs.

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

The complaint alleges that significant harm to pets and the
expenses incurred by their owners could have been avoided had
Menu Foods been more diligent and taken more responsibility for
informing the public and regulatory agencies about the dangers
associated with its products.

The lawsuit alleges that consumers informed Menu Foods that its
products were harmful to pets, and potentially lethal, as early
as late-February.  Yet, the complaint alleges Menu Foods
responded to these concerns by first conducting its own tests,
waiting until as many as 1 in 6 animal subjects had died --
seven animals -- before informing the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration of its findings and announcing a nationwide
recall to the public.

It further alleges that since announcing the recall, consumers
have been unable to reach Menu Foods' customer representatives
over advertised toll free numbers.  Instead, many customers are
getting busy signals and message recordings.

According to Mark J. Tamblyn, a partner in Wexler Toriseva
Wallace's Sacramento office, "thousands of consumers are
frantically seeking medical attention for their pets, and many
pets have died.  So far, Menu Foods' management of the crisis
has been ineffective.  Our firm is dedicated to ensuring an
adequate response by the company, and obtaining relief for
consumers."

Veterinary professionals are recommending that all animals known
to have ingested recalled foods be examined immediately. The law
firms are also urging consumers who possess recalled food or
suspect their pet has consumed any of the recalled food to
consider the recommendations recently provided by the American
Veterinary Medical Association.

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

For more information, contact Mark J. Tamblyn of Wexler Toriseva
Wallace LLP, Phone: (916) 568-1100, Website:
http://www.wtwlaw.us;or Stuart C. Talley of Kershaw Cutter &  
Ratinoff LLP, Phone: (916) 448-9800, Website:
http://www.kcrlegal.com.


MENU FOODS: Berding & Weil Files Lawsuit Over Tainted Pet Foods
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berding & Weil, LLP filed a purported class
action on behalf of all California residents who purchased the
pet food that was manufactured by Menu Foods, Inc. and sold
under various brand names, including IAMS, and whose pets have
become ill or died as a result of eating such food.

Menu Foods has recalled all of its "cuts and gravy" wet style of
cat and dog food, which was produced in its plants between Dec.
3, 2006 and March 2007.

The suit, filed in San Diego Superior Court, seeks compensation
for pet owners who have pets that died or were injured from
eating the tainted food, and also the payment of veterinary
bills, medicines, special foods, and other costs that will or
have been incurred by owners whose pets have taken ill.

Recovery of the costs of the food, which had to be thrown out
because of the recall, is also being sought.

For more details, contact Berding & Weil, Phone: (800) 400-1484
or 925-838-2090, Fax: 925-820-5592, Web site:
http://www.bwclassaction.com/.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Continues to Face ERISA Suit by Plan Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Worldwide, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

In October 2006, a former company employee filed a putative
class action against the company and a number of its current and
former officers and directors.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of all participants
in the company's 401(k) plan.  It alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary obligations to plan participants under
Sections 404, 405, 409 and 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104
et seq., by allowing plan participants to purchase and to hold
and maintain company stock in their plan accounts without
disclosing to those plan participants the historical stock
option practices.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, equitable restitution,
attorney's fees and an order, enjoining defendants from
violations of ERISA.

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

The suit is "Taylor v. McKelvey et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08322-
AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.

Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas James McKenna of Gainey &
McKenna, LLP, 295 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10017,
Phone: (212) 983-1300, Fax: (212) 983-0383, E-mail:
tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Evan T. Barr of Steptoe & Johnson, (NYC), 750 Seventh
         Avenue, Ste. 1900, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212)-
         506-3918, Fax: (212)-506-3961, E-mail:
         ebarr@steptoe.com; and

     (2) Geoffrey Shannon Stewart of Jones Day (NYC), 222 East
         41st Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)-326-3939,
         Fax: (212)-755-7306, E-mail: gstewart@jonesday.com.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Investment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
4th Circuit the dismissal of the "Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation," which names Nationwide Life Insurance Co. as
defendant.

On April 13, 2004, Nationwide Life was named in the class
action, "Woodbury v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co.," which was
filed in Circuit Court, 3rd Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Illinois.

Nationwide Life removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois on June 1, 2004.  On Dec. 27,
2004, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland and included in the multi-district
proceeding, "In Re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation."

In response, on May 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint purporting to represent, with certain
exceptions, a class of all persons who held -- through their
ownership of an Nationwide Life annuity or insurance product --
units of any Nationwide Life sub-account invested in mutual
funds that included foreign securities in their portfolios and
that experienced market timing or stale price trading activity.

The first amended complaint purports to disclaim, with respect
to market timing or stale price trading in Nationwide Life's
annuities sub-accounts, any allegation based on Nationwide
Life's untrue statement, failure to disclose any material fact,
or usage of any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance
in connection with any class member's purchases or sales of
Nationwide Life annuities or units in annuities sub-accounts.

The plaintiff claims, in the alternative, that if Nationwide
Life is found with respect to market timing or stale price
trading in its annuities sub-accounts, to have made any untrue
statement, to have failed to disclose any material fact or to
have used or employed any manipulative or deceptive device or
contrivance, then the plaintiff purports to represent a class,
with certain exceptions, of:

     all persons who, prior to Nationwide Life's untrue
     statement, omission of material fact, use or employment of
     any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, held
     -- through their ownership of an Nationwide Life annuity or
     insurance product -- units of any Nationwide Life sub-
     account invested in mutual funds that included foreign
     securities in their portfolios and that experienced market
     timing activity.

The first amended complaint alleges common law negligence and
seeks to recover damages not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or
class member, including all compensatory damages and costs.  

On June 1, 2006, the district court granted Nationwide Life's
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.

On June 30, 2006, the plaintiff filed a notice with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit of its intent to appeal the
district court's decision.

On Nov. 29, 2006, the plaintiff filed its appellate brief with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit contesting the
district court's dismissal, according to the company's March 1
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, case no.  
1:04-cv-03944-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland under Judge J. Frederick Motz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew Steven Friedman,  
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, 2901 N  
         Central Ave., Ste. 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 1-
         602-776-5903, Fax: 1-602-274-1199, E-mail:  
         fbalint@bffb.com or afriedman@bffb.com;    

     (2) Eugene Yevgeny Barash, George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery  
         701 Market St., Ste. 300, St. Louis, MO 63108, Phone:  
         1-314-241-4844, Fax: 1-314-241-3525, E-mail:  
         ebarash@koreintillery.com or gzelcs@koreintillery.com;   
         and   

     (3) Timothy G Blood, William J. Doyle, John J. Stoia, Jr.,  
         Milberg Weiss, 401 B. St., Ste. 1700, San Diego, CA  
         92101-3311, Phone: 1-619-231-1058, Fax: 1-619-231-7423.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Shoshana Leah Gillers, Eric John Mogilnicki, Charles  
         Collier Platt of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr  
         LLP, 399 Park Ave, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 1-212-
         230-8841 Fax: 1-212-230-8888, E-mail:  
         shoshana.gillers@wilmerhale.com,   
         eric.mogilnicki@wilmerhale.com,   
         charles.platt@wilmerhale.com;    

    (ii) Larry E. Hepler, W. Jason Rankin, Burroughs Hepler, 103  
         W Vandalia St., Ste. 300, PO Box 510 Edwardsville, IL  
         62025-0510, Phone: 1-618-656-0184; and  

   (iii) Gordon Pearson, Andrew R. Varcoe, Wilmer Cutler, 2445 M  
         St., NW, Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 1-202-663-6000,
         Fax: 1-202-663-6363.


NEBRASKA: Livengood Order Could Spur Suits by Public Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court in the suit, "Terry B.
Livengood et al. v. Nebraska State Patrol Retirement System et
al. (no.S-05-710)," is expected to encourage public sector
workers to file class actions against the state's taxpayers, a
local legal observer said, according to Rob Luke of
LegalNewsLine.com.

On March 23, the high court allowed former State Patrol officers
to bypass the Public Employees Retirement Board (PERB) and sue
their former employers directly; and affirmed that class actions
against state entities in such matters could proceed.  The
Livengood suit involved taxes paid by former State Patrol
officers on their retirement benefits.

The rulings mean more current and former public employees will
now be able to file class actions against public entities more
easily in Nebraska, legal writer Stan Sipple wrote in a March 24
article "Observations of the legal scene from the Cornhusker
State" posted on Huskergblawgs.com.

Judge William Connolly wrote on the first ruling that neither
the relevant statute "nor the regulations cited by the
Appellants mandate that an aggrieved party present his or her
claim to the [PERB] before suing in court."  He stated on the
second ruling that the statute "does not limit the procedure for
contract claims against the State so that only individual
actions are permitted."  The appellants had argued that as state
entities they were immune to class action in these cases.


REGISTERFLY INC: Faces N.C. Lawsuit Over Internet Domain Names
--------------------------------------------------------------
RegisterFly, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of UnifiedNames,
Inc., along with several others, were named as defendants in a
purported federal class action alleging that the company
systematically defrauded its customers who attempted to register
or renew Internet domain names, causing them to lose their
domain names, finances, and even entire businesses.

Anne Martinez, a Registerfly customer, filed the suit on March
13 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.  Besides the Internet domain registrar, other
defendants in the suit are:

      -- Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
         (ICANN), the corporation charged with accreditation and
         oversight of registrars;

      -- UnifiedNames, Inc.;

      -- Hosting Services Group, Inc.;

      -- Kevin Medina;

      -- John Naruszewicz; and
   
      -- eNon, a domain name registration and services
         technology company founded in 1997 in Redmond, W.Va.,
         andis the second largest registrar of domain names.

Mrs. Martinez fears that RegisterFly is likely to cause the loss
of her website GoCertify.com, which is the primary source of
support for her and her children.  

The GoCertify.com domain, which had a scheduled expiration date
of March 18, 2007, according to Registerfly, could not be
renewed, was refused transfer to a different registrar, and has
had her ownership information completely removed or concealed
from public databases as well as made inaccessible to her.

With regards to ICANN, the complaint and subsequent filings,
allege that it had full knowledge of RegisterFly's fraudulent
activities for over a year, and took no substantive action until
the lawsuit was filed.  

The lawsuit maintains that, "ICANN profited from RegisterFly's
use of its accreditation and posting of ICANN's logo on its
site, but failed to enforce the terms of the contract
RegisterFly customers relied on when registering domains."

Plaintiff's attorney E. Clarke Dummit Dummit says it was only
after he served ICANN with the class action that it "finally"
gave RegisterFly a notice of termination of its accreditation.

Mrs. Martinez initially sought a temporary restraining order
against RegisterFly, which the court rejected on the grounds
that ICANN had already obtained sufficient data from RegisterFly
to protect the interests of the plaintiff.  Thus, the standard
of immediate and irreparable harm required for a TRO had not
been met.

She responded by going public with her complaint in the hopes of
discovering enough similarly situated potential plaintiffs to
receive class-action certification.

The suit is "Martinez v. RegisterFly, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-00188-UA-PTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina with referral to Judge P.
Trevor Sharp.

Representing the plaintiff is Ernest Clarke Dummit of The Dummit
Law Firm, 213 W. Sixth St., Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Phone: 336-
777-8081, Fax: 336-777-0160, E-mail: clarkedummit@yahoo.com, Web
site: http://www.nclawyer.com/.

Representing ICANN is Philip J. Mohr of Womble Carlyle Sandridge
& Rice, POD 84, Winston-Salem, NC 27102, Phone: 336-721-3577
Fax: 336-733-8358, E-mail: pmohr@wcsr.com.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: April 5 Hearing Set for "Perez" Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 5 hearing is set on a request for class-action status
in "Hilda Perez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.," according to the
company's March 1 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court, Law Division, Camden
County, New Jersey, on March 21, 2003.  It arose out of several
rent-to-own contracts Ms. Perez entered into with the company.  
The requested class period is April 23, 1999 to the present.

In her amended complaint, Ms. Perez alleges on behalf of herself
and a class of similarly situated individuals that the rent-to-
own contracts she entered into with the company violated New
Jersey's Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA) and, as a result,
New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act because such contracts imposed a
time price differential in excess of the 30% per annum interest
rate permitted under New Jersey's criminal usury statute.

Ms. Perez alleges that RISA incorporates the 30% interest rate
limit, limiting time price differentials to 30% per annum.  Ms.
Perez seeks reimbursement of the excess fees and/or interest
contracted for, charged and collected, together with treble
damages, and an injunction compelling the company to cease the
alleged violations.  She seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, together with attorneys' fees and costs and
disbursements.

Following the filing of her amended complaint, the company filed
a counterclaim to recover the merchandise retained by Ms. Perez
after she ceased making rental payments.  Ms. Perez answered the
counterclaim, denying liability and claiming entitlement to the
items she rented from the company.

In August 2003, Ms. Perez moved for partial summary judgment and
the company cross-moved for summary judgment.  In January 2004,
the trial court held that rent-to-own transactions are not
covered by RISA nor subject to the interest rate limit in New
Jersey's criminal usury statute.

The court granted the company's cross-motion, dismissing Ms.
Perez's claims under RISA and the Class Action Fairness Act.  
Ms. Perez then appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division.

Oral argument before the Appellate Division occurred in December
2004, and in February 2005 the Appellate Division rejected Ms.
Perez's arguments and ruled in the company's favor on all of her
claims.  Ms. Perez subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of
New Jersey, who heard oral arguments in November 2005.

On March 15, 2006, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the
judgment of the trial court and the Appellate Division and
remanded the case to the trial court for reinstatement of Ms.
Perez's complaint and for further proceedings.

In its decision, the Supreme Court held that rent-to-own
contracts in New Jersey are "retail installment contracts" under
RISA, and that RISA incorporates the 30% interest rate cap in
New Jersey's criminal usury statute.

The court rejected the company's legal arguments and reinstated
Ms. Perez's claims under RISA and the CFA.  The company then
filed a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court of New
Jersey, and in response, the court issued an order on July 10,
2006 stating that the March 15, 2006 decision is prospective,
except that it applies to plaintiff and, if the trial court
certifies a class, to the members of the class.

On Jan. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the company's writ of
certiorari.  A hearing on class certification is currently
scheduled for April 5.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. on the Net: http://www.rentacenter.com/.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Discovery in Tex. Suit Stayed Until March 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a purported securities fraud class action filed
against Rent-A-Center, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, is stayed until March 30, according
to the company's March 1 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

Filed on Jan. 4, 2002, the putative class action, "Terry Walker,
et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.," alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and
omitting material facts regarding the company's financial
performance and prospects for the third and fourth quarters of
2001.  

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's common stock from April 25, 2001
through Oct. 8, 2001 and sought damages in unspecified amounts.  
The court later consolidated similar complaints with the
"Walker" suit in October 2002.

On Nov. 25, 2002, the lead plaintiffs in the "Walker" suit filed
an amended consolidated complaint, which added certain of the
company's outside directors as defendants to the Exchange Act
claims.

The amended complaint also added additional claims that the
company, and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, violated various provisions of the Securities Act as
a result of alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with an offering in May 2001 and also added the
managing underwriters in that offering as defendants.

On Feb. 7, 2003, the company, along with certain officer and
director defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the matter as
well as a motion to transfer venue.  

In addition, the company's outside directors named in the matter
separately filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims
on statute of limitations grounds.  

On Feb. 19, 2003, the underwriter defendants also filed a motion
to dismiss the matter.  The plaintiffs filed response briefs to
these motions, to which the company replied on May 21, 2003.  A
hearing was held by the court on June 26, 2003 to hear each of
these motions.

On Sept. 30, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss without prejudice, dismissed without prejudice the
outside directors' and underwriters' separate motions to dismiss
and denied the company's motion to transfer venue.  

In its order on the motions to dismiss, the Court granted the
lead plaintiffs leave to replead the case within certain
parameters.

On July 7, 2004, the plaintiffs again repled their claims by
filing a third amended consolidated complaint, raising
allegations of similar violations against the same parties
generally based upon alleged facts not previously asserted.

The company, along with certain officer and director defendants
and the underwriter defendants, filed motions to dismiss the
third amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 23, 2004.  A
hearing on the motions was held on April 14, 2005.

On July 25, 2005, the court ruled on these motions, dismissing
with prejudice the claims against the outside directors as well
as the underwriter defendants, but denying the company's motion
to dismiss.  

In evaluating this motion to dismiss, the court was required to
view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs
and to take the plaintiffs' allegations as true.  

On Aug. 18, 2005, the company filed a motion to certify the
dismissal order for an interlocutory appeal, which was denied on
Nov. 14, 2005.  

A hearing on class certification was held on June 22, 2006.  The
court has made no ruling on class certification.  By order dated
Oct. 4, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion
to stay discovery in this matter until Jan. 1, allowing
discovery to continue during the months of January and March
2007, with a concluding date of March 30.

The suit is "Walker, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, et al., Case No.
5:02-cv-00003-DF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bradley Earl Beckworth of Nix Patterson & Roach -
         Daingerfield, 205 Linda Drive, Daingerfield, TX 75638,
         Phone: 903-645-7333, Fax: 19036454415, E-mail:
         bbeckworth@nixlawfirm.com; and

     (2) Thomas Emerson Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek, LLP, 1000
         Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         227-7720, Fax: 17132279404, E-mail:
         tbilek@hb-legal.com.

Representing the defendants are Anne Marie Rodgers and Darryl
Wade Anderson of Fulbright & Jaworski, 1301 McKinney, Suite
5100, Houston, TX 77010-3095, Phone: 713/651-5473, Fax: 713-651-
6652 and 17136515246, E-mail: arodgers@fulbright.com and
danderson@fulbright.com.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Multiple Suits Over "Hot Fuel"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travelcenters of America, LLC, is facing several purported class
actions filed by retail purchasers who purchased motor fuel that
was greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale.

Beginning in mid December 2006, and continuing to the present, a
series of class actions have been filed against numerous
companies in the petroleum industry, including TravelCenters of
America, Inc. or its subsidiaries, in U.S. District Courts in at
least 23 states.   

Major petroleum companies and significant retailers in the
industry have been named as defendants in one or more of these
lawsuits.  

The company has been named in at least seven cases to date,
including cases in California, Alabama, New Mexico, Nevada and
Missouri.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are retail
purchasers who purchased motor fuel that was greater than 60
degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale.   

There are two primary theories upon which the plaintiffs seek
recovery in these cases.  The first theory alleges that the
plaintiffs purchased smaller quantities of motor fuel than the
amount for which defendants charged them because the defendants
measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-standard
gallons, which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.  

The "temperature" cases seek, among other relief, an order
requiring the defendants to install temperature-correcting
equipment on their retail motor fuel dispensing devices,
damages, and attorneys' fees.   

The second theory alleges that fuel taxes are calculated in
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons and are collected by the
government from suppliers and wholesalers, who are reimbursed in
the amount of the tax by the defendant retailers before the fuel
is sold to consumers.  

The "tax" cases allege that when the fuel is subsequently sold
to consumers at temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers
sell a greater volume of fuel than the amount on which they paid
tax, and therefore reap a windfall because the customers pay
more tax than the retailer paid.  They seek, among other relief,
recovery of excess taxes paid and punitive damages.

Travelcenters of America, LLC on the Net:
http://www.tatravelcenters.com/.


UNITED PARCEL: Calif. Court OKs $87M Overtime Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted tentative approval to a settlement of a wage-and-hour
class action against United Parcel Service, Inc.

The suit "Cornn et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al,"
which has been certified as a class action, alleges that
plaintiffs were improperly denied wages and/or overtime and meal
and rest periods.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of approximately 23,600
drivers and seek back wages, penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees.

United Parcel has agreed in principle to settle this matter in
full for a total payment of $87 million.  On Dec. 6, 2006, the
court granted tentative approval of the settlement, according to
the company's March 1 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Cornn et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:03-cv-02001-THE," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Thelton E.
Henderson.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Curtis Brooks Cutter of Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP,
         980 9th Street, 19th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814,
         Phone: 916 448-9800, Fax: 916 669 4499, E-mail:
         brooks@cutterlaw.com; and

     (2) Wendy C. York of York Law Corporation, 2295 Gateway
         Oaks Drive, Suite 165, Sacramento, CA 95833, Phone: 916
         643 2200, Fax: 916-643-4680, E-mail:
         wyork@yorklawcorp.com.

Representing defendants are E. Jeffrey Grube, Esq., Katherine L.
Kettler, Annette Marie Rittmuller and Daniel E. Waldman all of
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 55 Second Street, 24th
Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-3441, Phone: 415-856-7000 or 415-
856-7204, Fax: 415-856-7100, E-mail: jeffgrube@paulhastings.com
or katherinekettler@paulhastings.com or
annettegammon@paulhastings.com or danwaldman@paulhastings.com.


UNITED PARCEL: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Air Cargo Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. is facing several lawsuits claiming
conspiracy by a number of air cargo carriers regarding
surcharges in air cargo, 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.

Initially, the company was named as a defendant in four putative
class actions in federal courts.  It is currently not named as a
defendant in at least 86 related cases that make similar
allegations.  

These cases have been consolidated in a Multi-District
Litigation proceeding pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.  

UPS was not included as a defendant in the amended consolidated
complaint on which the Multi-District Litigation is proceeding.

In addition, in July 2006, the company was named as a defendant
in a comparable lawsuit filed in the Ontario (Canada) Superior
Court of Justice.

United Parcel Service, Inc. on the Net: http://www.ups.com/.


UNITED PARCEL: Supervisors Appeal Ruling in Overtime Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in "Michael Marlo v. United Parcel Svc, et al.,"
appealed a summary judgment favoring the defendants in the case
filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Filed in 2005, plaintiffs allege that they improperly were
denied overtime, and seek penalties for missed meal and rest
periods, and interest and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of 1,200 full-time supervisors.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS on all claims
and plaintiffs have appealed, according to the company's March 1
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Michael Marlo v. United Parcel Svc, et al., Case
No. 2:03-cv-04336-DDP-RZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Dean D.
Pregerson, with referral to Judge Ralph Zarefsky.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) George W. Abele, Jennifer S. Baldocchi, Heather G.
         Havette and Robert F. Walker all of Paul Hastings
         Janofsky & Walker, 515 S Flower St, 25th Fl, Los
         Angeles, CA 90071-2228, Phone: 213-683-6000, Fax: 213-
         627-0705; and

     (2) Kirby Collette Wilcox of Paul Hastings Janofsky &
         Walker, 55 Second Street, 24th Floor, San Francisco, CA
         94105-3441, Phone: 415-856-7000, E-mail:
         kirbywilcox@paulhastings.com.

Representing plaintiffs are John A. Furutani and Mark C. Peters
both of Furutani and Peters, 911 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite
310, Pasadena, CA 91106, Phone: 626-844-2437, E-mail:
jafurutani@furutani-peters.com or mcpeters@furutani-peters.com.


XL CAPITAL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied a
motion seeking the dismissal of a securities fraud class action
filed against XL Capital Ltd.

On June 21, 2004, a consolidated and amended class action
complaint was served on the company and certain of its present
and former directors and officers as defendants in a putative
class action, "Malin et al. v. XL Capital Ltd. et al.," filed in
U.S. District Court for District of Connecticut.

The Malin Action purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Nov. 1, 2001 and Oct. 16, 2003,
and alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated the
securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose in
various public and shareholder and investor reports and other
communications the alleged inadequacy of the company's loss
reserves for its NAC Re subsidiary (now known as XL Reinsurance
America, Inc.) and that, as a consequence, the company's
earnings and assets were materially overstated.

On Aug. 26, 2005, the court dismissed the amended complaint
owing to its failure adequately to allege "loss causation," but
provided leave for the plaintiffs to file a further amended
complaint.  

The plaintiffs thereafter filed a second amended complaint,
which is similar to the amended complaint in its substantive
allegations.

On Dec. 31, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  The plaintiffs opposed the motion.  

In addition, the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike certain
documents and exhibits that the XL defendants had proffered in
support of the motion to dismiss.

By order dated Dec. 15, 2006, the court granted in part and
denied in part plaintiff's motion to strike and allowed limited
discovery through March 2.

The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice
to its renewal at the conclusion of such discovery, according to
the company's March 1 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Malin et al. v. XL Capital Ltd. et al., Case no.
3:03-cv-02001-PCD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, under Judge Peter C. Dorsey.  

Representing the company is Leonard A. Spivak of
Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, 80 Pine St., New York, NY 10005,
Phone: 212-701-3000, Fax: 212-269-5420, E-mail:
lspivak@cahill.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ramzi Abadou, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman - CA,
         401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
         ramzia@mwbhl.com;  

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

     (3) Patrick A. Klingman, Sheperd Finkelman Miller & Shah-
         Chester, 65 Main St., Chester, CT 06412, Phone: 860-
         526-1100, Fax: 860-526-1120, E-mail:
         pklingman@sfmslaw.com;

     (4) James W. Oliver, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins - SF, 100 Pine St., Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-
         mail: jimO@lcsr.com; and

     (5) David A. Rosenfeld, Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP,
         200 Broadhollow Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747-
         4806, Phone: 631-367-7100, E-mail:
         drosenfeld@cauleygeller.com.


* Penn. Firm Saltz, Mongeluzzi Extends Practice to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, PC, will begin an
aggressive expansion into the field of class action, starting
with the addition of David J. Cohen, Esquire, as partner and
head of the new practice group.

                 Statement by Saltz, Mongeluzzi

A highly skilled and successful class-action attorney, Mr. Cohen
has spent more than a decade holding the nation's largest
companies responsible for their improper conduct through active
involvement in a broad range of antitrust, consumer, employment
and securities cases -- work he intends to continue at Saltz,
Mongeluzzi.

Michael F. Barrett, the firm's Managing Shareholder, said the
creation of a class action practice group has been a key
objective for some time, "Class actions are a natural complement
to our growing base of labor union clients and to our huge base
of individual clients who will benefit from access to
representation in complex claims ranging from defective medical
devices to construction material price fixing.  And now, with
David J. Cohen, we have the ideal lawyer to lead and grow that
practice."

Mr. Cohen, who is widely regarded as a passionate advocate for
the rights of consumers, patients, union members, shareholders
and workers, said "I have long admired the talent, vision and
dedication of SMBB's lawyers.  With the firm's extensive
resources and significant client base, it is hard to imagine a
better fit for a lawyer seeking to build a thriving class action
practice."

At Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Mr. Cohen will continue his work as part
of a team of lawyers seeking to recover more than $1.5 billion
that consumers overpaid for Vioxx as a result of Merck's
deceptive marketing of the drug in the Vioxx Consumer Litigation
currently pending in the New Jersey Superior Court.

Mr. Cohen also brings to Saltz, Mongeluzzi a leadership role in
"El v. SEPTA (E.D. Pa.)," arguably the most significant ex-
offender rights case in a decade.  This case challenges an
employment policy that, in direct contravention of the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidance, barred the
hiring of any ex-offender without requiring individual
consideration into the age, nature or job-relatedness of their
past convictions.

Over the last 10 years, Mr. Cohen has worked on dozens of
significant antitrust, consumer, employment and securities
matters for two highly regarded Philadelphia firms.  Before
joining the private sector, Mr. Cohen completed a unique
clerkship with the Hon. Stephen E. Levin in the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas, during which he not only helped to
develop a respected and efficient system for the resolution of
the Court's class actions, but also contributed to several well-
regarded works on class actions.

Mr. Cohen earned a J.D. from the Temple University School of Law
in 1994.  While attending law school, he was awarded the
Barristers Award for excellence in trial advocacy and worked as
a teaching assistant for Temple's Integrated Trial Advocacy
program.  Mr. Cohen graduated with honors from the University of
Chicago in 1991.

Mr. Cohen is admitted to practice in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 3rd Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and the state courts of Pennsylvania and
New Jersey.  He is an active member of the American and
Philadelphia Bar Associations.

A Philadelphia native, Mr. Cohen is actively involved in the Old
City Civic Association, serving on the Association's Executive
Committee, as its Recording Secretary and as a Board member.  He
is a member of the Young Friends of Inglis House, an interviewer
for the University of Chicago alumni interview program and has
often served as a judge for the Temple University Beasley School
of Law Moot Court Honor Society competitions.

For more information, contact Michael F. Barrett of Saltz,
Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, PC, Phone: +1-215-496-8282.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


COAST FINANCIAL: Lerach Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that
a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of Coast
Financial Holdings, Inc. who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Coast Financial between October 5, 2005 to Jan.
25, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, in order to take advantage of the
housing boom and in particular the fast-growing real estate
market in Southwest Florida, Coast Financial partnered with
Construction Compliance Inc. to lend money to borrowers who
would use the money to construct homes in that area.  

The plan was simple: borrowers would put little money down and
take out construction loans in their name that Construction
Compliance would then use to construct the properties.  
Construction Compliance would then use the credit line to
construct the properties and pay the interest on the loans.  
Once the construction was completed, borrowers would then sell
the property or "flip" it for a quick profit.

According to the law firm, unbeknownst to shareholders, however,
by the start of the Class Period, Coast Financial had materially
increased its exposure to Construction Compliance and its
investors and had extended tens of millions of dollars of credit
for the construction of homes in Florida.  Given the then-
deteriorating condition of the Florida real estate market, the
company should have increased its loan loss reserves for this
segment of the business but did not, according to the complaint.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants allegedly never
disclosed all material facts about its relationship with
Construction Compliance, the status of its construction projects
or the company's increasing exposure to Construction Compliance.

Furthermore, the company should have fully disclosed the true
risks associated with this line of business -- there were
little, if any, controls placed on the Construction Compliance
and its ability to withdraw money from Coast Financial.  
Ultimately, Construction Compliance withdrew tens of millions of
dollars and never completed construction on many homes.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Coast Financial
between Oct. 5, 2005 to Jan. 25, 2007.

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

The company operates as the holding company for Coast Bank of
Florida that provides various consumer and commercial banking
services to individuals and small to medium sized businesses in
Manatee, Pinellas and Sarasota counties in Florida.

For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld, both of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com.


WORLDSPACE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class
consisting of all purchasers of the common stock of Worldspace,
Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the company's Aug. 4, 2005
Initial Public Offering.  Purchasers of WorldSpace shares on the
open market are also eligible to join the class action.

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip
Kim, Esq., both of The Rosen Law Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-
1060 or (917) 797-4425 (Weekends) or 1-866-767-3653 (Toll Free),
Fax: (212) 202-3827, Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *