CAR_Public/070410.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 10, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 70

                            Headlines


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: In Talks to Settle Colo. Securities Lawsuit
BROOKSTONE INC: Calif. Consumer Suit Settlement Hearing Set May
CARIBOU COFFEE: Minn. Judge Recommends Class Status in FLSA Suit
CIRCUIT CITY: Calif. Workers File Age Discrimination Lawsuit
DEL MONTE: Recalls Pet Products Over Melamine Content

DEL MONTE: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Recalled Pet Food
DUKE ENERGY: Ohio Residents File Lawsuit Over Plant's Emissions
EBAY INC: Texas Antitrust Lawsuit Refiled in California
IMAGITAS INC: Seeks Consolidation of Multiple DPPA Lawsuits
J2 GLOBAL: Calif. Court Dismisses Litigation Over eFax Service

MASTEX INDUSTRIES: Recalls Twin Foot Warmers with Faulty Wiring
MENU FOODS: Calif. Couple Files Lawsuit Over Tainted Pet Food
MENU FOODS: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Recalled Pet Food
MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Idaho Over Recalled Pet Food
NISOURCE INC: W.Va. "Stand Energy" Suit Still in Discovery

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Appeals Certification of Mo. Securities Suit
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces New Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Mo.
NOVASTAR HOME: Parties Settle FCRA Violations Lawsuit in La.
NOVASTAR HOME: Resolves Lawsuits Over Settlement Service Fees
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Hearing in Wash. Consumer Suit Set April 23

NUVELO INC: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
OKK TRADING: Recalls Baby Dolls with Parts Posing Choking Hazard
OLD REPUBLIC: Faces Title Insurance Suits in Conn., N.J., Ohio
REGENT PRODUCTS: Recalls Stuffed Fun Balls with Lead Paint
REPUBLIC MORTGAGE: Settles S.C. Lawsuit Over Insurance Rates

STEARNS INC: Recalls Inflator Pumps That Can Explode During Use
TIER TECHNOLOGIES: May Hearing Set for Va. Securities Fraud Suit
TRIBUNE CO: Shareholder Files Suit Over Planned $8.2B Sale
WARNER CHILCOTT: D.C. Court Junks Motion to Dismiss Ovcon Case
WARNER CHILCOTT: Mediator Appointed in D.C. Ovcon Litigation

WASHINGTON: City Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over WTO Arrests

        
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AROTECH CORP: KGS Files First Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mich.
ELI LILLY: Lerach Coughlin Announces Securities Suit Filing
INTERNATIONAL COAL: Lerach Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Schoengold Files Ca. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: In Talks to Settle Colo. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allos Therapeutics Inc. is still in discussions to settle a
purported securities class action filed against the company and
one of its former officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado in May 2004.

An amended complaint was filed in August 2004.  The lawsuit was
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's securities during the period from May 29, 2003 to
April 29, 2004.  It sought unspecified damages relating to the
issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements regarding
the cancer drug EFAPROXYN during this period and subsequent
declines in the company's stock price.

On Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  In an opinion
dated Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court concluded that the
plaintiff's complaint failed to meet the legal requirements
applicable to its alleged claims.

On Nov. 20, 2005, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

In October 2006, the parties held discussions to settle the
matter, although the terms of any such potential settlement
remain subject to negotiation and no binding agreement has been
reached, the company said at its March 14 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Noble Asset Mgmt LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et al.,  
Case No. 1:04-cv-01030-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado under Judge Richard P. Matsch.

Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey Allen Berens of Dyer &  
Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A,  
Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail:  
jberens@dyershuman.com.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Tara L. Acton of Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C.,
         370 - 17th Street, Republic Plaza #4800, Denver, CO
         80202-5698, U.S.A., Phone: 303-825-0800, Fax: 303-629-
         7610, E-mail: tacton@bw-legal.com; and

     (2) Paul Howard Schwartz of Cooley Godward, LLP, Colorado  
         380 Interlocken, Crescent #900, Broomfield, CO80021-
         8023, U.S.A, Phone: 720-566-4000, Fax: 720-566-4099, E-
         mail: schwartzph@cooley.com.   


BROOKSTONE INC: Calif. Consumer Suit Settlement Hearing Set May
---------------------------------------------------------------
A May 15 fairness hearing is set for a proposed settlement of a
purported class action filed against Brookstone, Inc. by buyers
or its air purifiers in California.

The putative class action was commenced against the company on
Sept. 15, 2004 in the California Superior Court in Los Angeles
County.  

The complaint, as amended, alleges, among other things, that the
company engaged in unfair business practices under California's
Unfair Competition Laws by selling certain air purifiers that
failed to perform as intended.  It seeks unspecified damages and
other relief.  

In December 2006 the parties agreed to settle the plaintiffs'
claims, and on Jan. 31, the court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement.

A final fairness hearing is scheduled before the court for May
15, according to the company's March 29 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2006.

Brookstone, Inc. on the Net: http://www.brookstone.com.


CARIBOU COFFEE: Minn. Judge Recommends Class Status in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeanne Graham in St. Paul, Minnesota,
recommended that former and current employees of Caribou Coffee
Co. should be allowed to pursue claims of labor laws violations
against the company as a group, reports say.

The employees are alleging that Caribou Coffee has violated the
Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal FLSA, and state
common law.

Judge Graham based her recommendation that the managers qualify
as a "similarly situated" group on three factors:

     -- Caribou has a single job description for all of its
        store managers;

     -- the managers all consistently worked more than 40 hours
        a week; and

     -- Caribou's own internal analysis looked at the store
        managers as a collective whole -- not one at a time --
        when deciding whether they are exempt from overtime pay.

The opinion could affect 150 to 400 Caribou managers who say
they should be paid time-and-a-half for the 10-15 extra hours
they regularly work each week, the (Minneapolis) Star Tribune
reports.

The case now goes to U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz.

                       Minnesota Federal Case

A suit was filed on July 26, 2005 by three former employees of
the company in the State of Minnesota District Court for
Hennepin County.  It is seeking monetary and equitable relief.

The suit primarily alleges that the company misclassified its
retail coffeehouse managers and managers in training as exempt
from the overtime provisions of the Minnesota FLSA and the
federal FLSA and that these managers and managers in training
are therefore entitled to overtime compensation for each week in
which they worked more than 40 hours from May 2002 to the
present with respect to the claims under the federal FLSA and
for weeks in which they worked more than 48 hours from May 2003
to the present with respect to the claims under the Minnesota
FLSA.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent themselves and all of
the company's allegedly similarly situated current and former
(within the foregoing periods of time) coffeehouse managers.

In addition, they are also seeking payment of an unspecified
amount of allegedly owed and unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties under
the Minnesota FLSA, a full accounting of the amount allegedly
owed to the putative class, temporary and injunctive relief,
attorney's fees and costs.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the company removed the lawsuit to the U.S.
District for the District of Minnesota and filed its answer to
the complaint.

On Oct. 31, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify an alleged nationwide class of current and
former coffeehouse managers since May 25, 2002 for purposes of
pursuing the plaintiffs' claim that the coffeehouse managers
were and are misclassified as exempt under the FSLA.

By order dated Dec. 21, 2005, the court approved a notice to be
sent to all members of the conditionally certified class.

