CAR_Public/070409.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 9, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 69

                            Headlines


A&A GLOBAL: Recalls Children's Bracelets for Lead Poisoning Risk
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: New Class in Ill. ERISA Lawsuit Certified
AMERADA HESS: April 16 Hearing Set for $9M Stock Suit Settlement
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Parker Waichman Balks at $100 Mil. Settlement
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: Turkey Seeks Dismissal of Armenian Heirs Suit

BEN & JERRY'S: Peach Cobblers with Undeclared Wheat Recalled
BLUE CROSS: Pa. Court Stays Litigation Over Tax-Exempt Status
CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Tenn. Suit Over Contaminated Peanut Butter
CONNECTICUT: Arrests Gain National Attention for Builder's Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls Key Chains Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard

DRAM LITIGATION: April 18 Hearing Set for $143.25M Settlement
ESTES-COX CORP: Recalls Radio Control Airplanes for Fire Hazard
FAIRPOINT COMMS: N.C. Court Mulls Motions in "Lowinger" Lawsuit
FFE TRANSPORTATION: Tex. Court Mulls Class in Contractor's Suit
GENTA INC: Settlement Reached in N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit

GMH COMMUNITIES: Two Lead Plaintiffs Appointed in Pa. Litigation
GUAM: DRT Withholds $1.87M Earned Income Tax Credit Payments
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Holders' Suit Over Buyout Offer
HERCULES INC: April 16 Fairness Hearing Set for Pa. ERISA Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Appellate Court Dismisses N.Y. RAL Suit Appeal

JACKSON HEWITT: Calif. Court Mulls Approving RAL Suit Settlement
JACKSON HEWITT: Ohio Court Grants Remand Motion in "Brown" Case
JACKSON HEWITT: W.Va. Court Mulls Dismissal of "Hunter" Case
JAKKS PACIFIC: N.Y. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
JERSEY CENTRAL: N.J. Court Allows Power Outage Suit to Proceed

LOUISIANA: Court Dismisses Part of Bridge Blockade Litigation
MCKESSON HBOC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 13
MID-STATE BANCSHARES: Shareholder Files Calif. Suit Over Merger
NATURAL GAS: June 12 Hearing Set For Calif. Suit Settlement
PNC FINANCIAL: April 12 Hearing Set for $9.075M E&Y Settlement

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Colo. Suit Over Employee Benefits
RCN CORP: Reaches Settlement for N.J. ERISA Violations Lawsuit
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sleep-Drug Stilnox Maker Faces Possible Lawsuit
SINGAPORE AIRLINES: Members to Sue Over Loyalty Scheme Phase-Out
SOUTHERN COPPER: Still Faces Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger

SPX CORP: Settles Securities Fraud, ERISA Litigation in N.C.
UNITED STATES: Guatemalans File Human Rights Violations Suit
UPM-KYMMENE CORP: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Labelstock Products
USI HOLDINGS: Some Defendants Settle Brokerage Antitrust Suit
ZALE CORP: Continues to Face Securities, ERISA Lawsuits in Tex.

* Appellate Litigator Gregory S. Coleman Joins Yetter & Warden


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COAST FINANCIAL: KGS Announces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Rohrback Announces Securities Suit Filing
WORLDSPACE INC: Law Firm Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing


                            *********


A&A GLOBAL: Recalls Children's Bracelets for Lead Poisoning Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
A&A Global Industries, of Cockeysville, Maryland, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 4 million children's "Groovy Grabber" bracelets.

The company said that the paint on the metallic band beneath the
decorative cover contains high levels of lead, which is toxic if
ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects.  
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled bracelets are made of flexible metal bands wrapped
in decorative plastic covers. The bracelets come in various
colors and designs, including smiley faces, Chinese symbols,
dogs, cats, aliens, checker boards, and flames.

These recalled children's "Groovy Grabber" bracelets were
manufactured in China and are being sold at vending machines
located in malls, discount, department and grocery stores
nationwide from November 2005 through March 2007 for 25 cents.

Picture of recalled children's "Groovy Grabber" bracelets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07144.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled bracelets
away from children and discard them.

For additional information, contact A&A Global Industries at
(800) 638-6000 ext. 314 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.aaglobalind.com.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: New Class in Ill. ERISA Lawsuit Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted class certification to
thousands of Abbott Laboratories employees who alleged generally
that the spin-off of Hospira, Inc., from the company adversely
affected employee benefits in violation of the Employee
Retirement Security Act of 1974.

The new class is the fourth such group to be certified in
related claims against Abbott Laboratories and Hospira.

The plaintiffs alleged that despite statements made by Abbott to
the employees to be affected by the spin-off that Hospira would
continue to offer the same benefits through the end of 2004,
Abbott knew that the decision to terminate these benefits at the
end of 2004 had already been made. The Judge noted in his
decision that some Hospira executives were offered "transition
bonuses" equal to the amount of their lost benefits.

"It is exceedingly clear from the evidence we've uncovered that
Abbott Laboratories misled its employees about the future of
their benefits with Hospira, and made no effort to accurately
tell them what would happen to their benefits at any time prior
to the spin-off," said Steven Sprenger, counsel for the
plaintiffs at the law firm Sprenger + Lang. "Only the insiders
who knew exactly what was going to happen were able to avoid the
financial setback associated with their benefit losses by
negotiating with Abbott."

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned, "Myla
Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories
and Hospira, Inc.," alleging Abbott Laboratories, faced with the
prospect of paying its older employees significant pension
benefits when they retired, decided to spin-off its Hospital
Products Division, which employed many of its older workers, to
create Hospira.

Plaintiffs generally seek reinstatement as Abbott employees, or
reinstatement as participants in Abbott's employee benefit
plans, or an award for the employee benefits they have allegedly
lost.

The plaintiffs alleged Abbott terminated them during the spin-
off with the intent to interfere with their accrual of further
benefits under the Abbott benefit plans. Several of those
valuable benefits ended shortly after the former Abbott
employees reported to work for Hospira. Finally, Abbott and
Hospira adopted a two-year, no-hire policy that effectively
eliminated any rights plaintiffs would have retained under the
Abbott benefit plans.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Abbott designed the
spin-off to cut off the employees' pension benefits and insulate
itself from ever paying any of the increased pension obligations
accrued by its older employees as they approached their peak
salary years when their benefits were becoming considerably more
valuable.

In December 2005 Judge Gettleman granted plaintiffs' request for
a class against Abbott on two counts that includes all former
Abbott employees who were terminated between August 22, 2003
(the date the spin-off was announced), and April 30, 2004 (the
date plaintiffs were terminated), as a result of the spin-off.

The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.

Representing the company is James F. Hurst, Winston & Strawn
LLP, 35 West Wacker Drive, 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
(312) 558-5230 or E-mail: jhurst@winston.com.

The plaintiffs and class are represented by:

     (1) Steven M. Sprenger and Mark A. Amadeo of Sprenger &
         Lang, PLLC, 1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 500,
         Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: (202) 265-8010; and

     (2) Michael M. Mulder, Paul W. Mollica, and Jamie S.
         Franklin, all of Meites, Mulder, Mollica and Glink, 208
         South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410, Chicago, IL 60604,
         Phone: (312) 263-0272.


AMERADA HESS: April 16 Hearing Set for $9M Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing on April 16, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. for the
proposed $9,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Amerada
Hess Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-03359-
JAG-MCA."

Generally, the suit alleged that defendants sold shares of the
company's common stock in advance of its acquisition of Triton
Energy Limited (Triton) in 2001 in violation of federal
securities laws.  

The settlement covers all persons who purchased Amerada Hess
CORP. (now known as Hess Corp.) common stock during the period
beginning Feb. 14, 2001 through July 11, 2001.

Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before April
2, 2007.  Claims forms must be submitted on or before May 21,
2007.

The settlement hearing will be held before the Judge Peter G.
Sheridan, U.S. District Judge, District of New Jersey, at the
Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 50
Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Hess Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator c/o
         Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 5100, Larkspur, CA  94977-
         5100, Phone: 415-461-0410, E-mail:
         classact@gilardi.com; and
     (2) Keith F. Park and Arthur C. Leahy of Lerach Coughlin
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway,
         Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101-4297, (San
         Diego Co.), Phone: 619-231-1058 and 800-449-4900, Fax:
         619-231-7423, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Parker Waichman Balks at $100 Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Parker Waichman Alonso Mark, LLP, believes that
the previously announced $100 million class action settlement
between American Express (AXP) and their financial services
clients does not adequately compensate class members.

Class members who participate in the settlement might recover as
little as $20-$50 each, and should consider filing an individual
case rather than participating in the settlement.

                         Case Background

Generally, plaintiffs in the consolidated action, "In Re
American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," assert claims against defendants under:

      -- Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
         1933;

      -- Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
         and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b-
         5(a)-(c) and 10b-10 promulgated thereunder;

      -- Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
         1934;

      -- the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. Sections
         80b-5, 80b-6;

      -- the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act;
    
      -- Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act;

      -- Minnesota False Advertisement Act; Minnesota Unlawful
         Trade Practices Act; and

      -- for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

In October 2005, a comprehensive settlement was reached
regarding the consolidated securities class action filed against
the company, its former parent and affiliates in October 2004
(Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2007).  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact David Krangle, Esq. of Parker Waichman
Alonso Mark, LLP, Phone: 1-800-529-4636, Web site:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1cc9.


ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: Turkey Seeks Dismissal of Armenian Heirs Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nabi Sensoy, Turkey's ambassador to the United States, asked
Judge Margaret M. Morrow of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California to dismiss a lawsuit filed by
descendants of the Armenian Genocide against two German banks
(Turkish branches of Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank), the AZG
Armenian Daily reports.

In his letter to Judge Morrow, Amb. Sensoy wrote "I am deeply
concerned that the plaintiffs have asked you to sit in judgment
on Turkey's sovereign acts carried out within its territory,
from which I would request that you refrain. Specifically, the
plaintiffs have made allegations that require this court to
delve into whether there was a governmental plan to commit
crimes against Armenians living in the late Ottoman Empire,
including the looting of property.  The plaintiffs have made
clear that they wish their allegations to span the demise of the
Ottoman Empire and carry over into modern Turkey.  For example,
the plaintiffs allege that the Armenian tragedy extended from
1915 to 1923, insinuating that any wrongful acts that
contributed to it are not only the responsibility of the Ottoman
Empire, the predecessor state, but also its successor, Republic
of Turkey, which was founded in 1923."

The Turkish ambassador then unabashedly offered the Judge his
embassy's services as an unimpeachable source for documentation
on the Armenian Genocide.

"My embassy places itself at your disposal to provide references
to scholarly works that disagree with the current orthodoxy that
the Armenian tragedy ought to be termed genocide," the letter
said.

Amb. Sensoy then chastised Judge Morrow by instructing her that
her "use of the term Armenian Genocide, is inappropriate."

He said he was unhappy that in her September 11 opinion, the
Judge had made a reference to the "Historical Background of the
Armenian Genocide." He also accused the Judge of "being an
advocate of one side in a genuine historic controversy..."

In January 1916, nine months after the Genocide began that
killed approximately 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire, a decree from the Ottoman Minister of Commerce and
Agriculture ordered all financial institutions operating within
the country's borders to turn over Armenian assets to the
government.  

Records show that as much as six million Turkish gold pounds
were seized along with real property, cash, bank deposits and
jewelry.  The assets were eventually funneled to European banks,
including Deutsche and Dresdner banks.  

Descendants of the Armenian Genocide originally filed the suit
in 2004 and amended it in 2006, against the Turkish branches of
two German banks -- Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank -- Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2006).

The lawsuit seeks the recovery of millions of dollars of
Armenian money and property wrongfully withheld by the defendant
German banks following the Armenian Genocide.  

The lawsuit charges that the banks have maintained possession of
Armenian families' money and assets deposited by Armenian
families prior to 1915 as well as assets looted by the Ottoman
Turkish government.  

The lawsuit states that the banks profited from the atrocities
committed against the Armenian people in the Ottoman Turkish
Empire by concealing and preventing the recovery of assets
rightfully belonging to Armenian families.  

Ever since the filing of this lawsuit these German banks have
done everything possible to have it dismissed. They have
challenged the constitutionality of the law passed by the
California Legislature, which extended the Statute of
Limitations, and created standing for plaintiffs to sue the
German banks and other institutions until 2016.

In their attempt to counter the charge that they are the
beneficiaries of ill-gotten gains, the German banks, through
their legal counsel, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, have
claimed that the California law "is an unconstitutional
encroachment on the federal government's exclusive power over
foreign affairs."

In response to the Turkish Ambassador's unwarranted intrusion
into the affairs of the court, the attorneys for the Armenian
side filed an affidavit with the court on March 7, 2007, that
stated, "The letter from the Turkish Ambassador is replete with
inaccuracies and erroneous suppositions.. The Republic of Turkey
is not a party to this lawsuit, nor has it appeared in any
capacity in such a way to allow it any voice in this process..
There is no legal justification for this Court to consider any
position presented by the Republic of Turkey in this case.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs recommend that the Court disregard the
Turkish Ambassador's letter."

The suit is "Varoujan Deirmenjian et al v. Deutsche Bank AG et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00774-MMM-RC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge
Margaret M. Morrow, with referral to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Sander Bak, Jeffrey Barist and Atara Miller, all of
         Milbank Tweed Hadley and McCloy, 1 Chase Manhattan
         Plaza, New York, NY 10005-1413, Phone: 212-530-5125 or
         212-530-5000, E-mail: sbak@milbank.com; and

     (2) Gregory L. Evans, Linda Kwak and Patricia Quilizapa,
         all of Milbank Tweed Hadley and McCloy, 601 South
         Figueroa Street, 30th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017,
         Phone: 213-892-4000 or 213-892-4330, Fax: 213-629-5063,
         E-mail: pquilizapa@milbank.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark J. Geragos and Shelley Kaufman, both of Geragos &
         Geragos, 350 S Grand Ave, 39th Fl., Los Angeles, CA,
         Phone: 90071-3480, Fax: 213-625-3900, E-mail:
         fileclerk@geragos.com;

     (2) Brian S. Kabateck and Richard L. Kellner, both of
         Kabateck Brown Kellner, 350 S Grand Ave, 39th Floor,
         Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-217-5000, E-mail:
         bsk@kbklawyers.com; and

     (3) Vartkes Yeghiayan of Yeghiayan & Associates, 535 N
         Brand Blvd, Ste 270, Glendale, CA 91203, Phone: 818-
         242-7400, E-mail: vartkes@anet.net.


BEN & JERRY'S: Peach Cobblers with Undeclared Wheat Recalled
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben & Jerry's, in cooperation with the Food and Drug
Administration, is voluntarily recalling 250,000 pints of its
Ben & Jerry's Country Peach Cobbler Ice Cream: Peach Ice Cream
with Cinnamon-Sugar Shortbread Pieces & a Peach Swirl ("Country
Peach Cobbler"), because it contains undeclared wheat.

Subject to the recall are the products with these date codes:
Jan 23, 2008; Jan 24, 2008; Feb 8, 2008; Feb 9, 2008.  The date
code is found on the bottom of the pint.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat run
the risk of a temporary health problem/illness if they consume
Country Peach Cobbler.  No illnesses have been reported to date.
The company is issuing an alert through the Food Allergy &
Anaphylaxis Network.

Country Peach Cobbler was distributed nationwide and reached
consumers through retail stores.

The voluntary recall was initiated after it was discovered that
the product, which contains wheat, was distributed in packaging
that did not reveal the presence of wheat on the ingredient
label.

If consumers have a Country Peach Cobbler pint dated Jan 23
2008, Jan 24 2008, Feb 08 2008 and Feb 09 2008 (printed on the
bottom of the pint), they should discard the ice cream and send
the base of the empty container back to Ben &Jerry's for a full
refund:

For more information, contact Ben & Jerry's Consumer Response
Department, Country Peach Cobbler Refund, 30 Community Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403, Phone: 1-877-995-4716.


BLUE CROSS: Pa. Court Stays Litigation Over Tax-Exempt Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Lackawanna County Court placed on hold a purported class
action against Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania, which
challenges its $175 million pledge to improve regional health
systems and support a local medical school, The Citizens Voice
reports.

The suit -- filed by Robert Petty, who was covered under a Blue
Cross policy for employees of R.G. Petty Masonry of Clarks
Summit -- specifically alleges that Blue Cross's surplus
violates its nonprofit status and social mission.  

It could force Blue Cross to divest itself of up to $338 million
of its surplus and return the money to subscribers, use it for
coverage of the poor or expand coverage in order to remain a
tax-exempt nonprofit under state law.

Following a hearing on competing motions in the case, Judge
Carmen Minora said that he would await a ruling from
Commonwealth Court on issues in related cases before allowing
the 2002 case to proceed.

Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania on the Net:
http://www.bcnepa.com/.


CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Tenn. Suit Over Contaminated Peanut Butter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Tennessee law firm of Craft & Sheppard, P.L.C. filed
first class action lawsuit in the "Peter Pan" peanut butter
recall claiming injury and damages from human ingestion of the
contaminated peanut butter.

The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning to consumers
not to eat certain jars of "Peter Pan" or "Great Value" brands
peanut butter due to risk of contamination with Salmonella.  
Both brands were manufactured by ConAgra Foods.

"Consumers should not fear serious illness when they go to their
local grocery store.  Food manufacturers need to be held
accountable for their lapse of attention to public safety," says
Perry Craft of Craft & Sheppard.

The U.S. Federal Drug Administration on Feb. 14 warned customers
not to eat the products beginning with the "2111" label, and
stores across Lee County and throughout the nation pulled the
jars and offered refunds.

The FDA had linked the salmonella to the ConAgra plant in
Sylvester and also warned customers to discard other products
that may have been tainted by the peanut butter, including Sonic
ice cream sundae toppings, Carvel ice cream toppings and J.
Hungerford Smith dessert toppings.  The FDA said those companies
used the topping until Feb. 16, when the product was recalled.

According to public records, ConAgra has been sued 12 times
since the outbreak was announced.

For more information, contact Craft & Sheppard, Shiloh Building,
214 Centerview Drive, Suite 233, Brentwood, Tennessee 37027,
Phone: 615-309-1707, Fax: 615-309-1717, Website:
http://www.craftsheppardlaw.com.


CONNECTICUT: Arrests Gain National Attention for Builder's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The arrests of a former building official, and an inland
wetlands officer for suspected building code violations is
garnering national attention for a class action against the Town
of Madison Connecticut, alleging that building permit fees there
are excessively high.

According plaintiffs' attorney Drew Lichtenfels, the arrests add
another layer of complexity to the case.  He pointed out that a
ruling in favor of the builders could cost the town millions,
and bring justice to thousands of residents who paid the
increased building permit fees.

Five local area builders filed the civil suit in Superior Court,
alleging that Madison's building permit fee schedule is an
unconstitutional "scheme" that specifically and illegally
targets the building industry as a source of town revenue (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2005).

The five builders listed in the suit are:

      -- Dowler Group,
      -- Peter Smith Building Co.,
      -- MJM Builders, Inc.,
      -- Paul Coady Construction, and
      -- Neighborhood Builders, Inc.

Seeking both monetary and punitive damages as well as an
injunction prohibiting the town from continuing to charge its
stated fees, the builders are also seeking to bring the case as
a class action on behalf of all builders affected by the fee
schedule and not just the five named plaintiffs.

In 2002, the town revised its building permit fee schedule.  In
doing so, Town Engineer Stew MacMillan surveyed fee schedules in
a number of communities throughout the area and the state.

Mr. MacMillan told Shore Publishing, "The survey showed at that
time we were not the lowest, nor the highest. We were on the
high side, but others had higher fee schedules."

Following that survey he recommended a revised schedule for
building fees.  Presently the town charges a builder $12 per
$1,000 of construction cost for a building permit.

For example, a builder constructing a home with an estimated
construction cost of $600,000 would pay $7,200 in fees to the
town.

In their suit, the plaintiffs allege that the fees do not
reflect the actual costs the town incurs in the administration
and inspection of buildings under construction.

Instead, plaintiffs say, the fee schedule is being used as a
revenue producing measure "in part to fund social programs, and
other initiatives that have no relationship to the offering and
regulation of building activity in the town."

The suit contends, "Fees in excess of the amount which is
necessary for offering and regulating a particular service
constitute an illegal tax."  

The present fee schedule, according to the suit, "bears no
relationship to [Madison's] true costs in offering and
regulating the building activity in town," it continues, and the
town "unlawfully uses building permit fees...in part to fund its
general operations."  The fees constitute unlawful taxation, the
plaintiffs say, and violate the state's Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

For more details, contact Drew Lichtenfels, 29 Water Street,
Guilford, CT 06437, Phone: 203-458-7879, Fax: 203-458-0186.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls Key Chains Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Merchandising, Inc., of Goodlettsville,
Tennessee, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 396,000 metal key chains.

The company said the key chains contain high levels of lead.
Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves three styles of metal key chains including
a flip flop design, dangling charms and a letter. The flip flop
charms were sold in purple, yellow and aqua blue and have a
flower at the top. Charms on the dangling-style key chain
include a cross, flower, shamrock, and a heart that hangs from a
short silver chain. The letter-style key chain is a silver metal
letter in the English alphabet. The words "KeyChain" and "Dollar
General $1.25" are printed on the front of the packaging for
each style.

These recalled metal key chains were manufactured in China and
are being sold at Dollar General stores nationwide from December
2005 through January 2007 for $1.25.

Pictures of recalled metal key chains:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07145a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07145b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07145c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take these key chains away
from young children and return them to the store where purchased
for a refund or replacement product.

For additional information, contact Dollar General Corp. at
(800) 678-9258 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.dollargeneral.com


DRAM LITIGATION: April 18 Hearing Set for $143.25M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on April 18, 2007 for proposed
$143,247,000 settlement with certain defendants in the matter,
"In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation,
Master Files No. M-02-1486 PJH (JCS), MDL No. 1486."

The settlement, which is in relation to all direct purchaser
actions, covers all persons or entities that directly purchased
DRAM in the U.S. from the defendants during the period of APRIL
1, 1999 through June 30, 2002.  Any objections to the settlement
must be made on or before March 26, 2007.

The settling defendants are:

      -- Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc.;

      -- NEC Electronics America, Inc.;

      -- Winbond Electronics Corporation and Winbond Electronics
         Corporation America; and

      -- Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor
         Products, Inc. through its Crucial Technology division.

These are the second group of settlements reached in this
litigation, which will continue against the remaining
defendants.  

The court has granted final approval of the first group of
settlements with

      -- Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies
         North America Corp.;

      -- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; and

      -- Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor
         America, Inc.

                         Case Background

Plaintiffs in the suits generally allege that defendants
unlawfully agreed to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
prices of DRAM and/or to allocate among themselves major
customers and accounts in violation of the federal antitrust
laws during the period of April 1, 1999 through June 30, 2002.

They also allege that, as a result of defendants' unlawful
conduct, they and members of the class paid more for DRAM than
they would have in the absence of defendants' wrongful conduct.

Defendants deny plaintiffs' allegations and have asserted
numerous affirmative defenses.  On June 5, 2006, the court
certified the class described above.

For more details, contact:

     (1) DRAM Antitrust Litigation c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.,
         P.O. Box 24657, West Palm Beach, FL 33416, Phone: 866-
         483-9938, E-mail: dram@rustconsulting.com, Web site:
         http://www.dramantitrustsettlement.com;

     (2) Guido Saveri and R. Alexander Saveri of Saveri &
         Saveri, Inc., 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 217-6810, Phone:
         (415) 217-6813;

     (3) Fred Taylor Isquith Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &
         Herz, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 545-4600, Fax: (212) 545-4653; and

     (4) Anthony D. Shapiro of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 623-0594.


ESTES-COX CORP: Recalls Radio Control Airplanes for Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Estes-Cox Corp., of Penrose, Colorado, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
66,000 radio control model airplanes (Models 4153 and 4161) with
lithium polymer batteries.

The company said the airplanes can overheat while recharging the
battery, posing a fire hazard.

Estes-Cox has received nine reports of overheating, including
one report of a plane catching fire and resulting in a minor
burn injury.

This recall involves Sky Squadron Model 4153 (sold at
RadioShack) and Sky Rangers Model 4161 (sold at Wal-Mart) radio
controlled airplanes with rechargeable lithium batteries. The
airplanes have a wingspan of about 18- to 20-inches and a
polystyrene foam fuselage. Model 4153 is a blue Corsair single
engine airplane with a Number 15 decal and a black and blue
transmitter/charger. Model 4161 is a red twin engine plane with
an all-black transmitter/charger. The model numbers are on the
box and instructions.

These recalled radio control model airplanes with lithium
polymer batteries were manufactured in China and are being sold
at RadioShack stores nationwide sold the Sky Squadron Airplane
from December 2006 through February 2007 for about $35. Wal-Mart
stores nationwide sold the Sky Ranger Airplane from January 2007
through February 2007 for about $30.

Pictures of recalled radio control model airplanes:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07139a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07139b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07139c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07139d.jpg

Consumers with the recalled airplanes should stop using them
immediately and contact Estes-Cox for instructions on returning
the airplane for a replacement product.

For additional information, contact Estes-Cox at (800) 576-5811
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. MT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.estesrockets.com


FAIRPOINT COMMS: N.C. Court Mulls Motions in "Lowinger" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina has yet to rule on either motion to remand or to
dismiss the stockholder class action, "Lowinger v. Johnson, et
al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00316," which names Fairpoint
Communications, Inc. as defendant.

On June 6, 2005, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of the
State of North Carolina by Robert Lowinger on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated persons against the company,
the company's chairman and chief executive officer, certain of
the company's current and former directors and certain of the
company's stockholders.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) and
liability under Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act.  It also
alleged that the company's registration statement on Form S-1
(which was declared effective by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 3, 2005) and the related prospectus
dated Feb. 3, 2005, each relating to the company 's initial
public offering of common stock, contained certain material
misstatements and omitted certain material information necessary
to be included relating to the company 's broadband products and
access line trends.

The plaintiff, who has been a plaintiff in several other
securities cases, sought rescission rights and unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
common stock "issued pursuant and/or traceable to the company's
IPO during the period from Feb. 3, 2005 through March 21, 2005."

The company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina.  The plaintiff filed a
motion to remand the action to the North Carolina State Court,
which was denied by the Federal Magistrate.  The plaintiff
objected to and appealed the Magistrate's decision to the
district court judge.

The company contested the appeal and filed a motion to dismiss
the action.  The Magistrate, on Feb. 9, 2006, issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation to the district court Judge that
the motion to dismiss be granted and that the complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Objection to the Magistrate's
Recommendation.  Both the appeal of denial of the motion to
remand and the motion to dismiss are pending before the district
court judge.  

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

The suit is "Lowinger v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
00316," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina under Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
with referral to Judge Carl Horn, III.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jeffrey S. Abraham and Lawrence D. Levit of Abraham,
         Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805,
         New York, NY 10119, US, Phone: 212-279-5050, Fax: 212-
         279-3655; and

     (2) John Thurston O'Neal of O'Neal Law Office, 7
         Battleground Court, Suite 212, Greensboro, NC 27408,
         US, Phone: 336-510-7904, Fax: 336-510-7965, E-mail:
         oneallaw@triadbiz.rr.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Brian S. Appel and Charles E. Davidow of Wilmer Cutler
         Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 2445 M. St., NW
         Washington, DC 20037, US, Phone: 202-663-6000; and

    (ii) James Patrick McLoughlin, Jr. of Moore & Van Allen,
         Suite 4700, 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC
         28202, Phone: 704-331-1054, Fax: 704-378-2054, E-mail:
         jimmcloughlin@mvalaw.com.


FFE TRANSPORTATION: Tex. Court Mulls Class in Contractor's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has
yet to rule on a motion seeking class certification for a
lawsuit over independent contractor agreements that was filed
against FFE Transportation Services, a subsidiary of Frozen Food
Express Industries, Inc.

On Jan. 4, 2006, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc. and three independent contractors with trucks
formerly contracted to the company filed a putative class action
complaint against the company.

The complaint alleges that parts of the company's independent
contractor agreements violate the federal Truth-in-Leasing
regulations at 49 CFR Part 376.

The complaint seeks to certify a class comprised of all
independent contractors of motor vehicle equipment who have been
party to a federally regulated lease with the company during the
time period beginning four years before the complaint was filed
and continuing to the present.  It seeks injunctive relief, an
unspecified amount of damages, and legal costs.

The company's response to the complaint was filed in March 2006,
and the parties are engaged in discovery concerning class
certification issues.  

Plaintiffs submitted a motion for class certification on Sept.
15, 2006, the subsidiary's response will be due in December
2006, and the court is expected to rule on the motion sometime
after Feb. 1, 2007.

Frozen Food reported no new development in the matter on its
March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association,
Inc. et al. v. FFE Transportation Services, Inc., Case No. 3:06-
cv-00010," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge David C. Godbey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Cohen of The Cullen Law Firm, 1101 30th St. NW,
         Suite 300, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: 202/944-8600,
         E-mail: dac@cullenlaw.com; and

     (2) Jay R. Stucki of Hulse Stucki, 2912 W. Story Rd.,
         Irving, TX 75038, Phone: 214/441-3000, Fax: 214/441-
         3001, E-mail: JRS@TExasNetLaw.com.

Representing the defendants are George C. Lamb, III and Aimee
Williams Moore of Baker Botts, 2001 Ross Ave., Suite 600,
Dallas, TX 75201-2980, Phone: 214/953-6659 and 214/953-6500,
Fax: 214/953-6503 and 214/661-4695, E-mail:
george.lamb@bakerbotts.com and aimee.moore@bakerbotts.com.


GENTA INC: Settlement Reached in N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in the consolidated securities fraud
class action pending against Genta, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's
March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In 2004, numerous complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey against Genta and certain
of its principal officers on behalf of purported classes of the
company's shareholders who purchased its securities during
several class periods.

The complaints were consolidated into a single action and allege
that the company and certain of its principal officers violated
the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements regarding Genasenser for the treatment of
malignant melanoma that had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the company's securities.  The shareholder
class action complaint in the various actions seeks monetary
damages in an unspecified amount and recovery of plaintiffs'
costs and attorneys' fees.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.  The
court dismissed plaintiffs' claim that the defendants engaged in
a scheme or artifice to defraud plaintiffs, but allowed
plaintiffs' claims to proceed with respect to their allegations
that defendants issued false and misleading public statements
about Genasenser.

Non-binding mediation in 2006 did not produce a settlement and
the case proceeded to discovery.  

The company has reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs to settle the class action litigation in
consideration for issuance of 12.0 million shares of the
company's common stock and $18.0 million in cash for the benefit
of plaintiffs and the shareholder class.  

The company's insurance carriers will cover the cash portion of
the proposed settlement.  The company is actively engaged in
preparing the written stipulation and agreement of settlement,
which will be filed with the court seeking preliminary approval.

The suit is "In re: Genta, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:04-cv-02123-JAG-MCA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. with
referral to Judge Madeline C. Arleo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Melvyn I. Weiss Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-
         5300;

     (2) Marc L. Ackerman of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala
         Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610)
         667-6200, E-mail: mackerman@brodsky-smith.com;

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

     (4) Jean-Marc Zimmerman of Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky,
         LLP, 226 St. Paul Street, Westfield, NJ 07090, Phone:
         (908) 654-8000, E-mail: jmzimmerman@zlk.com;

     (5) Jennifer A. Sullivan of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163
         Madison Ave., P.O. Box 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962,
         Phone: 973-775-8996, Fax: 973-994-1744, E-mail:
         jsullivan@lawssb.com; and

     (6) Olimpio Lee Squitieri of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 26
         South Maple Avenue, Suite 202, Marlton, NJ 08053,
         Phone: (856) 797-4611, Fax: (856) 797-4612, E-mail:
         lee@sfclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

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

    (ii) Thomas A. Cunniff of Fox Rothschild, LLP, Princeton
         Pike, Corporate Center, 997 Lenox Drive, Building 3,
         Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2311, Phone: (609) 896-3600, E-
         mail: tcunniff@foxrothschild.com.


GMH COMMUNITIES: Two Lead Plaintiffs Appointed in Pa. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
appointed two lead plaintiffs in the securities fraud class
actions filed against GMH Communities Trust, according to the
company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On April 5, 2006, the company, Gary M. Holloway Sr., company
chairman, president and chief executive officer; and Bradley W.
Harris, the company's former chief financial officer, were named
defendants in a class action complaint.

The complaint states that the plaintiff has filed a federal
class action on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of the company between Oct. 28, 2004 and March 10,
2006.  The plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants issued a series of false and
misleading financial results regarding the company to the market
during the class period, and more specifically, failed to
disclose:

      -- that the company's earnings, net income and revenues
         were materially inflated and expenses were materially
         understated;

      -- that the company's funds from operations were
         materially inflated;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls;

      -- that the company's reported financial results were in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles,
         or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, the company's
         financial results were materially inflated at all
         relevant times.

Plaintiff alleges claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act
with respect to all of the defendants; Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act with respect to the company; Section 15 of the
Securities Act with respect to Mr. Holloway and Mr. Harris;
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act with respect to
all of the defendants; and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
with respect to Mr. Holloway and Mr. Harris.

On April 11, 2006, April 20, 2006, April 27, 2006 and May 15,
2006, four additional class action complaints were filed with
the court against the defendants by separate law firms, and
additional complaints may be filed in the near future until the
court has certified a class and a lead plaintiff has been named.

Each of these additional filed complaints alleges the same
claims against the defendants as described above with respect to
the complaint filed on April 5, 2006, except that the complaint
filed on April 20, 2006 restricts the class period to purchasers
of the publicly traded securities of the company to the time
period between May 5, 2005 and March 10, 2006.

On Jan. 22, the court entered an order appointing two lead
plaintiffs, as well as lead counsel and a liaison counsel.  

In addition, on that date, the court entered an order indicating
that the lead plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint
within 60 days of the date of the order and that defendants
shall respond to the consolidated complaint within 60 days of
service of such consolidated complaint.  

The order also stated that the parties should not file any
dispositive motions before attending a settlement conference
with an assigned magistrate judge.

Accordingly, the defendants do not expect to file a dispositive
motion, such as a motion to dismiss the action, until a
consolidated complaint has been filed and a settlement
conference has occurred.

The first identified complaint is "Iris Martin, et al. v. GMH
Communities Trust, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case(s) are:

     (1) Berger & Montague, PC, 1622 Locust Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax:
         215.875.4604, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net;
  
     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (3) Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 2300 Promenade II, 1230
         Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone:
         (888) 873-3999, Fax: (404) 876-4476, E-mail:
         attorney@chitwoodlaw.com;

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

     (5) Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW,
         Washington, DC, 20007, Phone: 202.337.8000, Fax:
         202.337.8090, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com;

     (6) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, 650 Poydras St. Suite 2150,
         New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: (504) 455-1400, E-mail:
         lewis.kahn@kglg.com;

     (7) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

     (8) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (9) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58
         South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747,
         Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;

    (10) Motley Rice, LLC, One Georgia Center, 600 West
         Peachtree Street, Suite 800, Atlanta, GA, 30308, Phone:
         1-800-768-4026, E-mail: webmaster@motleyrice.com;

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

    (12) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com; and

    (13) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


GUAM: DRT Withholds $1.87M Earned Income Tax Credit Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Revenue and Taxation (DRT) is keeping about
$1.87 million of the $10.55 million payout in Earned Income Tax
Credits to eligible low-income taxpayers because of taxpayer
debts to the government, the Pacific Daily News reports.

Rev and Tax Director Art Ilagan said the department is deducting
any amounts owed for taxes, child-support payments, hospital
bills and other debts before giving the balance to taxpayers.

Guam Memorial Hospital is receiving most of that windfall, about
$1.21 million, and those owed child support are receiving
$438,240 of the EITC settlement.

The settlement resulted from a suit filed against the government
by Julie Babauta Santos, Charmaine Torres, and Mary Grace Simpao
with Christina Naputi in 2004.  The Simpao class is currently
opposing the payment.

In June 2006, Gov. Felix Camacho signed a $90 million agreement
to settle the suit (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2006).  The
agreement received District Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-
Gatewood's preliminary court on Jan. 9 (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 10, 2007).

In February, Rev and Tax said it will start paying $10 million
in Earned Income Tax Credits to eligible low-income taxpayers in
early April after Judge Tydingco-Gatewood approved the wording
of a legal notice that will be issued to the public (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2007).

The remainder of the $90 million settlement will be paid out
annually, as the settlement specifically states that 15% of all
funds used to pay tax returns every year will be used to pay
EITC arrears, according to a KUAM News report.

Payments for eligible taxpayers for the year 1997 and 1998 are
automatically included in the reimbursement.  For tax years
1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, taxpayers
must complete and submit EITC claim forms to Rev and Tax in
order to receive the balance of the settlement.

All EITC claim forms are due by May 8, and Rev and Tax must
finish processing the forms by Sept. 5.

The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers Peter Perez, Mike
Philips, and James Canto.


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Holders' Suit Over Buyout Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., and some stockholders agreed in
principal to settle a purported class action involving the
proposed buyout of the gaming company by private equity
investors, The Las Vegas Gaming Wire reports.

Last year, Henoch Kaiman and Joseph Weiss filed a class action
challenging the sale of the company to Apollo Management and
Texas Pacific Group (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11, 2006).  

The shareholders consider the $15.1 billion offer from the
buyout firms, which translates to a per share price of $83.50,
as too low.  Their suit alleges that the transaction is an
"apparent camouflaged management buyout."

Additionally, shareholders contend that chairman Gary Loveman
"expects to be part of an eventual deal."  They also claim,
"private equity investors are looking to capitalize on the
company's bright future while excluding stockholders from
realizing similar returns."

Since the suit's filing, the original offer has been raised to
$90 per share.  Harrah's is now seeking regulatory approval for
a $17.1 billion buyout.

Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. on the Net: http://www.harrahs.com.


HERCULES INC: April 16 Fairness Hearing Set for Pa. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania will  
hold a fairness hearing on April 16, 2007 at 2 p.m. for the  
settlement of class actions challenging an amendment to the  
Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.

An amendment to the Pension Plan of Hercules Inc. effective Jan.  
1, 2002 changed the interest rate used to compute lump sum  
pension payments.

The formal class definition is:

"All participants in the Pension Plan of Hercules who:  

     -- have accrued credited service under Schedule A or  
        Schedule B of the Plan as of Dec. 31, 2004;  

     -- were covered by the 51% Partial Cash Payment provision  
        of the Plan as of Dec. 31, 2001;  

     -- have retired or will retire on or after Jan. 1, 2002;  
        and  

     -- have received or will elect to receive a 51% Partial  
        Cash Payment under the Plan.  

Participants who accrued credited service under Schedule C of  
the Plan (i.e., employees at locations previously covered by the  
BetzDearborn Inc. Employees' Retirement Plan) as of Dec. 31,  
2004 are not included in the class to the extent of their  
Schedule C credited service.

The hearing will be in Courtroom 15A, U.S. Courthouse, 601  
Market St., Philadelphia, PA.

                        Case Background

In June 2004 Charles Stepnowski filed a purported class action  
(Civil Action No. 04-cv-2296) in the U.S. District Court,  
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against:

     -- Hercules Inc.,
     -- The Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.,  
     -- The Hercules Inc. Finance Committee, and  
     -- Edward V. Carrington, Hercules' vice president human  
        resources

The Stepnowski lawsuit seeks the payment of benefits under the  
Pension Plan of Hercules Inc., and alleges violations of the  
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Rule 29 of the U.S.  
Civil Code Section 1001 et seq.  Under the Plan, eligible  
retirees of the company may opt to receive a single cash payment  
of 51% of the present value of their accrued benefit, with the  
remaining 49% payable as a monthly annuity.   

In the Stepnowski lawsuit, it is alleged that the company's  
adoption in 2002 of a new interest rate assumption used to  
determine the 51% cash payment constitutes a breach of fiduciary  
duty and a violation of the anti-cutback requirements of ERISA,  
the Internal Revenue Code and the terms of the Plan, and that  
its communications to employees concerning the new interest rate  
assumption constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty.  

The Stepnowski lawsuit seeks the payment of additional benefits  
under ERISA (as well as costs and attorneys fees), seeks to  
compel the company to use an interest rate assumption that is  
more favorable to eligible retirees, and seeks to establish a  
class comprised of all plan participants who retired (or who  
will retire) on or after Dec. 1, 2001.   

By Memorandum and Order dated May 26, 2005, the court denied  
without prejudice plaintiff's motion for class certification and  
dismissed plaintiff's anti-cutback claim, but allowed  
plaintiff's claim for benefits and breach of fiduciary duty to  
proceed.   

In December 2005, a virtually identical purported class action  
(Civil Action No. 05-6404) was filed in the same court by Samuel  
J. Webster, and others, against:  

     -- Hercules, Inc.,
     -- The Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.,  
     -- The Hercules Inc. finance committee, and  
     -- Edward V. Carrington, Hercules' vice president human  
        resources

In January 2006, the court consolidated the Stepnowski and  
Webster lawsuits.  In March 2006, the court certified the  
Webster action as a class action.  On Nov. 30, 2006, the parties  
signed a settlement agreement, which affects all class members.

On Dec. 4, 2006, the Federal District Court granted preliminary  
approval to this settlement.

Counsel will file additional briefs by March 16, 2007 supporting  
final approval of the settlement agreement, and the request for  
fees, costs and incentive awards.

In "Stepnowski," the plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Alice W. Ballard of Law Office of Alice W. Ballard, PC,  
         1616 Walnut St., Suite 2205, Philadelphia, PA 19103,  
         Phone: 215-893-9708, Fax: 215-893-9997, E-mail:  
         awballard@awballard.com; and  

     (2) Mervin M. Wilf of Mervin M. Wilf, Ltd., One South Broad  
         Street, Suite 1630, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-
         568-4842.  

In "Webster," the plaintiff is represented by Robert J. Larocca  
of Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C., One South Broad Street, Suite 2100,  
Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-238-1700, E-mail:  
rlarocca@kohnswift.com.   

Representing the company in both cases are David S. Fryman and  
Allison V. Kinsey of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLPP,  
1735 Market St., 51ST FL., Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599, Phone:  
215-864-8105 and 215-864-8782, Fax: 215-864-9743, E-mail:  
fryman@ballardspahr.com and kinseya@ballardspahr.com.


JACKSON HEWITT: Appellate Court Dismisses N.Y. RAL Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division, First Department dismissed a plaintiff's
appeal in a lawsuit over Refund Anticipation Loans (RAL) that
was filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

On June 18, 2004, Myron Benton brought a purported class action
against Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Co. and the company in
connection with disclosures made in the provision of RALs,
alleging that the disclosures and related practices are
fraudulent and otherwise unlawful.  The plaintiffs sought
equitable and monetary relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss that complaint.  In
response, Mr. Benton withdrew his original complaint and filed
an amended complaint on Jan. 3, 2005.

The company filed a motion for summary judgment and the
plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.  On July
26, 2006, the court granted the company's motion for summary
judgment in all respects, dismissing the plaintiff's amended
complaint.  

The plaintiff has appealed.  On Jan. 10, pursuant to a
stipulation, the Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed
plaintiff's appeal with prejudice, according to the company's
March 9 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan. 31.

New Jersey-based Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. on the Net:
http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/.


JACKSON HEWITT: Calif. Court Mulls Approving RAL Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has
yet to give final approval to a proposed settlement of purported
class action over Refund Anticipation Loans (RAL) that was filed
against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc.

On Dec. 23, 2005, Pierre Brailsford and Kevin Gilmore brought a
purported class action against the company in the Superior Court
of California, Alameda County in connection with disclosures
made in connection with the provision of RALs.  

Plaintiffs are alleging that the disclosures and related
practices are fraudulent and otherwise unlawful, and seeking
equitable and monetary relief.

On Jan. 31, 2006, the company filed a notice removing the
complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

Pursuant to court rules, on Nov. 15, 2006, the parties proceeded
to mediation.  At mediation, the parties agreed on preliminary
settlement terms, subject to, among other things, agreement upon
final terms, the execution of definitive documentation and court
approval.

On Jan. 9, the company finalized the terms of the previously
disclosed preliminary settlement.  A Stipulation of class action
settlement was filed on Jan. 9, seeking approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Under the terms of the settlement, California customers of the
company and the company's franchisees who purchased RALs from
the company's providers of financial products between 2001 and
2004 will accept payment from the fund established in connection
with the resolution of the inquiry by the Attorney General's
Office of the State of California (as described more fully
below) as complete relief for their claims relating to their
purchase of RALs (except with respect to any claim relating to
the collection of an outstanding delinquent RAL debt).

Further, under the terms of the settlement, the Company paid an
additional $0.7 million to provide relief to those California
customers who purchased RALs during 2005 and paid class
counsel's attorneys' fees and costs.

Such payment of $0.7 million was included in selling, general
and administrative expenses in the company's Condensed
Consolidated Results of Operations during the three and nine
months ended Jan. 31.

The settlement is subject to final approval by the court,
according to the company's March 9 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Jan. 31.

The suit is "Brailsford, et al. v. Hewitt, et al., Case No.
4:06-cv-00700-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kathryn Chris Palamountain of
Chavez & Gertler, LLP, 42 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941,
Phone: 415-381-5599, Fax: 415-381-5572, E-mail:
chris@chavezgertler.com.

Representing the defendants is Joren Surya Bass of Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, 4 Embarcadero Center, Ste.
3800, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-984-6400, Fax: 415-
984-2698, E-mail: jbass@skadden.com.


JACKSON HEWITT: Ohio Court Grants Remand Motion in "Brown" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has
granted a motion to remand a purported class action against
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., which alleged violations of
Ohio's Credit Service Organization Act to the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County.

On Sept. 26, 2006, Willie Brown brought a purported class action
complaint against the company in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, in connection with an alleged failure to comply
with Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act, and for alleged
unfair and deceptive acts in violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales
Practices Act, and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On Oct. 30, 2006, the company filed a notice removing the
complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss, and a
motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration.

On Dec. 8, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, which the
company opposed on Jan. 16.

On Feb. 26, the court granted plaintiff's motion to remand,
without ruling on the other pending motions, according to the
company's March 9 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan. 31.

The suit is "Brown v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-
02632-PAG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio under Judge Patricia A. Gaughan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ronald I. Frederick of The Law Office of Ronald I.
         Frederick, Ste. 1300, 55 Public Square, Cleveland, OH
         44113, Phone: 216-502-1055, Fax: 216-781-1749, E-mail:
         RonF@ClevelandConsumerLaw.com; and

     (2) Patrick J. Perotti of Dworken & Bernstein -        
         Painesville, 60 South Park Place, Painesville, OH
         44077, Phone: 440-352-3391, Fax: 440-352-3469, E-mail:
         pperotti@dworkenlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is G. Karl Fanter of Baker &
Hostetler - Cleveland, 3200 National City Center, 1900 East
Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 216-861-7918, Fax:
216-696-0740, E-mail: kfanter@bakerlaw.com.


JACKSON HEWITT: W.Va. Court Mulls Dismissal of "Hunter" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal
of a purported class action against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service
Inc., which alleged violations of West Virginia's Credit Service
Organization Act.

On Oct. 30, 2006, Linda Hunter brought a purported class action
complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of West Virginia, for an alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, for breach of West Virginia's Credit Service
Organization Act, for breach of contract, and for unfair or
deceptive acts or practices, and seeking damages.

On Nov. 22, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss.  A
decision by the court is currently pending, according to the
company's March 9 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan. 31.

The suit is "Hunter v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00919," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia under Judge Robert C. Chambers.

Representing the plaintiff is John W. Barrett of Bailey &
Glasser, 227 Capitol Street, Charleston, WV 25301-1386, Phone:
304/345-6555, Fax: 304/342-1110, E-mail:
jbarrett@baileyglasser.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael P. Kelly of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom,
         1440 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         202/371-7000, Fax: 202/393-5760, E-mail:
         mikelly@skadden.com; and

     (2) Debra Lee Hovatter of Spilman Thomas & Battle, P.O. Box
         615, Morgantown, WV 26504-0615, Phone: 304/291-7935,
         Fax: 304/291-7979, E-mail: dhovatter@spilmanlaw.com.


JAKKS PACIFIC: N.Y. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against Jakks Pacific, Inc.

The suits filed against the company are:

     -- Garcia v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
        04-8807 (filed on Nov. 5, 2004);

     -- Jonco Investors, LLC v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
        Civil Action No. 04-9021 (filed on Nov. 16, 2004);

     -- Kahn v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
        04-8910 (filed on Nov. 10, 2004);

     -- Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
        Civil Action No. 04-8877 (filed on Nov. 9, 2004); and

     -- Irvine v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action
        No. 04-9078 (filed on Nov. 16, 2004).

The complaints allege that defendants issued positive statements
concerning increasing sales of its World Wrestling Entertainment
(WWE) licensed products which were false and misleading because
the WWE licenses had allegedly been obtained through a pattern
of commercial bribery, its relationship with the WWE was being
negatively impacted by the WWE's contentions and there was an
increased risk that the WWE would either seek modification or
nullification of the licensing agreements with the company.  

Plaintiffs also allege that the company misleadingly failed to
disclose the alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtained
through an unlawful bribery scheme.

The plaintiffs are purchasers of the company's common stock
between Oct. 26, 1999 and late as Oct. 19, 2004.  

The suits seek compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed
amount.  It alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by each of the defendants -- the company and Messrs.
Friedman, Berman and Bennett -- and violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett.  

On Jan. 25, 2005, the court consolidated the class actions as
"In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action Litigation,
Case No. 04-8807."

On May 11, 2005, the court appointed co-lead counsels and
provided until July 11, 2005 for an amended complaint to be
filed and a briefing schedule thereafter with respect to a
motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and argument
occurred on Nov. 30, 2006.  The motion is still pending,
according to the company's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Ken H. Chang of Wolf, Popper, L.L.P., 845 Third Avenue,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 451-9667, Fax: (212)
         486-2093, E-mail: kchang@wolfpopper.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael H. Gruenglas of Skadden, Arps, Slate,Meagher &
         Flom, LLP (4 Times Square, Room 44), Four Times Square,
         40th Floor, New York, NY 10036, Phone: (212) 735-3567,
         Fax: (917)-777-3567, E-mail: mgruengl@skadden.com; and

    (ii) Jonathan Honig of Feder, Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber,
         Skala, Bass & Rhine, LLP, 750 Lexington Avenue, New
         York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 986-1116, Fax: 212-888-
         5968, E-mail: jhonig@fkiwsb.com.


JERSEY CENTRAL: N.J. Court Allows Power Outage Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Appellate Division allowed Jersey Central Power &
Light Co. (JCP&L) customers affected by a July 1999 power outage
to move forward with a class action against the company, and
several other defendants, The Asbury Park Press reports.

Frank Gaudio, one of the attorneys representing individuals and
businesses that filed the lawsuit against what is now
FirstEnergy Corp., said that the ruling, which also required
plaintiffs to submit proof of damages, could allow more than
100,000 people to be covered in the class action.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat
storm that resulted in power outages throughout the service
territories of many electric utilities, including the territory
of Jersey Central Power (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 2, 2001).

In an investigation into the causes of the outages and the
reliability of the transmission and distribution systems of all
four of New Jersey's electric utilities, the New Jersey Board of
Public Utilities concluded that there was not a prima facie case
demonstrating that, overall, JCP&L provided unsafe, inadequate
or improper service to its customers.

Subsequently, two class actions, which were later consolidated
into a single proceeding, were filed in New Jersey Superior
Court in July 1999 against:

     -- JCP&L,
     -- GPU, Inc., former parent of JCP&L, and
     -- other GPU companies.

The suits sought compensatory and punitive damages arising from
the July 1999 service interruptions in the JCP&L territory.

In August 2002, the trial court granted partial summary judgment
to JCP&L and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for consumer
fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and strict
product liability (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 8, 2006).  

In November 2003, the trial court granted JCP&L's motion to
decertify the class and denied plaintiffs' motion to permit into
evidence their class-wide damage model indicating damages in
excess of $50 million.

These class decertification and damage rulings were appealed to
the Appellate Division.  The Appellate Division issued a
decision on July 8, 2004, affirming the decertification of the
originally certified class, but remanding for certification of a
class limited to those customers directly impacted by the
outages of JCP&L transformers in Red Bank, New Jersey.

In 2005, JCP&L renewed its motion to decertify the class based
on a very limited number of class members who incurred damages
and also filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining
plaintiffs' claims for negligence, breach of contract and
punitive damages.  

In July 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court dismissed the
punitive damage claim and again decertified the class based on
the fact that a vast majority of the class members did not
suffer damages and those that did would be more appropriately
addressed in individual actions.  

Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the New Jersey Appellate
Division, since it effectively terminates the case as a class
action.  Briefs are being prepared and filed, and legal argument
was scheduled for late November 2006.  

The latest decision was the third time that the matter has come
before an appellate panel.

For more details, contact Frank S. Gaudio, Esq. of Miller and
Gaudio, P.C., 104-110 Maple Ave., Red Bank, NJ 07701, Phone:
(732) 741-6769, Fax: (732) 747-6016, Web site:
http://www.njtriallawyers.net.


LOUISIANA: Court Dismisses Part of Bridge Blockade Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
dismissed part of a purported class action filed against the
City of Gretna, and its police department over an August 2005
confrontation during which officers turned back evacuees from
flooded New Orleans after they crossed over on a Mississippi
River bridge.

In ruling to dismiss part of the suit, the court stated that
defendants did not violate the constitutional right to travel of
people who were not allowed to cross the Mississippi River
Bridge in the days following Hurricane Katrina.

Additionally, Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon also granted a
defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' request for class
action status, saying they missed the 90-day deadline set in
federal court rules.

Originally, Tracy and Dorothy Dickerson of New Orleans filed the
suit.  The couple has sued the city, its police department,
Chief Arthur Lawson, and later the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's
Office and Sheriff Harry Lee.

The suit, filed on Dec. 22, 2005, claims that the defendants
refused to allow the couple to evacuate from New Orleans through
Gretna after Hurricane Katrina.  It seeks unspecified damages.

Despite the allegations, Gretna Mayor Ronnie Harris and Chief
Lawson defended the action as a protective measure during a
desperate crisis (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 18, 2006).  

Mayor Harris even pointed out that the city "stands by its
actions, and we will take the appropriate legal action necessary
for its defense."

Chief Lawson earlier stated that the city was overwhelmed with
its own problems related to Hurricane Katrina at the time, such
as flooded neighborhoods, a barge that damaged the Mississippi
River levee and the daily task of feeding 800 city employees and
other emergency personnel.  The evacuees, according to him,
"actually would have been better off where they were, because we
didn't have anything."

In November 2005, an investigator for the state attorney general
told a state Senate committee that Gretna police fired three
shots.

It is unclear where the blockade actually took place.  Some
evacuees though told The Associated Press that officers
confronted them in New Orleans.

The suit is "Dickerson et al. v. Gretna City et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-06667-MVL-ALC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, under Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon
with referral to Judge Alma L. Chasez.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Cleo Fields of The Fields Law Firm, 2147 Government
         St., Baton Rouge, LA 70806, Phone: 225-343-5377, E-
         mail: cdecuir@bellsouth.net; and

     (2) Cedric L. Richmond of Richmond & Associates, 5437
         Crowder Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70127, Phone: 504-248-
         9942.


MCKESSON HBOC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold on April 13, 2007 at 9:00 a.m., an approval hearing
for the $72.5 million proposed settlement of the class action
"In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 99-CV-20743 RMV (PVT)."

The class consists of all persons or entities who:

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
        securities of HBOC during the period from January 20,
        1997 through and including January 12, 1999;

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired call options or sold put
        options of HBOC during the period from January 20, 1997
        through and including April 27, 1999;

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
        securities or call options, or who sold put options, of
        McKesson Corporation or of McKesson HBOC, Inc. during
        the period from October 18, 1998 through and including
        April 27, 1999; or

     -- held McKesson common stock on November 27, 1998 and
        still held those shares on January 12, 1999, and were
        injured thereby.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California in the courtroom of the Honorable Ronald
M. Whyte.

Deadline to file for exclusion is March 27, 2007.  Deadline to
file claims is on May 10, 2007.

The suit was filed in April 1999 against McKesson, HBOC,
McKesson HBOC, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., Arthur Andersen, LLP,
and certain officers or directors of McKesson or HBOC.

The litigation alleges that HBOC, and after the merger with
McKesson, McKesson HBOC reported fraudulent revenues, income and
assets, which caused members of the class to suffer losses.

Lead Plaintiff, the New York State Common Retirement Fund, has
entered into a proposed settlement of the Litigation with
defendant Arthur Andersen LLP (AALLP).

Lead Plaintiff believes that $72.5 million in cash, plus
interest, confers a substantial benefit to the Settlement Class
after more than seven years of Litigation.

Lead Plaintiff considered, among other factors:

     -- the immediacy of the recovery to the Settlement Class in
        lieu of protracted litigation through trial and appeals;

     -- the defenses asserted in the Litigation; the inherent
        uncertainty and risk associated with a complex action,
        such as this one;

     -- the ability of AALLP to withstand a judgment in a great
        amount; and

     -- the claims against the remaining Non-Settling Defendant.

The AALLP Settlement, however, is only a partial settlement of
the Litigation, and Lead Plaintiff will continue to pursue
claims against Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.

The proposed Settlement Amount is in addition to the $960
million settlement with defendants McKesson HBOC, Inc. and HBO &
Co. previously approved by the Court.

McKesson HBOC Inc. Securities Litigation on the net:

           http://www.mckessonhbocsettlement.com/

The suit is "In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMV (PVT)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Patricia V.
Trumbull.

Class counsel are:

     (1) McKesson HBOC Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o David
         Stickney and Timothy A. DeLange, 12481 High Bluff
         Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, California, 92130; and

     (2) McKesson HBOC Inc Securities Litigation, c/o Leonard
         Barrack and M. Richard Komins, both of Barrack, Rodos &
         Bacine, 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,
         Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Lyn Robyn Agre of Topel & Goodman, 832 Sansome St. 4th
         Flr., San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 421-6140,
         Fax: 415-398-5030, E-mail: lra@topelgoodmanc.com;

     (2) Sima Saran Ahuja of Fried Frank Harris Shriver &
         Jacobson, One New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004,
         Phone: (212) 820-8000;

     (3) William F. Alderman of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe,
         405 Howard St., San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
         415/773-5944, Fax: 415/773-5700, E-mail:
         walderman@orrick.com.


MID-STATE BANCSHARES: Shareholder Files Calif. Suit Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-State Bancshares faces a purported class action in
California over its merger with a Rabobank subsidiary, Rabobank,
N.A., according to the company's March 16 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Nov. 15, 2006, David Fuerstenberg, a purported shareholder of
Mid-State, filed a complaint seeking class action status in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Luis
Obispo against Mid-State and each of its directors

The complaint, "Fuerstenberg v. Mid-State Bancshares et al.,
Case No. CV060976," contains a single cause of action for breach
of fiduciary duty alleging that the Mid-State directors breached
their fiduciary duties with regard to the proposed merger.

The alleged breaches of fiduciary duty are non-specific.  Among
other things, the complaint seeks class action status, a court
order enjoining Mid-State and its directors from proceeding with
or consummating the merger and the payment of attorneys' and
experts fees.

Mid-State Bancshares on the Net: http://www.midstatebank.com/.


NATURAL GAS: June 12 Hearing Set For Calif. Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Diego has scheduled a June 12, 2007 Fairness Hearing for the
class action "Natural Gas Antitrust Cases I-IV, Price Indexing
Cases, JCCP No. 4221, et al."

The lawsuit alleges that defendants:

     -- Reliant Energy Services, Inc.,
     -- Duke Energy Trading and Marketing LLC,
     -- CMS Energy Resources Management Company and
     -- Aquila Merchant Services, Inc.,

and their respective affiliates.

All of the California state court lawsuits alleging manipulation
of natural gas prices at the California border have been
coordinated in the Superior Court of the County of San Diego
before the Hon. Ronald S. Prager.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants caused the price of natural
gas to increase by conducting prearranged "wash trades" (the
contemporaneous purchase and sale of the same amount of natural
gas at the same price) and by reporting false price and volume
information to trade publications that compile natural gas price
indices, in violation of California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, and that California business and residential
consumers paid more for natural gas as a result.

Defendants deny these allegations.

On March 6, 2007, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement, and provisionally certified a settlement class.

The Proposed Settlement includes all individuals and businesses
in California who purchased natural gas for use (and excluding
purchases they may have made for resale or to generate
electricity for resale) at any time from January 1, 1999 through
December 31, 2002.

The Court has appointed the following as representatives of the
Class:

     -- A.L. Gilbert Company,
     -- Mark and Susan Benscheidt dba Madera Wash Depot and
        Countrywood Laundromat,
     -- David C. Brown,
     -- H & M Roses, Inc.,
     -- Lois the Pie Queen,
     -- Celina Martinez,
     -- Oberti Wholesale Foods, Inc.,
     -- Dan L. Older,
     -- Shanghai 1930 Restaurant Partners, L.P.,
     -- Michael and Haleema Silverman,
     -- Tom and Lynette Stevenson,
     -- Timothy Engeln, Inc. dba Team Design,
     -- Laurence Uyeda, and
     -- Vittice Corporation.

The Court has appointed the law firms of Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; and Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack as
lead counsel for the Class.

In exchange for the release of all claims arising out of the
purchase of natural gas during the Class Period or the conduct
alleged in the action, the Settling Defendants will provide
total consideration to the class of $67.39 million, as follows:

     -- Reliant: $34.8 million;
     -- Duke: $19 million;
     -- CMS: $7 million; and
     -- AMS: $6.59 million.

These amounts are in addition to $92.1 million paid by
Defendants who have previously settled with the Class.

The benefits of the settlement will be passed through to
California natural gas ratepayers in the form of rate
reductions, credits, and/or rebates, subject to the approval of
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) or, with
respect to residents of Long Beach, the Long Beach Energy Dept.

If the settlement is approved, Class members will release the
Settling Defendants from any and all claims, causes of action,
demands, rights, actions, suits and requests for equitable,
legal and administrative relief of any kind or nature whatsoever
arising from or relating to:

     (i) the facts alleged, including without limitation any and
         all Claims that were or could have been asserted
         against the Settling Defendants under state and federal
         antitrust laws, unfair competition statutes and common
         law principles, unjust enrichment principles, or any
         other common law, statutory or equitable theory; and

    (ii) the purchase of natural gas during the Class Period,
         including but not limited to the purchase of physical
         natural gas and/or any transaction relating to,
         dependent upon or derivative of the price of natural
         gas.

The settlement does not release claims that any member of the
Class may have against the Settling Defendants for bodily
injuries or physical damage to real or personal property.

The 20 law firms representing the Class will apply for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses
incurred not to exceed, in the aggregate, 30% of the settlement
amount.

Deadline to file for exclusion is on May 18, 2007.

The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Diego will hold on June 12, 2007, at 8:15 a.m. a fairness
hearing in the courtroom of the Honorable Ronald S. Prager.

For more information, contact Kristen Stallings for Price
Indexing Settlements, Phone: +1-202-379-1161.

Price Indexing Settlements on the net:
http://www.priceindexingsettlements.com./index.html.


PNC FINANCIAL: April 12 Hearing Set for $9.075M E&Y Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on April 12, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $9,075,000 settlement by Ernst & Young LLP, one of
the defendants in the case, "In Re PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-00271-DSC."

The fairness hearing will be held at the U.S. Post Office and
Courthouse, Seventh Avenue and Grant Street, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15219.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before March 23.  Deadline for the submission of a
proof of claim must be made on or before May 11.

The settlement covers all persons who purchased PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc. common stock, who purchased call options on
PNC common stock, or who wrote (sold) put options on PNC common
stock, from July 19, 2001 through July 18, 2002 inclusive, and
the PNC Incentive Savings Plan on behalf of itself and its
present and former participants and beneficiaries who purchased
or otherwise acquired PNC common stock during the Class Period
through the PNC Incentive Savings Plan.

                        Case Background


Beginning on Feb. 1,2002, 12 putative class actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the
court and were subsequently consolidated under the above
caption, and are hereinafter referred to as the "In Re PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc. Securities Litigation."

The second consolidated and amended complaint dated March 31,
2005 alleges that the defendants misled investors by
intentionally overstating PNC's profits and the amounts that the
company expected to earn in the future.

It further alleges that E&Y participated in PNC's scheme to
defraud by rendering advice to PNC in connection with the
structuring of and accounting for three transactions with
special purpose entities sponsored by American International
Group, Inc. and/or its affiliates.

In 2004, lead plaintiffs, the defendants, AIG Financial Products
Corp. (AIG-FP), Arnold & Porter LLP, and Buchanan Ingersoll PC
began negotiating a settlement of all claims or potential claims
against those defendants and third-party entities that
ultimately resulted in the creation of a $36.6 million
settlement fund.

Lead Plaintiffs proceeded with their claims against E&Y.  E&Y
had previously filed a motion to dismiss an earlier complaint,
and its motion was pending at the time the PNC Settlement was
reached.  E&Y objected to certain aspects of the PNC Settlement.

Ultimately, on July 13, 2006, the court approved the PNC
settlement over E&Y's objections.  E&Y appealed from the court's
July 13, 2006 order approving the PNC Settlement.  

The E&Y Settlement was reached in the course of mediating E&Y's
appeal.

The suit is "In Re PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-00271-DSC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under
Judge David S. Cercone.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Barry Weprin, Esq., Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Telephone:
         (212) 594-5300;

     (2) David Kessler, Esq., Schiffrin Barroway Topaz &
         Kessler, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA
         19087, Phone:(610) 667-7706;

     (3) Jay P. Saltzman, Esq., Schoengold Sporn Laitman &
         Lometti, P.C., 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York,
         NY 10038, Phone: (212) 964-0046; and

     (4) PNC Securities Litigation Settlement, Claims
         Administrator, P.O. Box 1607, Blue Bell, PA 19422,
         Phone: (800) 789-4720, Web site:
         http://www.claimsinformation.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Colo. Suit Over Employee Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
US West retirees lodged a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado in an effort
to reverse the cut in life insurance benefits for some 48,000
retirees, the Rocky Mountain News reports.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- Qwest Group Life Insurance Plan  
     -- Qwest Employees Benefit Committee  
     -- Qwest Plan Design Committee and
     -- Qwest Communications International, Inc.

The proposed class-action complaint comes after Qwest slashed
life insurance benefits for retirees to $10,000 each effective
Jan. 1.

The lawsuit claims U S West, which was acquired by Qwest in
2000, issued an "ironclad rule" that life insurance wouldn't be
reduced below $20,000 for any pre-1996 retiree and below $30,000
for anyone who retired after Jan. 1, 1996.

Because of that guarantee, thousands of retirees didn't purchase
additional life insurance and now can't afford to "due to a
combination of age, health condition and meager financial
factors," the suit says.

Previously, the benefit was equal to the final year's salary,
with that declining to 50 percent at age 70 for some retirees.

In addition to restoring the life insurance benefit, the lawsuit
also asks the court to remove Qwest officials from further
administration of employee benefit plans.

Qwest has trimmed costs across the operation in order to help
the Denver-based telco reach its first profitable operating year
in 2006 after three consecutive years in the red.

U S West retirees are awaiting a trial date in a fight to retain
pension death benefits.

The suit is "Kerber et al v. Qwest Group Life Insurance Plan et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00644-WDM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Walker D. Miller.

Representing plaintiffs is Curtis L. Kennedy of the Curtis L.
Kennedy Law Office, 8405 East Princeton Avenue, Denver, CO
80237-1741, Phone: 303-770-0440, Fax: 303-834-0360, E-mail:
CurtisLKennedy@aol.com.


RCN CORP: Reaches Settlement for N.J. ERISA Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
RCN Corp. settled a consolidated class action, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), which was filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In September 2004, as part of the company's Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings, certain participants and beneficiaries
of the former RCN Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (Savings
Plan) asserted claims against the company and its current and
former directors, officers, employee administrators, and
managers for alleged violations of ERISA.  

Plaintiffs generally alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to properly manage and monitor the
Savings Plan in light of the drop in the trading price of the
company's then-outstanding common stock, which comprised a
portion of the aggregate contributions made to the Savings Plan.

In April 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York permitted the filing of a consolidated
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against RCN Corp. and its current and
former directors, officers, employee administrators, and
managers, subject to the limitation that the plaintiffs would
not be permitted to enforce a judgment against the company in
excess of any applicable RCN insurance coverage.  The class
action complaint was filed on May 16, 2005.  

In March 2006, the class action complaint was dismissed as to
all defendants, except for  

      -- the company and certain former directors of RCN with  
         respect to an alleged "failure to monitor" the Savings  
         Plan, and  

      -- certain individuals who comprised the former  
         administrative committee of the Savings Plan with  
         respect to an alleged failure to prudently invest  
         Savings Plan assets, in each case during late 2003 and  
         early 2004 when the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty  
         occurred.  

Discovery with respect to these remaining defendants commenced
in September 2006.

On March 14, the company reached a tentative settlement of the
class action complaint, according to the company's March 15 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: RCN Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No.  
04-CV-5068 (SRC)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler.

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

Representing the company is Edward Cerasia, II of Proskauer  
Rose, LLP, One Newark Center, 18th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5211,  
Phone: (973) 274-3200, E-mail: ecerasia@proskauer.com.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sleep-Drug Stilnox Maker Faces Possible Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal firm Slater & Gordon is looking at a possible class action
against makers of the sleeping aid, Stilnox after a range of
"bizarre behaviors" complaints were raised resulting from taking
the sleep drug, The Australian reports.

"Bizarre behaviors" range from having sex without knowing it to
emptying the contents of the fridge on to the floor (or even
cooked it while asleep) to driving a car between power poles
without knowing even how they found the keys.

The Courier Mail reported that a woman taking Stilnox had to
have her leg amputated after lying on it, unconscious, and
losing circulation.

The federal Government's Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory
Committee last month issued a bulletin on Stilnox, saying it had
complaints of people binge-eating and painting the front door
while asleep.

The manufacturer, Sanofi-Aventis, said there was no evidence
that the drug caused the bizarre behavior.

According to Tim Hammond, a partner at Slater and Gordon, it was
not yet clear whether the events could be linked together in a
class action against the makers of the drug.

"It would depend on whether it could be shown that the drug
caused the bizarre behavior, and whether there is a link between
the cases," Mr. Hammond said.


SINGAPORE AIRLINES: Members to Sue Over Loyalty Scheme Phase-Out
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of "high-profile businessmen and professionals" are
threatening a class-action suit against Singapore Airlines over
its plan to scrap a lifetime loyalty program of its Solitaire
Priority Passenger Services Club, reports say.

Members of Singapore Airlines' top drawer PPS Club enjoy the
usual benefits of many frequent flyer schemes such as increased
baggage allowance, access to airport lounges and priority
boarding, but they were offered life membership once they
reached a certain level.

But in a statement on its website, SIA -- the state-controlled
airline -- said the program was unsustainable in its current
form and changes included the end of life memberships as of
Sept. 1, 2007.

SIA spokesman Stephen Forshaw, as quoted in news reports, said
"The terms and conditions of the program allow SIA to change any
of the criteria at our sole discretion ... And we've had good
support from some PPS members who themselves have expressed
concern that the program has grown too big and it's becoming too
easy to become a member, diminishing the benefits for those who
are the real valuable customers."

But a former banker argued, "We paid a premium price to fly SIA
in the belief - now mistaken - that we would eventually reach
Shangri-la. The court action will be to seek compensation."

Airlines worldwide have rewarded their passengers with miles
worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but these are frequently
difficult to redeem because so many travelers are trying to do
so at the same time.

Powerful loyalty programs often keep customers - particularly
frequent travelers and business people - devoted to one airline
even though cheaper flights or more favorable connections may be
available elsewhere.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Still Faces Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated
class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, New Castle County, Delaware over the acquisition of
Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V.

Late in December 2004 and early January 2005, several actions
were filed against the company.  On Jan. 31, 2005, three actions
were consolidated into one action under the caption, "In Re
Southern Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 961-N."  

Those suits are:

     -- "Lemon Bay, LLP v. Americas Mining Corp., et al., Civil
        Action No. 961-N,"

     -- "Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and
        Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 969-N,"
        and

     -- "James Sousa v. Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil
        Action No. 978-N."

The complaint filed in "Lemon Bay" was designated as the
operative complaint in the consolidated lawsuit.  The
consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
company's common stockholders.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the transaction is the
result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the company's
directors and is not entirely fair to the company and its
minority stockholders.  

It seeks, among other things, a preliminarily and permanent
injunction to enjoin the transaction, the award of damages to
the class, the award of damages to the company and such other
relief that the court deems equitable, including interest,
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

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

Southern Copper Corp. on the Net: --
http://www.southernperu.com/.


SPX CORP: Settles Securities Fraud, ERISA Litigation in N.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corp. has reached settlements in two purported class actions
filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.

                   Securities Fraud Litigation

Beginning in March 2004, multiple class action complaints
seeking unspecified monetary damages, were filed or announced by
certain law firms representing or seeking to represent
purchasers of our common stock during a specified period against
the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

Plaintiffs generally allege that defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the forecast of its 2003 fiscal
year business and operating results in order to artificially
inflate the price of its stock.

These complaints were consolidated into a single amended
complaint against the company and its former Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer and President.  

On Sept. 20, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action in its entirety.

                         ERISA Litigation

On April 23, 2004, an additional class complaint seeking
unspecified monetary damages was filed in the same court on
behalf of participants in the company's employee benefit plans,
alleging breaches of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) by the company, its then general counsel and the
Administrative Committee regarding one of its 401(k) defined
contribution benefit plans arising from the plan's holding of
company stock.

On June 10, 2005, a first amended complaint was filed in the
ERISA suit, adding as defendants certain current and former
directors and administrative committee members.

The first amended complaint generally tracks the factual
allegations in the securities class action.  On July 25, 2005,
the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended ERISA
complaint in its entirety.

On Sept. 8, 2005, the plaintiffs moved the court to certify the
proposed class in the ERISA suit.  The company opposed that
motion.

                           Settlement

On Oct. 9, 2006, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle both the securities class action and the tag-along
ERISA action.

The settlement is subject to court approval.  On Dec. 22, 2006,
the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and
scheduled a settlement hearing on April 10.

Under the terms of the pending settlement, both actions will be
dismissed with prejudice and the company's aggregate net
settlement payment, after reimbursement by its insurer, will be
$5.1.

SPX Corp. on the Net: http://www.spx.com/.


UNITED STATES: Guatemalans File Human Rights Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
People who fled genocide in Guatemala filed a class-action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California accusing the United States of backing and
bearing substantial responsibility for the torture and deaths of
hundreds of thousands of people since the CIA overthrew the
freely elected President Jacobo Arbenz in 1954, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

     -- Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of
        Homeland Security and

     -- Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General.

Lead plaintiff Casa De La Cultura De Guatemala seeks declaratory
judgment. They seek, among other things, the temporary protected
status and work permits granted to Salvadorans and Nicaraguans
under the 1991 settlement in American Baptist Churches v
Thornburgh.

They claim that after delaying adjudication of their
applications for as much as 16 years, the now the defendants are
rejecting them because they are "stale."

Plaintiffs request the court to:

     -- certify this case as a class action, as proposed;

     -- declare that defendants' acts and omissions complained
        violate the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and
        applicable federal regulations, the Administrative
        Procedures Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
        Amendment;

     -- declare that defendants have unreasonably delayed
        processing Guatemalan asylum applications;

     -- preliminary and permanently enjoin defendants as and
        when requested by plaintiffs;

     -- order the defendants to treat plaintiffs' and class
        members' asylum applications as if they hve not grown
        staled due to their time in the American Baptist
        Churches (ABC) backlog;

     -- stop the defendants from treating plaintiffs and class
        members who were prejudicially treated as eligible for
        ABC relief as anything other than properly registered
        for ABC relief;

     -- award the plaintiffs their attorney's fees and costs
        under the Equal Access for Justice Act, U.S.C. Section
        2412(d), or any other applicable law; and

     -- grant such other relief as the court deems just,
        equitable and proper.

The suit is "Casa de la Cultura de Guatemala et al. v. Michael
Chertoff et al., Case No. CV07-02178 ER," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs is Jesse Moorman, Human Rights Project,
201 S Sante Fe Ave., Ste 101, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Phone: 231-
680-7801.


UPM-KYMMENE CORP: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Labelstock Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
UPM-Kymmene Corp., UPM Raflatac, Inc., and UPM-Kymmene, Inc.,
were named as defendants in several purported antitrust class
actions in relation to labelstock products, according to the
company's March 15 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

One group of lawsuits was filed against company, and its UPM
Raflatac subsidiary, along with certain labelstock
manufacturers.

These class actions were filed in U.S. District Courts by the
company's customers; and in state courts by customers of the
company's customers.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated federal
and/or state antitrust laws by conspiring with one another to
fix the prices of and allocate the markets for labelstock
products.

The complaints seek treble or punitive damages for alleged
overcharges resulting from the purported conspiracy.

The other group of lawsuits was filed against the company and
its UPM-Kymmene subsidiary. These class actions are making
similar allegations against manufacturers of magazine papers.

These complaints, like the labelstock complaints, seek treble or
punitive damages for alleged overcharges resulting from the
purported conspiracy.

UPM-Kymmene Corp. on the Net: http://w3.upm-kymmene.com/.


USI HOLDINGS: Some Defendants Settle Brokerage Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain defendants in the multidistrict litigation, "In Re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," which is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey have
reached a settlements for the case, which names USI Holdings
Corp. as one of several defendants.

The company was named as one of more than 30 insurance firms and
insurance brokerage defendants in an amended complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York in a
putative class action, "Opticare Health Systems, Inc. v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. CV 06954
(DC)."

The amended complaint focuses on the payment of contingent
commissions by insurers to insurance brokers who sell their
insurance and alleged bid rigging in the setting of insurance
premium levels.  

They purport to allege violations of numerous laws including the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and
federal restraint of trade statutes, state restraint of trade,
unfair and deceptive practices statutes and state breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment laws.  

Plaintiffs, thus seek class certification, treble damages for
the alleged injury suffered by the putative plaintiff class and
other damages.

The company was also named as a defendant in "copycat" or tag-
along lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois:

      -- "Lewis v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., 04
         C 7847," and

      -- "Preuss v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., 04
         C 7853."  

In April 2005, the company was served in another copycat class
action, captioned Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. et al. v.
Ace, USA et al., and filed in the Circuit Court for the
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida,
Civil Division, Class Representation, No. 05-CA-373-16-W and
later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Case No. 6:05-CV-422-2ZKRS.  

A similar copycat class action complaint captioned, "Bensley
Construction, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al.,
No. ESCV2005-0277 (Essex Superior Court, Massachusetts) was
served upon the company in May 2005.  This action was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  

Like the Opticare complaint, these complaints contain no
particularized allegations of wrongdoing on the company's part.
In February 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the actions then pending to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.  

Subsequently, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
also transferred the Palm Tree and Bensley lawsuits to the same
court for the same purposes.   Recently, the plaintiff in
Bensley withdrew its claims.

On Aug. 1, 2005, in the multidistrict litigation pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the
plaintiffs filed a first consolidated amended commercial class
action complaint and a first consolidated amended employee
benefits class action complaint (Consolidated MDL Complaints)
that purport to allege claims against the company based upon
RICO, federal and state antitrust laws, breach of fiduciary duty
and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.  

The Consolidated MDL Complaints, like the predecessor
complaints, focus the allegations of fact upon defendants other
than the company.  

The company has moved to dismiss the Consolidated MDL Complaints
and has also opposed plaintiffs' motions for class
certification.   

Recently, in response to the court's directive that the
plaintiffs further substantiate their claims in writing, they
submitted more particularized allegations against the various
defendants.  

None of the plaintiffs in any of the actions has set forth the
amounts being sought in the particular actions.  Two of the
defendant groups have entered into settlement agreements with
the plaintiffs, one of which has been approved by the court and
the other remains subject to court approval, 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 Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the U.S. District Court in
New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph P. Guglielmo and Edith M. Kallas of Milberg
         Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (NYC) One Pennsylvania
         Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300; and

     (2) Mark C. Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
         Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212 545-4600 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com.


ZALE CORP: Continues to Face Securities, ERISA Lawsuits in Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Purported securities class actions and suits alleging violations
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) remain
pending against Zale Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

On April 10, 2006, the company announced that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission had initiated a non-public
investigation into various accounting and other matters related
to the company's business, including accounting for Extended
Service Agreements, leases and accrued payroll.   

Subpoenas issued in connection with the investigation requested
materials relating to these accounting matters as well as to
executive compensation and severance, earnings guidance, stock
trading, and the timing of certain vendor payments.  

The investigation resulted in the filing of several lawsuits,
namely:

      -- "Levy v. Zale Corp., No. 1:06-CV-05464," filed July 19,  
         2006, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of  
         New York;  

      -- "Agoos v. Zale Corp., No. 1:06-CV-5877," filed Aug. 3,  
         2006, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York;  

      -- "Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan v. Zale  
         Corp., No. 3:06-CV-1470," filed Aug. 15, 2006, U.S.  
         District Court for the Northern District of Texas;  

      -- "Chester v. Zale Corp., No. 1:06-CV-06387," filed Aug.  
         23, 2006, U.S. District Court for the Southern District  
         of New York,  

      -- "Salvato v. Zale Corp., No. 3-06 CV 1124-D," filed June  
         26, 2006, U.S. District Court for the Northern District  
         of Texas, and  

      -- "Connell v. Zale Corp., No. 06 CV 5995," filed Aug. 7,  
         2006, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of  
         New York.  

Mary L. Forte, Mark R. Lenz, and Sue E. Gove are named as
defendants in all six lawsuits.  Cynthia T. Gordon is also named
as a defendant in the Levy, Agoos, and Chester lawsuits.   

Richard C. Marcus, J. Glen Adams, Mary E. Burton, John B. Lowe,  
Jr., Thomas C. Shull, David M. Szymanski, and the Zale Plan  
Committee also are named as defendants in the Salvato and  
Connell lawsuits.

On Oct. 16, 2006, the Levy, Agoos, Chester, and Connell lawsuits
were ordered transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.  On Nov. 30, 2006, the Levy, Agoos,
and Chester lawsuits were consolidated with the Pipefitters
lawsuit.

The consolidated lawsuit was renamed "In re Zale Corp.
Securities Litigation."  The consolidated securities action and
both ERISA cases are now pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.  All of the lawsuits are
purported class actions.  

The plaintiffs in the consolidated securities action allege
various violations of securities laws based upon the company's
public disclosures.  

In the Salvato and Connell lawsuits the plaintiffs allege
various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA) based upon the investment by the Zale Corp.
Savings and Investment Plan in company stock.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits request unspecified compensatory
damages and costs, and in the Salvato and Connell lawsuits,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  All of the lawsuits are
in preliminary stages.

The company provided no material development in the cases in its
March 9 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan 31.

Zale Corp. on the Net: http://www.zalecorp.com.


* Appellate Litigator Gregory S. Coleman Joins Yetter & Warden
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory S. Coleman, whose nationally prominent appellate
litigation practice includes success at the United States
Supreme Court, will become a partner at the new Austin, Texas
office of Yetter & Warden LLP.

Mr. Coleman joins the firm from leading international law firm
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, where he heads the Supreme Court and
Appellate Litigation practice.

Yetter & Warden founding partner R. Paul Yetter said, "We are
delighted to welcome Greg to our firm. His arrival further
strengthens our ability to represent clients in all aspects of
complex litigation, even through the U.S. Supreme Court if
necessary. Our clients now have a preeminent appellate litigator
to complement the firm's existing strengths in business and
technology litigation. This combination of capabilities uniquely
positions us among the nation's best litigation boutiques."

Mr. Coleman's experience includes intellectual property,
business torts, class actions, securities, products liability,
insurance, bankruptcy, telecommunications, professional
negligence, constitutional litigation, and governmental
representation.

He successfully has represented clients before the U.S. Supreme
Court and many U.S. Courts of Appeals, state supreme courts, and
intermediate courts of appeals.

In January, The American Lawyer named Mr. Coleman as one of the
"Fab Fifty" top young litigators in the nation who will "lead
the field for years to come." He also is listed among 2006
honorees in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for
Business.

He previously served as the first Solicitor General for the
State of Texas, a position created by now Sen. John Cornyn. He
was lead appellate counsel for the state in high-profile cases
such as the Ruiz prison conditions case, the Hopwood affirmative
action case, the tobacco litigation attorney fees cases, and
cases challenging the state's sovereign and Eleventh Amendment
immunity.

His recent U.S. Supreme Court cases include "ExxonMobil Corp. v.
Saudi Arabia Basic Indus. Corp." (lead counsel for petitioner)
and "Sereboff v. MidAtlantic Medical Services" (lead counsel for
respondent).

Mr. Coleman said, "Yetter & Warden provides an ideal platform to
expand my appellate practice and work with top-notch business
litigators. I respect what Paul, David, and their talented team
have built over the past decade. The firm's proven track record
and blue-chip client list are impressive. Combining our
resources will create unique value for our clients."

Yetter & Warden founding partner David E. Warden said, "We have
worked with Greg over the years and seen first-hand some of his
extraordinary accomplishments. Our clients with bet-the-company
litigation will benefit from his remarkable expertise,
character, and judgment."

Mr. Coleman received his J.D. with high honors from the
University of Texas School of Law, where he was managing editor
of the law review and a member of the Chancellors honor society.
He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court
and Chief Judge Edith Hollan Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.

For more information, contact Erin Powers of Powers MediaWorks
LLC, for Yetter & Warden LLP, Phone: 281-362-1411 or 281-703-
6000, Website: http://www.yetterwarden.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


COAST FINANCIAL: KGS Announces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announced that that shareholders of
Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Coast Financial between October 5, 2005 and
January 25, 2007, inclusive filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Coast Financial and certain of its officers are charged with
making materially false and misleading statements in connection
with the purchase and sale of securities in direct violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, defendants each failed to reveal that, throughout
the Class Period, Coast Financial had materially increased its
exposure 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.

It was only beginning on January 19, 2007, that investors
learned the truth about Coast Financial after defendants
announced that the Company expected to suffer impairment to its
loan portfolio because a major borrower was going out of
business and would not complete many of its construction
projects.

In reaction to this news, the price of the Company's stock
collapsed. Coast Financial later disclosed that it would
increase its reserves by $14 million to properly account for its
impaired loans.

On January 24, 2007, after the market closed, Coast Financial
issued a press release announcing that it has engaged Sandler
O'Neill & Partners, L.P. to advise the Company as it reviews
strategic alternatives.

On the publication of these disclosures, over the course of
several days, shares of the Company fell from above $16.00 to
below $8.00 per share, on very heavy trading volume.

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

For more information, contact Lewis Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Swick,
LLC, Phone: 1-866-467-1400 ext. 106, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Rohrback Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. announced that a class action complaint
has been filed in the United States District Court of the
Western District of Missouri against NovaStar Financial, Inc.
(NYSE:NFI) and against certain executive officers of NovaStar.

The complaint filed is on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired NovaStar stock between May 4, 2006 and
February 20, 2007.

Keller Rohrback is assessing whether the NovaStar Financial,
Inc. 401(k) Plan's administrators breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty and prudence to the Plan's participants
regarding these acquisitions.

A breach may have occurred if the fiduciaries failed to
prudently manage the Plan's assets, by among other things,
offering NovaStar stock as a Plan investment option at a time
when the stock was not a suitable and appropriate investment
option.

A breach also may have occurred if the fiduciaries withheld or
concealed material information from the Plan's participants with
respect to the Company's business, financial results and
operations, thereby encouraging participants and beneficiaries
to continue to make and maintain substantial investments of
company stock in the Plan.

For more information, contact Jennifer Tuato'o, Paralegal at
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Phone: 800/776-6044, E-mail:
investor@kellerrohrback.com, Website: http://www.erisafraud.com.


WORLDSPACE INC: Law Firm Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announced that
a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of WorldSpace, Inc. pursuant to the initial
public offering of WorldSpace commencing on or about August 4,
2005.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated
Section 11, 12(a)2, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Complaint alleges that the representations made in
connection with the sale of WorldSpace common stock in the IPO
were materially false and misleading because the Company's share
price was artificially inflated because subscribers who had
purchased a three-month, pre-paid subscription to the WorldSpace
"access control system" pursuant to a promotional offer, but who
declined to continue or to pay for a subscription following the
end of the promotional period were not timely removed from the
Company's subscriber count.

Rather than report these expired subscriptions as "churned,"
Defendants continued to include these expired subscriptions in
the Company's subscriber count for an additional 90-days
following the expiration of the initial three-month promotional
period.

At the time these facts and their effects on the Company's
operating results were fully disclosed, the price of the
Company's common stock declined.

On March 16, 2006, on a conference call with investors,
WorldSpace revealed that service to subscribers was not
immediately discontinued when a customer failed to renew its
subscriptions.

This news shocked the market, causing WorldSpace share to
plummet the next day, March 17, 2006, by $2.63 per share, a more
than 22% drop from the previous day's closing price of $11.52
per share.

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

For more information, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector,
Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Phone: 888-844-5862.

                            *********


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  * * *