The suit is "Nerland et al v. Caribou Coffee Co., Inc., Case No.
0:05-cv-01847-PJS-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota under Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, with
referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jonathan W. Cuneo of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, 507
         C. St., NE Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202-789-3960,
         E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com;

     (2) Clayton D. Halunen of Halunen & Associates, 220 South
         6th Street, Ste. 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone:
         (612) 605-4098, Fax: (612) 605-4099, E-mail:
         halunen@halunenlaw.com; and

     (3) Charles N. Nauen of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P.,
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis,
         MN 55401, Phone: 612-339-6900, Fax: 612-339-0981, E-
         mail: cnnauen@locklaw.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (i) Peter N. Hall of King & Spalding, LLP, 191 Peachtree
         St., Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone: 404-572-4698, E-
         mail: phall@kslaw.com; and

    (ii) Joseph M Sokolowski of Parsinen Kaplan Rosberg &
         Gotlieb, 100 S. 5th St., Ste. 1100, Minneapolis, MN
         55402-1298, Phone: 612-333-2111, Fax: 612-333-6798, E-
         mail: jsokolowski@parlaw.com.


CIRCUIT CITY: Calif. Workers File Age Discrimination Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Three employees of Circuit City Stores Inc. who were laid off as
part of the company's restructuring, filed a lawsuit in Los
Angeles County Superior Court, alleging violations of California
law prohibiting age discrimination, the Ventura County Star
reports.

Daniel Weidler, Michael Yezback and Eloise Garcia, who worked at
the Circuit City store in Oxnard, are seeking class-action
status for the case to represent all Circuit City employees 40
years old and older who were dismissed from stores in
California.

The suit accuses Circuit City of age discrimination and wrongful
termination.  According to the complaint, "the workers
terminated were those with greater seniority and length of
service -- mostly likely the older members of the work force."

It cites California law, which states that "the use of salary as
the basis for differentiating between employees when terminating
employment may ... constitute age discrimination."

The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and an unspecified amount in
damages.

In addition to the recent layoffs, the company's restructuring
included closing seven domestic Superstores, a Kentucky
distribution center and 62 company-owned stores in Canada.

Plaintiffs' attorney is Gloria Allred of Allred, Maroko &
Goldberg, 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500, Los Angeles, CA
90048, Phone: (323)653-6530, Fax: (323)653-1660.


DEL MONTE: Recalls Pet Products Over Melamine Content
-----------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Pet Products is voluntarily recalling select product
codes of its pet treat products sold under the Jerky Treats,
Gravy Train Beef Sticks and Pounce Meaty Morsels brands as well
as select dog snack and wet dog food products sold under private
label brands.

The company took this voluntary recall action immediately after
learning from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that wheat
gluten supplied to Del Monte Pet Products from a specific
manufacturing facility in China contained melamine.

Melamine is a substance not approved for use in food.  The FDA
made this finding as part of its ongoing investigation into the
recent pet food recall.

The adulteration occurred in a limited production quantity on
select product codes.  This recall removes all Del Monte pet
products with wheat gluten procured from this manufacturing
facility from retail shelves.

No other Del Monte Pet Products treats, biscuits or wet dog food
products are impacted by this recall, and no Del Monte dry cat
food, dry dog food, wet cat food or pouched pet foods are
subject to this voluntary recall.

The affected products comprise less than one-tenth of one
percent of Del Monte Pet Products' annual pet food and pet treat
production.

Del Monte Pet Products has proactively engaged and fully
cooperated with the FDA since the start of its investigation.  
The adulterated ingredients were used in limited production over
the last three months for those items identified by specific
product codes.

Del Monte Pet Products has not used wheat gluten from this
manufacturing facility in China in any other pet products except
those described below.

Consumers should discontinue feeding the products with the
Product Codes detailed below to their pets.

Del Monte Pet Products are 100% guaranteed and all voluntarily
recalled products will be refunded.

Del Monte Pet Products customers can contact Consumer Hotline at
(800) 949-3799 for further information about the recall and for
instructions on obtaining a product refund.

To see complete list of recalled products:
http://www.delmonte.com/petfoodrecall.html


DEL MONTE: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Recalled Pet Food
---------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento law firms Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP and Wexler
Toriseva Wallace, LLP have filed the first class action in the
U.S. District Court, Central District of California against Del
Monte Foods arising from its alleged sale of contaminated dog
food and other pet foods to the public.

The lawsuit alleges that Del Monte's Jerky Treats, Gravy Train
Beef Sticks, and Pounce Meaty Morsels are contaminated with
chemicals that can cause fatal kidney failure in animals that
consume it.

All of these brands were the subject of a recent nationwide
recall and are believed to be contaminated by tainted wheat
gluten from China.

The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for all veterinary bills that
were paid by affected pet owners.

The recent Del Monte recall follows the Menu Foods Recall of
more than 60 million cans of pet food.

Sacramento attorney Stuart Talley commented, "This problem is
massive.  Since the recent wave of pet food recalls, more than
9,000 people have submitted complaints to the FDA.  We believe
this is just the tip of the iceberg.  At the end of the day we
expect several thousands claimants to be part of this Class."

Veterinarians recommend that all animals known to have ingested
recalled pet foods be examined immediately.  "Acute kidney
failure can be reversible if caught early," states Diane Roberts
of Veterinary Medical Specialists in San Mateo, California, as
reported by the San Mateo County Times.

The law firms of Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP and Wexler
Toriseva Wallace, LLP urge concerned pet owners to review the
recommendations recently provided by the American Veterinary
Medical Association.

For more information, contact Stuart C. Talley of Kershaw,
Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP, 980 9th Street, Suite 1900, Sacramento,
CA 95814, Phone: 916-448-9800, Website: http://www.kcrlegal.com;
and Mark J. Tamblyn of  Wexler Toriseva Wallace, LP, Sacramento
Office, 1610 Arden Way, Suite 290, Sacramento, CA 95815, Phone:
916-568-1100, Website: http://www.wtwlaw.us.


DUKE ENERGY: Ohio Residents File Lawsuit Over Plant's Emissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of the small river town of Moscow in Ohio are suing
Duke Energy Corp. over emissions from one of the company's coal-
fired power stations, WCPO reports.

The residents claim that harmful emissions routinely fall on
them, and they want it to stop.  Previously, an appeals court
upheld a lower court's ruling allowing the residents to file the
suit as a group.

According to the residents, the emissions all came after
scrubbers designed to curb acid rain in the Northeast U.S. were
installed at the Zimmer Station.  They say that the by-product
was Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), reportedly designed to
control Nitrogen Oxide emissions.  

Neighbors say on hot, humid days, the pollution falls down onto
their homes.

The residents want the company to make changes at the plant
and/or are looking for compensation for houses and property that
have lost their value as a result of the pollution.

In the meantime, lawyers from both sides will try to draft a
class action notice to be sent to residents of Moscow.  

Duke Energy Corp. on the Net: http://www.duke-energy.com/.


EBAY INC: Texas Antitrust Lawsuit Refiled in California
-------------------------------------------------------
An antitrust class action initially filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas against eBay Inc. has
been refilled in California, where eBay is headquartered,
AuctionBytes.com reports.

Filed on March 8, the suit "Malone v. eBay Inc., Case No. 1:07-
cv-00174-LY," accuses eBay of illegally tying and steering
customers to use its wholly owned subsidiary, PayPal Inc., to
monopolize payments and unjustly enrich itself (Class Action
Reporter, March 14, 2007).

The complaint alleges "sellers are forced to accept a payment
procedure that imposes upon them the obligation to pay needless
and supracompetitive fees to defendant."  The suit contends
"sellers are forced to accept eBay's payment process as a
condition of being able to use the eBay auction process."

Lead plaintiff in the suit is Michael Malone of Texas, who sold
a pair of Sansui SP-2000 speakers on eBay for $200 in December
2005.  He is representing all customer sellers of eBay who are
and have been required to honor all payment methods encompassed
by PayPal in respect of sales and purchases on eBay.com since
2002.

Specifically, it alleges:

     (1) eBay leverages its monopoly in the on-line auction
         market by requiring that sellers utilize an on-line
         payment system that imposes needless and
         supracompetitive fees on them;

     (2) eBay has economic power in the on-line auction market
         sufficient to restrain competition in respect of
         payment methods;

     (3) eBay's coercion has achieved or has the dangerous
         probability of achieving monopoly power in the market
         for on-line payment systems for use in on-line
         auctions; and

     (4) the amount of commerce is substantial.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (a) the definition of the relevant product and geographic
         markets;

     (b) whether defendant has sufficient economic power in the
         tying market to restrain appreciably competition in the
         tied product market;

     (c) whether defendant uses coercion in the market for on-
         line auctions to monopolize (or attempt to monopolize)
         the market for on-line payment systems for use in on-
         line auctions;

     (d) whether the amount of commerce affected is substantial;

     (e) antitrust impact; and

     (f) whether the practices are ongoing.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other members of the
class, prays for judgment as follows:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure on behalf of the class, defined herein,
        declaring plaintiff to be an adequate representative of
        that class, declaring plaintiff's counsel to counsel to
        the class;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay illegally monopolized and maintained a monopoly in
        violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay illegally attempted to monopolize a market in
        violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade in
        violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay violated California Business and Profession Code
        Section 16720 et seq.;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay violated California Business and Professions Code
        Section 17200 et seq.;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay was unjustly enriched;

     -- awarding judgment against eBay, in an amount to be
        proved at trial, treble the amount of damages suffered
        by the members of the class to their business and
        property interests, plus attorneys' fees, costs, and
        interest as allowable by law, for eBay's violations of
        the Sherman Act and applicable California law;

     -- enjoining eBay from continuing with its anticompetitive
        behavior (including the tie and the monopoly maintenance
        of the on-line payment services market) in violation of
        the Sherman Act;

     -- granting plaintiff and the other members of the class
        such other relief that the court may consider necessary
        or appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the
        markets affected by eBay's unlawful conduct; and

     -- granting such other relief as the court may deem just
        and proper.

A copy of the Texas complaint is available free of charge at:
           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1b41

Representing plaintiffs is Joanne M. Cicala of Kirby McInerney &
Squire, LLP, 101 S. College St., Dripping Springs, TX 78620,
Phone: (512) 858-1800, Fax: (512) 858-1801.


IMAGITAS INC: Seeks Consolidation of Multiple DPPA Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Imagitas, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Pitney Bowes, Inc.,
is seeking the consolidation of several purported class actions
filed against it alleging violations of the Drivers Privacy
Protection Act (DPPA), according to Pitney Bowes' March 1 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

During the third quarter and the beginning of the fourth
quarter, the company was sued in six purported class actions
filed in five different states:

      -- "Rine v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the
         Middle District of Florida, filed Aug. 14, 2006;
         asserting class of allegedly affected residents of both
         the U.S. and of Florida only);

      -- "Mathias v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for
         the Northern District of Ohio, filed Sept. 8, 2006;
         asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of
         Ohio);

      -- "Kracum v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the
         District of Minnesota, filed Sept. 22, 2006; asserting
         a class of allegedly affected residents of Minnesota);    
      
      -- "Ressler v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for
         the Western District of Missouri, filed Oct. 5, 2006;
         asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of
         Missouri);

      -- "Landree v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for
         the District of Minnesota, filed Oct. 6, 2006;
         asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of
         Minnesota);

      -- "Kendron v. Imagitas" (U.S. District Court for the
         District of Massachusetts, filed Oct. 17, 2006;
         asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of
         the U.S.);

      -- "Mathias v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for
         the District of Massachusetts, filed Nov. 13, 2006,
         asserting a class of allegedly affected residents in
         the U.S.);

      -- "Joao v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York, filed Nov. 20, 2006,
         asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of
         New York); and

      -- "Bogard v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the
         Northern District of Ohio, filed Nov. 29, 2006,
         asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of
         Ohio).

Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Imagitas DriverSource
program violates the DPPA.  Under the DriverSource program,
Imagitas entered into contracts with state governments to mail
out automobile registration renewal materials along with third
party advertisements, without revealing the personal information
of any state resident to any advertiser.  

The DriverSource program assists the state in performing its
function of delivering these mailings and funding the costs of
them.  

Plaintiffs in these actions are seeking both statutory damages
under the DPPA and an injunction against the continuation of the
program.

In the hopes of achieving a quick resolution of these pending
actions, Imagitas has filed a request to have all of these cases
consolidated into a single multi-district litigation.

In Rine, both parties have filed motions for summary judgment
and the plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification.
The court in "Rine" has stated that it will not rule on these
motions until after the multi-district litigation panel has
decided whether to consolidate these litigations.

Pitney Bowes, Inc. on the Net: http://www.pb.com/.


J2 GLOBAL: Calif. Court Dismisses Litigation Over eFax Service
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California dismissed with
prejudice a purported class action filed against j2 Global
Communications, Inc. over alleged violations of California laws
in relation to its eFax service.

On Oct. 11, 2005, a complaint was filed against the company in
Los Angeles Superior Court alleging violations of California law
in relation to pricing policies applicable to its eFax service
and, in particular, the manner in which users are notified about
the terms and conditions of the pricing that applies once free
service thresholds are met.

The action included purported claims for false advertising,
breach of contract, fraud and violations of Section 17200 of the
California Business & Profession Code.  The lawsuit sought
damages and injunctive relief.

In November 2006, the court sustained the company's demurrer in
all respects and gave plaintiffs 10 days leave to file an
amended complaint.

Subsequently, on Nov. 29, 2006, the action was dismissed with
prejudice according to the company's March 12 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

j2 Global Communications, Inc. on the Net: http://www.j2.com.


MASTEX INDUSTRIES: Recalls Twin Foot Warmers with Faulty Wiring
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mastex Industries LLC, of Petersburg, Virginia, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 3,000 Mastex Twin Foot Warmers.

The company said the wiring in the foot warmer has a defect
which can cause it to overheat.  This poses a burn hazard to
consumers.

Mastex has received five reports of foot warmers overheating.  
No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes model 400 twin foot warmers with date code
FO4.  The date code is located on the switch and the model
number is written on the blanket.  Model 405 full size foot
warmers are not included in the recall.

These recalled twin foot warmers were manufactured in the U.S.
and are being sold through specialty and gift catalogs
nationwide from September 2006 through October 2006 for about
$40.

Picture of recalled twin foot warmers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07540.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these foot warmers
immediately and contact the firm for information on how to
receive a refund or a free replacement product.

For more information, call Mastex collect at (804) 732-8300
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or send an
E-mail: Sales@mastex.com.


MENU FOODS: Calif. Couple Files Lawsuit Over Tainted Pet Food
-------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles couple Mitch and Jayne Englander filed a lawsuit in
Los Angeles Superior Court against Ontario, Canada-based Menu
Foods Inc., alleging breach of contract, negligence, intentional
infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent concealment,
NBC4.tv reports.

The Englanders allege the company's Iams dog food poisoned their
two Golden Retrievers, killing one and leaving the other with
kidney damage.

They are seeking unspecified compensatory, general and special
damages, and certification of their litigation as a class
action.

The Englanders' lawsuit is the third to be filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court in a week related to allegedly tainted pet food,
the report said.

On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American-wide
recall of 48 brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food in
response to reported deaths of cats and dogs in the U.S.

The nationwide recall includes popular brands such as Iams,
Nutro, and Eukanuba and private-label brands sold by retailers
Wal-Mart, Safeway, Petsmart, and others.

Veterinary professionals estimate thousands of pets across the
nation will die of kidney failure or become very sick with
similar symptoms as a result of consuming the contaminated
products.

To see complete list of recalled products:
http://www.menufoods.com/recall

Menu Foods is facing other federal class actions in other parts
of the country.


MENU FOODS: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Recalled Pet Food
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Calgary (Canada) law firm has filed the most recent lawsuit in
Alberta against the Canadian manufacturer of recalled pet food
suspected of causing death or sickness in hundreds of dogs and
cats, CBC News reports.

Clint Docken filed the suit on behalf of Jim O'Keefe and several
other pet owners.  It seeks compensation for people who have
accrued veterinary bills after their pets got sick eating Menu
Foods products.

"This is a classic products liability claim ... in the same way
that you may have an individual who's injured or killed as the
result of a defective product," Mr. Docken said, adding that he
expects more pet owners to come forward.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in Ontario and the U.S against
Ontario-based Menu Foods on behalf of pet owners who say their
animals fell ill after eating tainted food.

Plaintiffs' attorney, Clint Docken is with Docken & Co., 900,
800-6th Ave. SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2P 3G3, Phone: (403)
269-3612, Fax: (403) 269-8246.


MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Idaho Over Recalled Pet Food
----------------------------------------------------------
Three Idaho residents filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Idaho against Canada's Menu Foods
Inc., the manufacturer of recalled pet food suspected of causing
death or sickness in hundreds of dogs and cats, the Associated
Press reports.

Larry Klimes, Paul Lavoie and Richard Mueller filed the lawsuit
on behalf of all pet owners whose animals have allegedly been
made sick by the tainted pet food.

The three claim that Menu Foods engaged in unlawful and
deceptive business practices and violated its warranties and
breached its contracts with consumers by selling its "cuts and
gravy" style wet pet foods.

On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American wide
recall of 48 brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food in
response to reported deaths of cats and dogs in the U.S.

The nationwide recall includes popular brands such as Iams,
Nutro, and Eukanuba and private-label brands sold by retailers
Wal-Mart, Safeway, Petsmart, and others.

Veterinary professionals estimate thousands of pets across the
nation will die of kidney failure or become very sick with
similar symptoms as a result of consuming the contaminated
products.

To see complete list of recalled products:
http://www.menufoods.com/recall

Menu Foods is facing other federal class actions in other parts
of the country.

The suit is "Klimes et al. v. Menu Foods, Case No. 1:07-cv-
00160-MHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho under Judge Mikel H. Williams.

Representing plaintiffs are Philip Howard Gordon of the Gordon
Law Offices, 623 W Hays, Boise, ID 83702-5512, Phone: (208) 345-
7100, Fax: 1-208-345-0050, E-mail: pgordon@gordonlawoffices.com;
and Mick Hodges of Peterson Hodges & Harper, PO Box 3088, Twin
Falls, ID 83303-5298, Phone: (208) 733-5500, E-mail:
mick76hodges@aol.com.


NISOURCE INC: W.Va. "Stand Energy" Suit Still in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a purported class action that alleges
certain "select shippers," including certain subsidiaries and
affiliates of NiSource, Inc., have engaged in an "illegal gas
scheme" that constituted a breach of contract and violated state
law.  The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of West Virginia.

On July 14, 2004, Stand Energy Corp. filed a complaint in
Kanawha County Court in West Virginia styled, "Stand Energy
Corp., et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., et al."  

The complaint contains allegations against various NiSource,
Inc. subsidiaries and affiliates, including Columbia
Transmission and Columbia Gulf, and asserts that those companies
and certain "select shippers" engaged in an "illegal gas scheme"
that constituted a breach of contract and violated state law.  

The "illegal gas scheme" complained of by the plaintiffs relates
to the Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf gas imbalance
transactions that were the subject of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission enforcement staff investigation and
subsequent settlement approved in October 2000.

Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf filed a notice of
removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of West
Virginia on Aug. 13, 2004 and a motion to dismiss on Sept. 10,
2004.  

In October 2004, however, the plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint, which clarified the identity of some of the
"select shipper" defendants and added a federal antitrust cause
of action.

On Jan. 6, 2005, the court denied the Columbia companies' motion
to strike the second amended complaint and granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend.  

To address the issues raised in the Second Amended Complaint,
the Columbia companies revised their briefs in support of the
previously filed motions to dismiss.  

In June 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Columbia companies' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  The Columbia companies have filed an answer to the
Second Amended Complaint.

One of the plaintiffs, Atlantigas Corp., was dismissed from the
case, and has appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals.  

On Dec. 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify this case
as a class action.  The court has ordered that discovery will
proceed on the issue of class certification as well as the
merits.

The company reported no material development in the 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.

The suit is "Stand Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under
Judge Robert C. Chambers.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joshua I. Barrett, Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Molly
         McGinley Han and Lonnie C. Simmons of Ditrapano Barrett
         & Dipiero, 604 Virginia Street, E Charleston, WV 25301,
         Phone: 304/342-0133, Fax: 304 342-4605; and

     (2) Robert C. Sanders, The Law Office of Robert C. Sanders,
         12051 Upper Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-
         2922, Phone: 301/574-3400, Fax: 301 574-2153.  

Representing the company are:

      (i) Michael S. Becker, James W. Draughn, Jr., Avery
          Gardiner, Thomas M. McDermott of Kirkland & Ellis,
          Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC
          20005, Phone: 202/879-5000, Fax: 202 879-5200; and

     (ii) John H. Tinney of The Tinney Law Firm, P. O. Box 3752,
          Charleston, WV 25337-3752, Phone: 304/720-3310, Fax:
          304/720-3315.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Appeals Certification of Mo. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc., filed a motion seeking reconsideration
of a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri to grant class-action status to a
consolidated securities fraud suit filed against the company.

Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar securities
class actions against the company and three of its executive
officers were filed and consolidated into a single action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  

The consolidated complaint generally alleged that the defendants
made public statements that were misleading or failed to
disclose certain regulatory and licensing matters.  

The complaint names as defendants:

     -- the company;
     -- Lance W. Anderson, president, and chief operating
        officer;
     -- Michael L. Bamburg, senior vice president and chief
        investment officer;
     -- Scott Hartman, chairman of the board and chief executive
        officer; and
     -- Rodney E. Schwatken, vice president, secretary,
        treasurer, and controller.

The plaintiffs purported to bring this consolidated action on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
and sellers of put options on the company's common stock during
the period Oct. 29, 2003 through April 8, 2004.  

According to the complaint, NovaStar fostered an aggressive-
growth culture throughout the class period.  NovaStar touted its
rapid growth in earnings, production, and its securities
portfolio and highlighted the increasing number of NovaStar-
affiliated branch offices.  

In 2003, the company reported that it had doubled the number of
branch offices in operation and that its earnings had more than
doubled in 2003 to $112 million.

On Aug. 23, 2004, Judge Ortrie D. Smith issued an order
consolidating all related cases into one class action as, "In re
NovaStar Financial Securities Litigation" and appointed lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  Lead plaintiffs filed their
consolidated class action complaint on Nov. 12, 2004.

On Jan 14, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
action, and on May 12, 2005, the court denied such motion.  

On Feb. 8, the court certified the case as a class action.  On
Feb. 20, the company filed a motion for reconsideration.

The suit is "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation,  
Case No. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri under Judge Ortrie D.  
Smith.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Bruce D. Bernstein and Michael B. Eisenkraft of  
         Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One  
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119,  
         Phone: 212-594-5300;

     (2) James M. Evangelista of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP,
         1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA  
         30309, Phone: (404) 607-6871, Fax: (404) 876-4476, E-
         mail: jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com; and

     (3) William W. Wickersham of Entwitle & Cappucci, LLP, 299  
         Park Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10171, Phone:  
         212-894-7200.

Representing the defendants are Erin Bansal and William F.  
Alderman of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, 405 Howard  
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: (415)  
773-5759, E-mail: walderman@orrick.com.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces New Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Novastar Financial, Inc. was named as a defendant in two
putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on February 2007, 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 complaints name the company, and three of its executive
officers as defendants and generally allege, among other things,
that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial
results.

The plaintiffs purport to have brought the actions on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock during the period May 4, 2006 through Feb. 20,
2007.

The first identified complaint is "Robert W. Boyd, III, et al.
v. NovaStar Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00139,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri under Judge Howard F. Sachs.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates of 519 Alleghany Bldg.,
         429 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15219, Phone:
         412.391.5164;

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA,
         92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423; and

     (3) Saxena White PA, 2424 North Federal Highway. Suite 307,
         Boca Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 800.361.5096, Fax:
         888.782.3081, Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com.


NOVASTAR HOME: Parties Settle FCRA Violations Lawsuit in La.
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a putative class action alleging violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act by NovaStar Home Mortgage,
Inc., a subsidiary of Novastar Financial, Inc., have agreed to
settle the matter.

The suit was filed in December 2005 and is currently pending in
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.  It
claims that the company violated FCRA in connection with its use
of pre-approved offers of credit and its failure to make certain
disclosures required by federal law.

Plaintiff sought, on his own behalf, as well as for others
similarly situated, statutory damages, other nominal damages,
punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs.

In January 2007, the named plaintiff and NovaStar Home agreed to
settle the lawsuit for a nominal amount, 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 "Pearson v. Novastar Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No.
3:05-cv-01377-JVP-DLD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana under Judge John V. Parker with
referral to Judge Docia L. Dalby.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Philip Bohrer of Bohrer Law Firm, 8712 Jefferson
         Highway, Suite B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-
         925-5297, Fax: 225-231-7000, E-mail:
         phil@bohrerlaw.com; and

     (2) Scott E. Brady, 8712 Jefferson Hwy, Ste. B, Baton
         Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-924-7636, Fax: 225-231-
         7000, E-mail: scott@bradylawfirmllc.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) James Rodney Chastain, Jr., Kean, Miller-B.R., P.O. Box
         3513, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513, Phone: 225-387-0999,
         Fax: 225-388-9133, E-mail:
         sonny.chastain@keanmiller.com; and

    (ii) Tara E. Montgomery of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne,
         D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, P.O. Box 3513, Baton Rouge,
         LA 70821-3513, Phone: 225-387-0999, Fax: 388-9133, E-
         mail: tara.montgomery@keanmiller.com.


NOVASTAR HOME: Resolves Lawsuits Over Settlement Service Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc., a subsidiary of Novastar
Financial, Inc., has reached nationwide settlement for several
purported class actions related to settlement service fees.

In April 2005, three putative class actions filed against
NovaStar Home and certain of its affiliates were consolidated
for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia, as "In Re NovaStar Home Mortgage,
Inc. Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation."

These cases allege that NovaStar Home improperly shared
settlement service fees with limited liability companies in
which NovaStar Home had an interest alleging violations of the
fee splitting and anti-referral provisions of the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and alleging certain
violations of state law and civil conspiracy.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages with respect to the RESPA claims,
disgorgement of fees with respect to the state law claims as
well as other damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees.  

In addition, two other related class actions have been filed in
state courts:

     -- "Miller v. NovaStar Financial, Inc. et al.," was filed
        in October 2004 in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
        Illinois; and

     -- "Jones et al. v. NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. et al.,
        was filed in December 2004 in the Circuit Court for
        Baltimore City, Maryland.

In the Miller case, plaintiffs allege a violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and civil
conspiracy and contend certain LLCs provided settlement services
without the borrower's knowledge.  

Plaintiffs in the Miller case seek a disgorgement of fees, other
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees on behalf of the
class of plaintiffs.

In the Jones case, the plaintiffs allege the LLCs violated the
Maryland Mortgage Lender Law by acting as lenders and/or brokers
in Maryland without proper licenses and contend this arrangement
amounted to a civil conspiracy.  Plaintiffs in the Jones case
seek a disgorgement of fees and attorney's fees.  

In January 2007, all of the plaintiffs and NovaStar Home agreed
upon a nationwide settlement, according to the company's March 1
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Novastar Financial, Inc. on the Net: http://www.novastaris.com/.


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Hearing in Wash. Consumer Suit Set April 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
An April 23 trial is slated for a putative consumer fraud class
action pending against NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., a subsidiary of
Novastar Financial, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

Filed in December 2005, the suit argued that the company failed
to disclose prior to closing that a broker payment would be made
on their loans, which was an unfair and deceptive practice in
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

The suit sought a return of fees paid on the affected loans,
excess interest charged, and damage to plaintiffs' credit and
finances, treble damages as provided in the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and attorney fees.

On Oct. 31, 2006, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
to certify a Washington state class.

NovaStar Mortgage sought to appeal the grant of class
certification; however, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 9th Circuit denied the request for interlocutory appeal so
review of the class certification order must wait until after a
final judgment is entered, if necessary.  

The case is set for trial on April 23.

The suit is "Pierce, et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., Case No.
3:05-cv-05835-RJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Robert J. Bryan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Matthew Phineas Bergman of Law Office Of Matthew
         Bergman, 705 2ND Avenue, Suite 1601, Seattle, WA 98104,
         Phone: 206-957-9510, E-mail: matt@bergmanlegal.com; and

     (2) Ari Y. Brown of Bergman & Frockt, 705 Second Avenue,
         Ste. 1601, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone: 206-957-9510, E-
         mail: ari@bergmanlegal.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Donald C Brown, Jr. of Weiner Brodsky Sidmann Kider,
         1300 19TH ST., NW, 5TH FL., Washington, DC 20036,
         Phone: 202-628-2000, E-mail: brown@wbsk.com; and

    (ii) Sal Mungia of Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca Peterson
         & Daheim, P.O. BOX 1157, Tacoma, WA 98401-1157, Phone:
         253-620-6500, Fax: 1-253-620-6565, E-mail:
         smungia@gth-law.com.


NUVELO INC: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Nuvelo, Inc. was named as a defendant in several purported
securities fraud class actions filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On Feb. 9, the company and certain of its former and current
officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported
securities class action.

The suit alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase,
which the company announced on Dec. 11, 2006.  The suit seeks
damages on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock
during the period between Jan. 5, 2006, and Dec. 8, 2006.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the company misled investors
regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood
of success.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and
injunctive relief.

A second lawsuit was filed on Feb. 16, and it is possible that
other similar lawsuits will be filed, 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.  To the
extent similar cases are filed, the company expects such cases
to be consolidated.

The first identified complaint is "Electrical Workers Pension
Fund, Local 103, IBEW, et al. v. Nuvelo, Inc., et al.," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
         bmgross@bernardmgross.com;

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         (Melville), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville,
         NY, 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173;

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA,
         92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423; and
     
     (4) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, 2125 Oak Grove
         Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598, Phone:
         925.945.0200, Fax: 925.945.8792, E-mail:
         info@sbtklaw.com.


OKK TRADING: Recalls Baby Dolls with Parts Posing Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
OKK Trading Inc., of Commerce, California, in cooperation with
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
3,500 "Lovely Baby" and "Happy Baby" dolls.

The company said these dolls contain small parts, which can pose
a choking hazard to young children.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves the "Lovely Baby" and "Happy Baby" plastic
dolls.  The dolls come in different sizes ranging from six to 11
inches tall.  Some dolls come in a basket and have a baby bottle
and some sing when pressed on the abdominal area.  The packaging
is a clear plastic bag sealed at the top with a cardboard label
with the name "Lovely Baby" or "Happy Baby" printed on it.

These recalled "Lovely Baby" and "Happy Baby" dolls were
manufactured in China and are being sold at Dollar stores
nationwide from September 2006 through October 2006 for $1.

Pictures of recalled "Lovely Baby" and "Happy Baby" dolls:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07146a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07146b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07146c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take these dolls away from
children.  Consumers should return the doll to the store where
purchased for a refund.

For additional information, contact OKK Trading toll-free at
(877) OKK-TOYS between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.okktrading.com.


OLD REPUBLIC: Faces Title Insurance Suits in Conn., N.J., Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC), a principal
title insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp.,
faces several purported class actions in state courts in
Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey and Ohio.

Generally, plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to rate schedules
filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state
insurance regulators, ORNTIC was required to, but failed to give
consumers reissue credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions.  

Substantially similar lawsuits have been filed against other
unaffiliated title insurance companies in these and other states
as well.  The actions seek damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief.  

ORNTIC has reached a tentative settlement in Florida for an
amount not to exceed $1.2, exclusive of attorneys' fees and
costs.

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

Old Republic International Corp. (NYSE: ORI) on the Net:
http://www.oldrepublic.com/.


REGENT PRODUCTS: Recalls Stuffed Fun Balls with Lead Paint
----------------------------------------------------------
Regent Products Corp., in River Grove, Illinois, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 7,200 stuffed fun balls.

The company said the stuffed balls contain lead paint, which is
toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health
effects.  No injuries have been reported.

The Fun Ball is an orange stuffed ball toy that measures 4
inches in diameter and designed to look like a basketball.  The
ball is printed with colored numbers, letters and "Reg. #PA-
10623(HK)."

These recalled stuffed fun balls were manufactured in China and
are being sold at Dollar stores and other discount stores
nationwide from June 2006 through March 2007 for about $1.

Picture of the recalled stuffed fun balls:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07141.jpg

Consumers are advised to take these balls away from young
children immediately and return the toy to the store where
purchased for a refund.

For additional information, contact Regent Products at (800)
940-4869 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.regentproducts.comor E-
mail: recall@regentproducts.com.


REPUBLIC MORTGAGE: Settles S.C. Lawsuit Over Insurance Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Mortgage Insurance Co., a wholly owned mortgage
guaranty insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International
Corp., has reached a settlement for a purported class action
over a company decision to insure loans at a higher rate.

The action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina, sought certification of a nationwide class of
consumers who were allegedly required to pay for private
mortgage insurance at a cost greater than Republic Mortgage's
"best available rate."

The action alleges that the was based on the consumers' credit
scores and constituted an "adverse action" within the meaning,
and in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, that requires
notice, allegedly not given, to the consumers.

The action sought statutory and punitive damages, as well as
other costs.  A settlement agreement was reached in the action
on Nov. 29, 2006 and awaits final court approval, according to
Old Republic'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 "Brantley, et al. v. Republic Mortgage, Case No.
2:04-cv-00805-PMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina under Judge Patrick Michael Duffy.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Charlie Bridgmon of McCutchen Blanton Rhodes and
         Johnson, PO Box 11209, Columbia, SC 29211-1209, Phone:
         803-252-4050, Fax: 803-253-6084, E-mail:
         cbridgmon@mbjb.com; and

     (2) Mario A. Pacella of Strom Law Firm, 2110 Beltline
         Boulevard, Suite A, Columbia, SC 29204, Phone: 803-252-
         4800, Fax: 803-252-4801, E-mail:
         mpacella@stromlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Benjamin Rush Smith, III of
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, PO Box 11070, Columbia, SC
29211, Phone: 803-799-2000, Fax: 803-256-7500, E-mail:
rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com.


STEARNS INC: Recalls Inflator Pumps That Can Explode During Use
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stearns Inc., of St. Cloud, Minnesota, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,400 West Marine inflator pumps.

The company said the inflator pumps can explode during use,
ejecting sharp plastic parts and posing a serious laceration
hazard to consumers.

Stearns has received three reports of pumps exploding.  One
consumer reported lacerations and two fractured ribs.  Two other
consumers received minor lacerations to the face and chest.

The recalled inflator pump has a blue body with a black handle,
hose, and pressure gage.  The pump is 5-inches (12.7 cm.) high
and weighs about 3 pounds.  West Marine is printed on a white
sticker on the top of the pump housing.  A second label contains
a "caution" statement along with Ho Lee Co., Ltd. and UL listing
information.  The manufacturer's model number HB-183BG and the
date code 1203 are also on the label.

These recalled West Marine inflator pumps were manufactured in
China and are being sold at West Marine and BoatU.S. stores and
through direct sales nationwide from August 2003 through January
2007 for about $60.

Picture of recalled West Marine inflator pumps:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07140.jpg

Consumers are asked to return their inflator pump to nearest
West Marine or BoatU.S. store for a full refund.

For more information consumers can contact West Marine or
BoatU.S. at (800) 262-8464 anytime or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.westmarine.com.


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: May Hearing Set for Va. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A May 4 hearing is set on separate motions to certify or dismiss
a securities fraud suit pending against Tier Technologies, Inc.
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

On Nov. 10, 2006, a law firm issued a press release stating that
a class action had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of
Tier Technologies, Inc.'s common stock from Nov. 29, 2001 to Oct
25, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 8, 2007).

According to the press release, the suit alleges that Tier and
certain of its former and/or current officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, but did not
identify the level of damages being sought.  

On Jan. 26, 2007, the court appointed The Rosen Law Firm as Lead
Counsel.

On Feb. 23, 2007, lead counsel filed a First Amended Complaint
and a motion to certify this lawsuit as a class action.

On March 16, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint
and opposed the class certification motion, which the Rosen Law
Firm opposed to on April 6.

While it is unclear when these pending motions will be decided
by the court, the U.S. District Court has scheduled argument on
these motions for May 4, 2007.

The purported securities suit is "Shiring v. Tier Technologies,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01276-TSE-BRP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under Judge
T. S. Ellis, III with referral to Judge Barry R. Poretz.

Plaintiffs' counsel is Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim,
Esq., both of The Rosen Law Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 or
(917) 797-4425 (Weekends) or 1-866-767-3653 (Toll Free), Fax:
(212) 202-3827.

Representing the defendants is Nicholas Ian Porritt of Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC, 1700 K. St. NW, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20006-3817, Phone: (703) 734-3100, Fax: 703-973-
8899.


TRIBUNE CO: Shareholder Files Suit Over Planned $8.2B Sale  
----------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Co. shareholder Reed Simpson filed a lawsuit in Cook
County (Illinois) Circuit Court to block real estate mogul Sam
Zell's $8.2 billion proposal to take the company private, the
Editor & Publisher reports.

Earlier, Tribune Co. announced a transaction, which will result
in the company going private and Tribune shareholders receiving
$34 per share (Troubled Company Reporter, April 4, 20047).

Upon completion of the transaction, the company will be
privately held, with an Employee Stock Ownership Plan holding
all of Tribune's then-outstanding common stock and Mr. Zell
holding a subordinated note and a warrant entitling him to
acquire 40% of Tribune's common stock.  

Mr. Zell will join the Tribune board upon completion of his
initial investment and will become chairman when the merger
closes.

Mr. Simpson's suit alleges that Tribune top management and
directors did not give good-faith consideration to the competing
bid from Los Angeles billionaires Eli Broad and Ron Burkle.

Mr. Simpson alleges that conflicts of interest led Tribune
management to accept Sam Zell's offer of $34 a share, despite
the price being "grossly inadequate and unfair."

Further, he alleges that Tribune's board "stood on both sides of
the transaction and engaged in self-dealing and obtained for
themselves personal benefits, including personal financial
benefits, not shared equally" by other stockholders.

Mr. Simpson hopes to bring the lawsuit as class action on behalf
of other shareholders.  He is seeking a court order that would
block the deal, unless a higher price can be obtained.

Chicago, Ill.-based Tribune Co. (NYSE: TRB) --
http://www.tribune.com/-- is a media company, operating  
businesses in publishing and broadcasting.  In publishing,
Tribune operates 11 daily newspapers including the Los Angeles
Times, Chicago Tribune and Newsday, plus a wide range of
targeted publications.  The company's broadcasting group
operates 26 television stations, Superstation WGN on national
cable, Chicago's WGN-AM and the Chicago Cubs baseball team.


WARNER CHILCOTT: D.C. Court Junks Motion to Dismiss Ovcon Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed
without prejudice a motion to dismiss a third-party-payors'
complaint against Warner Chilcott Holdings, Ltd., and Barr
Pharmaceuticals over agreements regarding the drug Ovcon.

The third-party-payor plaintiffs seek to certify and represent a
class of all third-party-payors in the U.S. who purchased,
reimbursed and/or paid for Ovcon 35 after the Ovcon Agreements
were entered into.  The proposed class includes insurance
companies and employee benefit plans.

The third-party-payor plaintiffs allege in their first amended
complaint that the Ovcon Agreements violate Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, the antitrust laws of 23 states and the District of
Columbia, the consumer protection acts of all 50 states and the
District of Columbia.  They also claim that the agreements
constitute a cause of action for unjust enrichment in
unspecified jurisdictions.

The third-party-payor plaintiffs seek an injunction, treble
damages, the amounts by which defendants have been unjustly
enriched, restitution, disgorgement, a constructive trust, and
costs including attorneys' fees.

On April 14, 2006 the third-party-payor plaintiffs filed a
second amended class action complaint.  In response to
defendants' previous motion to dismiss, the third-party-payor
plaintiffs dropped antitrust claims in two states and consumer
protection claims in 47 states and the District of Columbia.

On May 3, 2006 defendants moved to partially dismiss the third-
party-payor plaintiffs' claims.  The third-party-payor
plaintiffs opposed the motion.

On Nov. 27, 2006, the court appointed Magistrate Judge Alan Kay
as a mediator for settlement of the third-party-payor case at
the parties' request.

On March 2, the court dismissed without prejudice the company's
motion to dismiss the third-party-payor plaintiffs' complaint
and ordered the company's motion to dismiss to be automatically
reinstated on April 20, if the case is not resolved by that
date, according to the company's March 23 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Warner Chilcott, Ltd. on the Net: http://www.warnerchilcott.com.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Mediator Appointed in D.C. Ovcon Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Alan Kay of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia was appointed as mediator in a consolidated
class action over agreements between Warner Chilcott, Ltd., and
Barr Pharmaceuticals regarding the drug Ovcon.

Initially, eight direct purchaser lawsuits were filed against
the companies.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs allege that the
Ovcon Agreements violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  All of
the direct purchaser plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, and costs including attorneys' fees.  

Six of the lawsuits, which were all filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, are class actions.  The
remaining two suits are brought on behalf of individual direct
purchasers.

On April 14, 2006 the six direct purchaser class action
plaintiffs jointly filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint and dismissed their complaints in the remaining five
cases.

On Nov. 27, 2006, the court appointed Magistrate Judge Alan Kay
as a mediator for settlement of the direct purchaser cases at
the parties' request, according to the company's March 23 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Warner Chilcott, Ltd. on the Net: http://www.warnerchilcott.com.


WASHINGTON: City Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over WTO Arrests
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Seattle, Washington has agreed to settle the federal
class action "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al.," which
was filed in relation to the arrests of about 200 protesters
during a 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in the city.

In a landmark settlement, which was reached by Trial Lawyers for
Public Justice on behalf of scores of people arrested in 1999
while protesting the WTO meeting, the city agreed to seal and
expunge the records of what a jury earlier determined to be
their unconstitutional arrests by Seattle police.

In addition, the settlement mandates that the city improve
police training in order to prevent unconstitutional mass
arrests in the future.

Finally, the city will pay $1 million to compensate the
protesters for the violation of their constitutional rights and
the costs of bringing the lawsuit.

On Oct. 2, 2000, the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice filed the
original suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  The class action was brought on behalf
of anyone detained during mass arrests at Westlake Park between
6 a.m. and noon on Dec. 1, 1999.

Specifically, plaintiffs' lawyers alleged that the city engaged
in a policy of suppressing First Amendment rights by arresting
protesters without being ordered to disperse and jailing them
using an incorrect arrest record.

The complaint sought damages from the city, Mayor Schell, and
former Police Chief Norman Stamper on behalf of more than 600
protesters and others arrested and imprisoned on Dec. 1 and 2,
1999, pursuant to the city's "no-protest zone" policy.

Earlier this year, the jury found that the city violated the
Fourth Amendment rights of the protesters, but determined the
city was not guilty of violating the plaintiffs' free-speech
rights (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2007).

The suit is "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al., Case No.
2:00-cv-01672-MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael E. Withey of Law Office
Of Mike Withey, Two Union Square, 601 Union St., Ste. 4200,
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-405-1800, E-mail:
mike@witheylaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Theron A. Buck of Stafford Frey
Cooper, 601 Union St., 3100 Two Union Sq., Seattle, WA 98101,
Phone: 206-623-9900, Fax: 624-6885, E-mail:
tbuck@staffordfrey.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AROTECH CORP: KGS Files First Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC filed the first class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or acquired the common
stock of Arotech Corp. between March 31, 2005 and Nov. 14, 2005.

Arotech and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Throughout the Class Period, Arotech conditioned investors to
believe that the company was meeting or exceeding guidance and
could foreseeably achieve sustained year-over-year quarterly
revenue growth as high as 40%.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, throughout the Class Period,
Arotech suffered from a host of adverse conditions that
negatively impacted its business and caused the company to fail
to maintain its financial statements and reports in accordance
with GAAP and SEC rules, including, that:

     (1) the integration of Armour of America, acquired by
         Arotech in August 2004 for approximately $22 million,
         was not proceeding according to plan;

     (2) profitability was overstated as a result of defendants'
         failure to write-down impaired assets and record rising
         impairment costs; and

     (3) defendants failed to maintain an adequate system of
         internal operational or financial controls necessary to
         operate the company.

It was only on Nov. 14, 2005 -- only weeks after defendants
completed a $17 million offering of debt convertible into shares
of company stock -- that investors learned the truth about the
company.

At that time, defendants belatedly disclosed that Arotech was
operating well below plan and that it would be forced to take
significant asset impairment charges.

As a result of these disclosures, the following day, shares of
the company declined almost 27% in very heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact Lewis Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Swick,
LLC, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 106 (Toll Free), E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com, Website: http://www.kgscounsel.com.


ELI LILLY: Lerach Coughlin Announces Securities Suit Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that
a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Eli
Lilly and company publicly traded securities during the period
between March 28, 2002 and Dec. 22, 2006.

The complaint charges Lilly and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Lilly is in the business of developing and marketing
pharmaceuticals.

Lilly produces and markets Zyprexa, a drug treatment for
schizophrenia, among other things. Zyprexa is by far Lilly's
largest-selling drug, with sales of $4.3 billion in 2006 alone.

The complaint alleges that at the beginning of the Class Period,
defendants contended that Zyprexa did not cause diabetes-related
side effects.

Once the publicly available clinical data rendered this position
untenable, defendants argued instead that Zyprexa did not cause
more side effects than its competitors.

Eventually, more and more clinical data showed that, in fact,
Zyprexa does cause such side effects and to a greater extent
than its competitors. These revelations sharply curtailed the
sales growth of Zyprexa and resulted in thousands of product
liability lawsuits against Lilly and hundreds of millions of
dollars in settlements.

It has recently come to light that defendants intentionally
suppressed and misrepresented data showing that Zyprexa causes
weight gain, high blood sugar, and diabetes in a series of
articles in The New York Times which excerpted internal Lilly
documents detailing defendants' deception. The documents show
for the first time that defendants intentionally misled
patients, doctors, and investors about the side effects of
Zyprexa.

As a result of these revelations, the price of Lilly's stock
declined almost 6% in the five trading days during which the
series of articles was published.

The members of the proposed class invested in Lilly securities
unaware that defendants' fraud had artificially inflated the
prices of those securities. When the truth was finally revealed,
those investors lost many millions of dollars as a result of
defendants' fraud.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Lilly publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
April 2, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins,
both of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP,
Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com.


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Lerach Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that
a class action has been commenced on behalf of institutional
investors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia on behalf of all persons who acquired
International Coal Group, Inc. common stock in connection with
and traceable to ICG's common stock offerings which took place
on or about Nov. 21, 2005 and Dec. 7-8, 2005.  The Class Period
is Nov. 18, 2005 to Oct. 4, 2006.

The complaint charges ICG and certain of its officers and
directors and its underwriters with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933.

Further, the complaint alleges that in November and December
2005, ICG undertook two integrated stock transactions involving
Registration Statements filed and effective with the SEC.

The Offerings were mutually interdependent. The statements in
the November and December 2005 Registration Statements
concerning the company's business, the strength of its
management team, its safety and maintenance practices, its
ability to capitalize on favorable market conditions, its
ability to deliver optimum selections of coal to meet increasing
demand, and its acquisition of the Anker Coal Co. and company
reorganization were all false and misleading when made.

In fact, the company was suffering from serious shortfalls in
its maintenance and safety procedures, its mines were ill-
equipped, as were its miners, the Anker acquisition had been a
mistake, saddling the company with outmoded and dangerous mining
operations, the company's top management team was distracted by
work involved in the November 2005 reorganization and December
2005 offering and the company would be unable to produce
sufficient amounts of coal in desired mixes to meet its revenue
and earnings and production forecasts.

After the November and December 2005 Registration Statements
became effective, information entered the marketplace in a
series of company-specific negative revelations contradicting
the prior representations made and demonstrating the falsity of
the Registration Statements.

As a result, the company's stock price declined sharply,
damaging Class members who purchased the stock issued by the
company in the Offerings.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
acquired ICG common stock in connection with and traceable to
ICG's common stock offerings in November and December 2005.  The
Class Period is Nov. 18, 2005 to Oct. 4, 2006.

ICG is a coal producer with operations in West Virginia,
Kentucky, Maryland and Illinois.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins
of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone:
800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com,
Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com.


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Schoengold Files Ca. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. filed a class action on
behalf of the Laborers Local 190 Pension Fund against Wireless
Facilities Inc. and certain key officers and/or directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

This action has been brought on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired WFI securities during the period
between March 29, 2002 and March 12, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the company's business, accounting practices
and financial results to artificially inflate the value of WFI
stock.

Specifically, it is alleged that throughout the Class Period,
defendants engaged in improper practices of backdating of stock
option grants to the company's executive management, resulting
in option grants with lower exercise prices and thereby
improperly increasing the value of the options and improperly
reducing the amounts the options recipients had to pay the
company upon exercise of the options, and unfairly transferring
shareholder equity to defendants.

Defendants' conduct also violated the provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code relating to deduction of option payments. Thus, the
Complaint alleges, Wireless Facilities' financial statements,
Form 10-K filings for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and
2005 and Form 10-Q quarterly filings, were materially false and
misleading.

The company shocked the investing public when, on March 12,
2007, it disclosed that it has been conducting an ongoing
internal review of past practices for granting stock options and
that it would delay its 2006 annual financial results after an
internal review uncovered incorrect measurement dates for stock
option grants issued between 1998 and 2003.

The company further revealed that "there is a strong likelihood"
that it will restate financial results issued during this
period.

As a result, on March 13, 2007, WFI stock price plummeted to
$1.62 per share from its prior day close of $2.10, a 23% drop in
one day, on massive volume.

Since then, on March 28, 2007, WFI announced in a press release
that, as a result of not having timely filed "its Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006," it
received "as expected," "a NASDAQ Staff Determination notice on
March 22, 2007, indicating the company is not in compliance with
the NASDAQ requirements for continued listing... and its
securities, therefore, are subject to delisting from NASDAQ."

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

For more information, contact Ashley Kim, Esq. or Ms. Rachel
Conaboy, both of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C., 19
Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, New York 10038, Phone: (212)
964-0046 or 866) 348-7700 (Toll Free), Fax: (212) 267-8137,
Website: http://www.spornlaw.com


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *