CAR_Public/070411.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 11, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 71

                            Headlines


ACADEMY AT IVY RIDGE: $100M False Ad Suit Denied Certification
AMERICA'S CAR-MART: Suit Over Interest Rates Denied Class Status
ASHWORTH INC: Faces FCRA Violations Lawsuit in Calif. Court
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Faces Lawsuits Over Sale to Ventas Realty
CARROLS CORP: Employees File Certification, Discovery Motions

CENDANT CORP: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Homestore.com Suit
CLEAN HARBORS: Still Faces Lawsuits Over 2005 Incinerator Fire
COLORADO: Denver Faces Civil Rights Case Over Ban of Pit Bull
COPART INC: Denies Claim of Excessive Charges for Storage Liens
COPART INC: No Ruling Yet in Ga. Consumer Fraud Litigation

COPART INC: Foreign Car Maintains Claim of Sherman Act Violation
COPART INC: Settles Case Over Disposal of Abandoned Vehicles
CORNELL COMPANIES: Settles N.Mex. Strip Search Suit for $1.6M
DICK'S SPORTING: April 2007 Mediation Session Set for FLSA Suits
DITECH COMMS: No Ruling Yet in Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit

DYNACRAFT BSC: Recalls Bicycles with Frame that can Crack in Use
ENRON CORP: Shareholders Seek Review of Certification Ruling
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Credit Card Information
FEDEX CORP: Continues to Face Wage-and-Hour Violations Lawsuits
FEDEX EXPRESS: May 2007 Trial Set for Calif. Racial Bias Suit

FEDEX GROUND: Continues to Face Owner-Operators' Suit in Ind.
GAS COMPANIES: N.Mex., Ariz. Consumers Sue Over "Hot" Fuel
INSURANCE BROKERAGE LITIGATION: Antitrust Charges Dismissed
INTEX RECREATION: Recalls Pool Ladders After Reports of Breakage
IPO LITIGATION: 2nd Circuit Refuses to Review Decertification

LEADING EDGE: Settles Colo. Lawsuit Over VigRx for $6.5M
LOS ALAMOS: Former Pathologist Settles Lawsuit for $800T
MICHIGAN: Corrections Dept. Ordered to Install Cooling Equipment
MICHIGAN: U.S. High Court Rejects Appeal in MHSAA Title IX Suit
NORDSTROM INC: 9th Circuit Hears Objections to "Azizian" Deal

NY THERMAL: Recalls Gas-Fired Hot Water Boilers for CO Hazard
OIL COS: 6 Top Industry Players Accused of Inflating Gas Prices
PC MALL: Settles Calif. Workers' Suit Over "Exempt" Status
PETRAPPORT INC: Recalls Dog Treats Over Salmonella Contamination
QUIGLEY CORP: Cold-Eeze Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Case

RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Parties Dismiss Nev. Shareholders' Litigation


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INTERNATIONAL COAL: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit

          
                            *********


ACADEMY AT IVY RIDGE: $100M False Ad Suit Denied Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas J. McAvoy of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York denied class-action status to a
$100 lawsuit filed by former Academy at Ivy Ridge students and
their parents against the school, the Watertown Daily Times
reports.

Filed in July 2006, the suit names as defendants:

     -- The Academy at Ivy Ridge;
     -- Academy at Ivy Ridge, Inc.;
     -- Academy at Ivy Ridge, LLC;
     -- Jason G. Finlinson Corp.;
     -- Joseph & Alyn Mitchell Corp.;
     -- Northwest Association of Schools & Colleges &
        Universities, Inc.;
     -- Premier Educational Systems, LLC;
     -- Jason G. Finlinson;
     -- Joseph Mitchell;
     -- Alyn Mitchell;
     -- Robert B. Lichfield, who owns the former Mater Dei
        College property where Ivy Ridge is located;
     -- World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and
        Schools, Inc. (WWASPS), a Utah-based company founded by
        Mr. Lichfield;
     -- Teen In Crisis, LLC;
     -- Lifelines Family Services, Inc.; and
     -- Teen Soulutions, LLC.

The parents claim, among other things, that when people
contacted marketing firms for information about boarding or
military schools, the inquirers were discouraged from
considering schools that were not affiliated with WWASPS and
instead were steered toward one of its affiliates, including Ivy
Ridge.

Further, the parents claim they were assured by marketers that
Ivy Ridge was a "fully accredited" high school even though it
was not authorized to grant diplomas or course credits because
it had neither applied for nor received a certificate of high
school registration from the state Board of Regents.

The parents further contend that, due to the lack of
certification, none of the "diplomas" or "credits" issued by Ivy
Ridge was recognized by the state.

An investigation by the state attorney general's office in 2005
led to the school paying fines and penalties of about $250,000,
as well as returning 15 percent of total tuition costs to
students who received the fake diplomas or who withdrew from the
school upon learning of the accreditation problems.

                         Recent Rulings

In addition to denying the motion for class certification, Judge
McAvoy also dismissed federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Acts claims brought by or on behalf of the
students based on tuition the parents paid.

A significant portion of the RICO claims made by the parents
also was dismissed, although several claims remain against Ivy
Ridge and its corporate entities.

The bulk of the claims against Ivy Ridge and its entities,
including claims of unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, breach of
contract and fraud, were allowed to continue.

The families may renew their motion for class certification
pending the results of a hearing on the matter.

The suit is "Dungan et al. v. The Academy at Ivy Ridge et al.,
Case No. 7:06-cv-00908-TJM-GJD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York under Judge Thomas
J. McAvoy, with referral to Judge Gustave J. DiBianco.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Julia R. Cohen of Shebitz, Berman Law Firm, 1325 Avenue
         of the Americas, 27th Floor, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
         212-832-2797, Fax: 212-832-2782, E-mail:
         jcohen@shebitzlaw.com;

     (2) Maureen G. Fatcheric and Edward G. Melvin, both of
         Costello, Cooney Law Firm - Syracuse Office, 205 South
         Salina Street, Syracuse, NY 13202, Phone: 315-422-1152,
         Fax: 315-422-1139, E-mail: mgf@ccf-law.com or
         egm@ccf-law.com; and

     (3) Kevin E. Hulslander and Daniel R. Ryan, both of Smith,
         Sovik Law Firm, 250 South Clinton Street, Suite 600,
         Syracuse, NY 13202-1252, Phone: 315-474-2911, Fax: 315-
         474-6015, E-mail: khulslander@smithsovik.com or
         dryan@smithsovik.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Zachary M. Mattison, Timothy P. Murphy and Eric C.
         Nordby, all of Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm, P.O. Box
         4976, 1500 MONY Tower I, Syracuse, NY 13221-4976,
         Phone: 315-471-3151, Fax: 315-233-4312 or 315-471-3167,
         E-mail: zmattison@hancocklaw.com or
         tmurphy@hancocklaw.com or enordby@hancocklaw.com; and

     (2) Christopher G. Todd of Phillips, Lytle Law Firm -
         Buffalo Office, 3400 HSBC Center, Buffalo, NY 14203,
         Phone: 716-847-7022, Fax: 716-852-6100, E-mail:
         ctodd@phillipslytle.com.


AMERICA'S CAR-MART: Suit Over Interest Rates Denied Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma has
denied class-action status to a lawsuit against America's Car-
Mart, Inc., which accuses it of charging usurious interest rates
to retail customers in the State of Oklahoma for the period June
11, 2004 and forward.

The putative class-action complaint was filed on October 2006.
The company has answered the complaint and discovery is on
going.

A motion for class certification was denied after a hearing on
March 1, according to the company's March 12 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Jan. 31.  

America's Car-Mart, Inc. on the Net: http://www.car-mart.com/.


ASHWORTH INC: Faces FCRA Violations Lawsuit in Calif. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashworth, Inc., has been notified of the existence of a
purported class action alleging that the company violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act by printing on credit or debit card
receipts more than the last five digits of the credit or debit
card number and/or the expiration date.

The suit was filed on Feb. 27, 2007 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  Plaintiff seeks
statutory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and injunctive
relief on behalf of the purported class, according to the
company's March 12 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan. 31.  

The suit is "Burnis L. Simon Jr. v. Ashworth Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-01324-GHK-AJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge George H. King
with referral to Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.

Representing the plaintiff is Farris E. Ain of Herbert Hafif Law
Offices, 269 West Bonita Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-4784,
Phone: 909-624-1671, E-mail: farris.ain@hafif.com.

Representing the defendants is J. Scot Kennedy of Gibson Dunn
and Crutcher, 4 Park Plaza, 17th Floor, Irvine, CA 92614, Phone:
949-451-3805, E-mail: skennedy@gibsondunn.com.


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Faces Lawsuits Over Sale to Ventas Realty
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. was named as a defendant in two
purported class actions in connection with the sale of certain
facilities to Ventas Realty Limited Partnership in 2004,
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.

                       Atkins Litigation

The first action was filed on Sept. 15, 2005, by current and
former limited partners in 36 investing partnerships in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned,
"David T. Atkins et al. v. Apollo Real Estate Advisors, L.P., et
al."

On March 17, 2006, a third amended complaint was filed in the
action.  The third amended complaint is brought on behalf of
current and former limited partners in 14 investing
partnerships.

It names as defendants, among others, the company, Brookdale
Living Communities, Inc., (BLC), a subsidiary of the company,
GFB-AS Investors, LLC, a subsidiary of BLC, the general partners
of the 14 investing partnerships, which are alleged to be
subsidiaries of GFB-AS, FIG Advisors LLC, an affiliate of the
Brookdale's largest stockholder, and Brookdale's chief financial
officer.

The nine-count third amended complaint alleges, among other
things:

      -- that the defendants converted for their own use the
         property of the limited partners of 11 partnerships,
         including through the failure to obtain consents the
         plaintiffs contend were required for the sale of
         facilities indirectly owned by those partnerships to
         Ventas;

      -- that the defendants fraudulently persuaded the limited
         partners of three partnerships to give up a valuable
         property right based upon incomplete, false and
         misleading statements in connection with certain
         consent solicitations;

      -- that certain defendants, including GFB-AS, the general
         partners, and Brookdale's chief financial officer, but
         not including the company, BLC, or FIG, committed mail
         fraud in connection with the sale of facilities
         indirectly owned by the 14 partnerships at issue in the
         action to Ventas;

      -- that certain defendants, including GFB-AS and
         Brookdale's chief financial officer, but not including
         the company, BLC, the general partners, or FIG,
         committed wire fraud in connection with certain
         communications with plaintiffs in the action and
         another investor in a limited partnership;

      -- that the defendants, with the exception of the company,
         committed substantive violations of the Racketeer
         Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act;

      -- that the defendants conspired to violate RICO;

      -- that GFB-AS and the general partners violated the
         partnership agreements of the 14 investing
         partnerships;

      -- that GFB-AS, the general partners, and Brookdale's
         chief financial officer breached fiduciary duties to
         the plaintiffs; and

      -- that the defendants were unjustly enriched.

The plaintiffs have asked for damages in excess of $100.0
million on each of the counts described above, including treble
damages for the RICO claims.

On April 18, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
claims with prejudice, which remains pending before the court,
and plan to continue to vigorously defend the action.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs moved to certify "Atkins" as a
class action.  Both the plaintiffs and defendants have served
document production requests and the "Atkins" is currently in
the beginning stages of document discovery.

                     Zimmerman Litigation

A putative class action was also filed on March 22, 2006, by
certain limited partners in four of the same partnerships
involved in the action described above in the Court of Chancery
for the State of Delaware.

The Delaware action is "Edith Zimmerman et al. v. GFB-AS
Investors, LLC and Brookdale Living Communities, Inc."  

On Nov. 21, 2006, an amended complaint was filed in the case.  
The putative class consists only of those limited partners in
the four investing partnerships who are not plaintiffs in
"Atkins."

"Zimmerman" names as defendants BLC and GFB-AS.  It alleges a
claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the sale of
facilities indirectly owned by the investing partnerships to
Ventas and the subsequent lease of those facilities by Ventas to
subsidiaries of BLC.

Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an accounting, damages in
an unspecified amount, and disgorgement of unspecified amounts
by which the defendants were allegedly unjustly enriched.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the company filed an answer denying the claim
asserted in the amended complaint and providing affirmative
defenses.

Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.brookdaleliving.com/.


CARROLS CORP: Employees File Certification, Discovery Motions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carrols Corp. is opposing motions for class certification and
national discovery in a purported class action filed against it
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

On Nov. 30, 2002, four former hourly employees commenced the
lawsuit, "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp."

The lawsuit alleges, in substance, that Carrols violated certain
minimum wage laws under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
related state laws by requiring employees to work without
recording their time and by retaliating against those who
complained.

Plaintiffs seek damages, costs and injunctive relief.  They also
seek to notify, and eventually certify, a class consisting of
current and former employees who, since 1998, have worked, or
are working, for Carrols.

As a result of the July 21, 2005 status conference, the parties
agreed to withdraw plaintiff's motions to certify and for
national discovery, and defendant's motion to disqualify counsel
and related motions, to allow both sides limited additional
discovery.

Carrols has since filed a motion for summary judgment as to the
existing plaintiffs that the court has under consideration.  

On Jan. 19, plaintiffs refiled a motion to certify and for
national discovery, and the company intends to oppose such a
motion, 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.

The suit is "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp., Case No.
6:02-cv-06580-DGL-MWP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York under Judge David G. Larimer with
referral to Judge Marian W. Payson.

Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick J. Solomon of Dolin,
Thomas & Solomon, LLP, 693 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14607,
Phone: 585-272-0540, Fax: 585-272-0574, E-mail:
psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com.

Representing the defendants is Helen N. Baker of Freeborn &
Peters, 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000, Chicago, IL 60606,
Phone: 312-360-6256, Fax: 312-360-6995, E-mail:
hbaker@freebornpeters.com.


CENDANT CORP: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Homestore.com Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed a
district court's dismissal of a complaint against Cendant Corp.
in the Homestore.com Securities Litigation.

On Nov. 15, 2002, Cendant and Richard A. Smith, vice chairman of
the board, president and director, were added as defendants in
the putative class action.  

The 26 other defendants in such action include Homestore.com,
Inc., certain of its officers and directors and its auditors.
Such action was filed on behalf of persons who purchased stock
of Homestore.com, an Internet-based provider of residential real
estate listings, between Jan. 1, 2000 and Dec. 21, 2001.

The complaint in this action alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act based on purported
misconduct in connection with the accounting of certain revenues
in financial statements published by Homestore during the class
period.

On March 7, 2003, the court granted Cendant's motion to dismiss
lead plaintiff's claim for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted and dismissed the complaint, as against
Cendant and Mr. Smith, with prejudice.

On March 8, 2004, the court entered final judgment, thus
allowing for an appeal to be made regarding its decision
dismissing the complaint against Cendant, Mr. Smith and others.
Oral argument of the appeal took place on Feb. 6, 2006.  

On June 30, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's
complaint.  The Court of Appeals also remanded the case back to
the district court so that the plaintiff may seek leave in the
district court to amend the complaint if that can be done
consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion.

On Dec. 19, 2006, the court entered an order denying plaintiff's
motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint against
Cendant and Richard Smith, among other parties.

The suit is "In Re Homestore.com Securities Litigation, No. 10-
CV-11115 (MJP) (U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal.)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Ronald S.W. Lew with referral to Judge Carla M. Woehrle.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bruce L. Simon of Cotchett Pitre Simon & McCarthy, San
         Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Rd., Ste.
         200, Burlingame, CA 94010, Phone: 650-697-6000, E-mail:
         bsimon@cpsmlaw.com;

     (2) Gary S. Soter of Wasserman Comden Casselman & Pearson,
         5567 Reseda Blvd., Ste. 330, P.O. Box 7033, Tarzana, CA
         91357-7033, Phone: 818-705-6800; and

     (3) Tracey L. Worthington of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
         Grossmann, 12544 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 150, San Diego,
         CA 92130, Phone: 858-793-0070.

Representing the defendants are Jeffrey H. Dasteel, Samuel
Kader and Stephen P Warren of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom,
Phone: 213-687-5000 and 212-735-3000.


CLEAN HARBORS: Still Faces Lawsuits Over 2005 Incinerator Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors El Dorado, LLC continues to face several purported
class actions in relation to a Jan. 2, 2005 fire at an
incineration facility it owned and operated.

On Aug. 18, 2006, the Clean Harbors, Inc., purchased all of the
outstanding membership interests in Teris LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and changed the name of Teris to
Clean Harbors El Dorado, LLC (CH El Dorado).  As a result of
that purchase, CH El Dorado became a wholly owned subsidiary of
the Clean Harbors, Inc.  

At the time of the acquisition, Teris was, and CH El Dorado now
is, involved in certain legal proceedings arising from a fire on
a Jan. 2, 2005, at the incineration facility owned and operated
by Teris in El Dorado, Arkansas.

The fire destroyed a warehouse on the facility site but there
were no personal injuries to any Teris personnel.  The decision
was made early after the report of the fire to let it burn
itself out.  

Teris notified the appropriate regulatory bodies, including the
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and the
Environmental Protection Agency, which sent personnel to the
facility shortly after the fire, was discovered.  

Continuous air monitoring during the fire and extensive soil and
water sampling after the fire was extinguished has revealed no
migration of hazardous materials off the plant site.

As a precautionary measure, the El Dorado police ordered a
number of nearby residents to be evacuated from their homes
overnight.  

Ultimately, certain of those residents filed three lawsuits in
the Circuit Court of Union County, Arkansas against Teris
claiming nuisance, property damage, personal injury, diminished
value of property, and the need for future medical monitoring.  

All three suits claimed the right to be certified as class
actions.  Two of the suits also claimed violation of various
federal environmental statutes.  

The third suit specifically stated that it was not claiming that
any federal statutes or regulations were violated.  The two
suits claiming violation of federal law were removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.  

Those suits were ultimately remanded back to the state court
after the federal judge found that the plaintiffs had failed to
provide notice of the alleged violations of federal law to the
appropriate federal agencies and that there was no other basis
for federal court jurisdiction because the amount of each
individual plaintiff's claim would not exceed $75 thousand.  
They are now in state court awaiting the outcome of the appeal
of class certification in the third suit.  

The third suit was certified as a class action by the state
court judge in July 2006.  That order has been appealed to the
Arkansas Supreme Court.  Briefing time has not yet been
scheduled but it is anticipated that the appeal of class
certification will not be decided until late 2007 or early 2008.

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

Clean Harbors, Inc. on the Net: http://www.cleanharbors.com/.


COLORADO: Denver Faces Civil Rights Case Over Ban of Pit Bull
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three dog owners in Denver are suing the city and the county of
Denver, Mayor John Hickenlooper and several officials over the
ban of pit bull in the city.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado by residents Sonya Dias, Hillary Engel, and Sheryl
White, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated.

The suit also names as defendants city officials Nancy Severson,
Doug Kelly, and Juan Zalasar.

The plaintiffs through counsel David A. Lane, of Killmer, Lane &
Newman, LLP and Karen Breslin, of the Progressive Law Center,
LLC, are filing the case as a civil rights action for
declaratory and injunctive relief, damages and attorneys fees.

They allege that defendants' violated olaintiffs' rights
guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the U.S.

This case arises out of Denver's ordinance that outlaws pit bull
dogs and dogs that the city deems to possess "the majority of
physical traits" associated with pit bull dogs.  Denver enacted
the ordinance in 1989.  The ordinance makes it unlawful to own,
possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor,
transport, or sell any pit bull dog within the city.

Defendants' regulation and seizure of plaintiffs' dogs allegedly
violates the Fourteenth Amendment, including Plaintiffs'
privilege against self-incrimination and plaintiffs' right to
due process of law with respect to the taking of property, and
constitutes a substantive violation of plaintiffs' liberty and
property interests.

The class that plaintiffs seek to represent is composed of
persons whose animals were seized by defendants under the Pit
Bull Ordinance after April 8, 2005 and persons who removed their
animals from Animal Control after April 8, 2005 and signed self-
incriminating statements and/or due process waivers.  

A copy of the complaint is available for free at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1cf5

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David A. Lane at The Odd Fellows Hall, 1543 Champa
         Street, Suite 400, Denver, Colorado 80202, Phone: (303)
         571-1000, Fax: (303) 571-1001, E-mail:
         dlane@killmerlane.com;

     (2) Karen Breslin at The Progressive Law Center, LLC, 2301
         So. Wadsworth, No. 3-H, Lakewood, CO 80227, Phone:
         (303) 532-6860; E-mail: karen.breslin@comcast.net.


COPART INC: Denies Claim of Excessive Charges for Storage Liens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc. denied claims filed by consumers Kimberly and Jason
Green on Aug. 7, 2006 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento.

The suit makes allegations pursuant to a California consumer
protection statute similar to a class action for unreasonable
amounts claimed for storage liens by Copart, and related claims.

The suit seeks class certification, and payment for damages,
fees, costs and expenses.  Copart filed an answer on Sept. 1,
2006 denying the claim, according to the company's March 12 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Jan. 31.  

Copart, Inc. on the Net: http://www.copart.com/.


COPART INC: No Ruling Yet in Ga. Consumer Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
The State Court for the County of Chatham, Georgia has yet to
rule on a motion for summary judgment in a class action filed
against Copart, Inc. over allegations the company charges
unreasonable amounts for storage liens.

On Sept. 16, 2005, Richard M. Gray filed the suit seeking
relief, including class certification, damages, fees, costs and
expenses.  

The company's motion for summary judgment was heard on Jan. 31,
and no decision has yet been made, according to the company's
March 12 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan. 31.  

Copart, Inc. on the Net: http://www.copart.com/.


COPART INC: Foreign Car Maintains Claim of Sherman Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana has
yet to decide whether to allow Foreign Car Sales and Service,
LLC to file a second amended complaint in a purported class
action it filed against Copart, Inc.

The suit was brought on July 28, 2006, alleging antitrust
violations and unfair trade practices.

Relief sought originally included class certification based on
unfair trade practices and Sherman Act violations, damages,
fees, costs and expenses.

On Jan. 5, the Magistrate required Foreign Car to amend its
complaint.  A first amended complaint was rejected, and a second
amended complaint was submitted Feb. 16, in which Foreign Car
abandoned its unfair trade practices claims, and now relies
simply on breach of contract claims.

Foreign Car continues to seek certification of a class based
upon violations of the Sherman Act.  Plaintiff is pro se and is
demanding a total award of 51% of the company's issued stock, as
well as approximately $97,000 in damages arising from damage to
vehicles.

The Magistrate has yet to rule on whether it will grant leave to
Foreign Car to file the second amended complaint, or dismiss all
or part of the claim, according to the company's March 12 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Jan. 31.  

The suit is "F.C.S. L.L.C. v. Copart Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00535-FJP-SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana under Judge Frank J. Polozola with
referral to Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kimuel Wayne Lee, 16137 Berryhill
Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70817, Phone: 225-751-3775.

Representing the defendants is Charles A. Schutte, Jr. of
Guglielmo, Marks, Schutte, Terhoeve & Love, 320 Somerulos
Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802, Phone:  225-387-6966, Fax: 225-
387-8230, E-mail: cschutte@gmstl.com.


COPART INC: Settles Case Over Disposal of Abandoned Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc. has reached a settlement in a purported class
action claming that the company violated state laws in the way
it disposes vehicles.

Ciano Dessources filed a lawsuit on May 21, 2003, in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court Department against
Copart of Connecticut, Inc. and Copart Inc.  

Mr. Dessources filed the suit as a purported class action on
behalf of persons whose vehicles were disposed of by the company
as abandoned vehicles.

The named plaintiff contends the vehicles were disposed of
without complying with state laws.  Relief sought includes class
certification, declaratory, remedial and/or injunctive relief,
including the ordering of a compliance program that will
essentially protect consumers, as well as damages, fees, and
costs.

On Feb. 14, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
terminating the lawsuit, according to the company's March 12
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan. 31.  

Copart, Inc. on the Net: http://www.copart.com/.


CORNELL COMPANIES: Settles N.Mex. Strip Search Suit for $1.6M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc. reached an estimated $1.6 million
settlement in a purported class action filed by a detainee at
the Lincoln County Detention Center, which is owned by the
company.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court of New
Mexico in Santa Fe, relates to a former LCDC policy that
required strip searches for all detainees and inmates.  It
alleges that such policy violates a detainee's Fourth Amendment
right.  

It was filed as a putative class action on behalf of all inmates
who were searched at the facility from May 2002 to July 2005.  

In September 2006, the company agreed to a proposed stipulation
of settlement, which is subject to the approval of the court.  

The settlement is for $1.6 million, and will be funded
principally through the company's general liability and
professional liability coverage.

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

Cornell Companies, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.cornellcompanies.com/.


DICK'S SPORTING: April 2007 Mediation Session Set for FLSA Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2007 mediation session is scheduled for several Fair
Labor Standards Act violations lawsuits against Dick's Sporting
Goods, Inc.


The company is accused of failing to pay overtime wages as
required by FLSA and applicable state labor law.

The cases, which were filed in May and November of 2005, and
April of 2006, are:

      -- "Tamara Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., and
         Galyan's Trading Company, Inc. (Barrus)," filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
         York;

      -- "Daniel Parks v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. (Parks),"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
         District of New York; and

      -- "James Premick v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.
         (Premick)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Western District of Pennsylvania.

Because until September 2006 none of these cases were certified
as class actions, the company deemed them to be claims that were
incidental to its business.

In September and October 2006, respectively, a magistrate judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
conditionally certified classes for notice purposes under the
FLSA in the Barrus and Parks cases.

The company has appealed these conditional certifications by the
magistrate judge.  The court has denied the company's appeal as
to conditional class certification in the Barrus case.

The parties and the court agreed to stop the actions pending an
attempt to resolve all claims through mediation.  Mediation is
scheduled for April 2007, according to the company's March 23
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3.

Additionally, the Premick case is on appeal following a
favorable dismissal of all claims against the company in the
trial court.

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/


DITECH COMMS: No Ruling Yet in Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion by Ditech Communications Corp.
seeking the dismissal of a second amended complaint in a
securities fraud class action filed against it.

Beginning on June 14, 2005, several purported class actions were
filed purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased the company's stock between Aug. 25, 2004 and May 26,
2005.

The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its
chief executive officer and chief financial officer in
connection with alleged misrepresentations concerning Voice
Quality Assurance orders and the potential effect on the company
of the merger between Sprint and Nextel.

All of the lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, "In
re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
C05-02406-JSW."  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on
Feb. 2, 2006.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the motion
was granted on Aug. 10, 2006, with leave to amend.  A second
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Sept. 11, 2006.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and the motion has
been fully briefed and under submission to the court since
December 2006, according to the company's March 12 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Jan. 31.

The suit is "In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02406-JSW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Representing the plaintiffs is Christopher T. Heffelfinger of
Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C., 425 California Street,
Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/433-3200, Fax:
415-433-6382, E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com.

Representing the defendants is William S. Freeman of Cooley
Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo
Alto, CA 9406-2155, Phone: 650 843-5000, Fax: 650 857-0663, E-
mail: freemanws@cooley.com.


DYNACRAFT BSC: Recalls Bicycles with Frame that can Crack in Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynacraft BSC Inc., of American Canyon, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 32,000 Triax PK7 and Vertical PK7 bicycles.

The company said the bicycle frame can crack while in use,
causing the rider to lose control and suffer injuries from a
fall or collision.

The firm has received two reports of bicycle frames cracking,
resulting in minor injuries including scratches to the legs and
feet.

This recall involves Triax PK7 (model 8509-24) and Vertical PK7
(model 8596-71T) 20-inch aluminum cushion framed bicycles.  The
Triax model was manufactured between October 2005 and May 2006,
and the Vertical model was manufactured between August 2004 and
December 2004.  The model numbers and manufacture dates are
printed on a label affixed to the bicycle frame.

These recalled bicycles were manufactured by Shun Lu Bicycle
Co., of Guangdong, China and are being sold at Target stores
nationwide from September 2004 through early February 2007 for
about $100.

Consumers are advised to stop riding these bicycles immediately
and return them to the nearest Target store to receive a full
refund, including applicable sales tax.

Pictures of the recalled bicycles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07142a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07142b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07142c.jpg

For additional information, contact Dynacraft at (800) 551-0032
between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.dynacraftbike.com.

For additional information, please contact Target at (800) 440-
0680 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.target.com.


ENRON CORP: Shareholders Seek Review of Certification Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Enron Corp. shareholders have filed a motion asking the U.S.
Supreme Court to review an appeals court ruling blocking a class
action against investment banks and firms that did business with
the energy company prior to its collapse, reports say.

On March 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled
that a suit against the investment banks was improperly
certified as a class action (Class Action Reporter, March 22,
2007).  It sent the case back to the lower court for
reconsideration.

The suit, which was filed October 2001, names as defendants
Merrill Lynch and Co. Inc. and Credit Suisse Group.  It was
filed by Enron investors seeking to recover $40 billion in
losses from the bankruptcy of the energy company.  Enron filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Dec. 2, 2001.

In June 2006, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon certified the
lawsuit as a class action.  The University of California is lead
plaintiff in the case.  It has so far reached these settlements:

Arthur Andersen LLP, Sep. 2006,               $72.5 million
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Sep. 2006,              $13.5 million
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Aug. 2005, $2.4 billion
JPMorganChase, June 2005,                      $2.2 billion
Citigroup, June 2005,                          $2 billion
Outside Directors, Jan. 2005,                $168 million
Lehman Brothers, Oct. 2004,                $222.5 million
Bank of America, July 2004,                   $69 million
Andersen Worldwide SC, 2002,                  $32 million
LJM2 bankruptcy recovery, 2004-05,            $37 million

Total recovery to date is $7.3 billion, including interest,
according to the Web site of the University of California.

Remaining defendants [as of Jan. 25, 2007] are: Credit Suisse
First Boston, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch & Co., Royal Bank of
Canada, Royal Bank of Scotland, Toronto Dominion Bank.

In January, the federal court dismissed from the suit the estate
of deceased former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay and Vinson &  
Elkins, Enron's former outside law firms.  

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to reinstate Barclays plc as a
defendant.

The point of the argument in the case against the investment
banks is whether the banks were "primary violators" and thus
liable for losses from the company's bankruptcy.  The Appeals
Court ruled against the investors saying the certification of
their suit was partly based on "legal error" regarding the
banks' liability.

William Lerach, a lawyer for the Enron investor plaintiffs, said
he would seek a Supreme Court review of the appeals court's
decision.  A trial is scheduled in the case on April 16.

Plaintiffs-Appellees are:

     -- Regents of the University of California;
     -- Washington State Investment Board;
     -- San Francisco City and County Employees' Retirement
        System;
     -- Employer-Teamsters Local Numbers 175 and 505 Pension
        Trust Fund;
     -- Hawaii Laborers Pension Plan;
     -- Staro Asset Management LLC;
     -- Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the Longview Collective
        Investment Fund;
     -- Robert V. Flint;
     -- John Zegarski; Mervin Schwartz, Jr.;
     -- Steven Smith;
     -- Archdiocese of Milwaukee;
     -- Greenville Plumbers Pension Plan;
     -- Nathaniel Pulsifer, as Trustee of the Shooters Hill
     -- Revocable Trust.

Defendants-Appellants are:

     -- Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc.;
     -- Credit Suisse First Boston LLC;
     -- Pershing LLC;
     -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.;
     -- Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.;
     
Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. are also
Appellants.

The suit is on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Case m H-01-3624).

Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick J. Coughlin of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone: (415) 288-
4545, E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Credit Card Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Intermediate, Inc. is facing a purported class action
alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which restrict the
credit card information that may be printed on customer receipts

Veronica Blanco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, filed the suit on Jan. 11 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The suit is "Blanco v. El Pollo Loco Inc. et al., Case No. 8:07-
cv-00054-JVS-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge James V. Selna with
referral to Judge Robert N. Block.

Representing the plaintiff is James Mark Moore of Spiro Moss
Barness, 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor, Los Angeles,
CA 90064, Phone: 310-235-2468, E-mail: mark@spiromoss.com.

Representing the defendant is Ralph H. Blakeney of Pillsbury
Winthrop, 650 Town Center Dr, 7th Fl., Costa Mesa, CA 92626-
7122, Phone: 714-436-6800, Fax: 714-436-2800.


FEDEX CORP: Continues to Face Wage-and-Hour Violations Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corp. remains a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in
federal or California state courts containing various class-
action allegations under federal or California wage-and-hour
laws, according to its March 23 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Feb. 28.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are employees of FedEx operating
companies who allege, among other things, that they were forced
to work "off the clock" and were not provided work breaks or
other benefits.  They generally seek unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief, or both.  

FedEx Corp. on the Net: http://www.fedex.com/.


FEDEX EXPRESS: May 2007 Trial Set for Calif. Racial Bias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a racial discrimination class action, "Satchell v.
FedEx Express, Case No. 03-2659," is currently scheduled for May
2007.

The suit against FedEx Express, a unit of FedEx Corp., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Generally, the suit alleges that the company has a culture of
hostility toward minorities and that the company turns "a blind
eye," allowing racial bias to infect performance evaluation,
promotion, compensation, and discipline decisions, according to
court documents.

Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief as well as money in the
form of front pay, back pay and compensatory and punitive
damages.

On Sept. 28, 2005, the court granted class certification to the
case, which specifically alleges discrimination by the company
in the Western region of the U.S. against certain current and
former minority employees in pay and promotion.

The suit is "Satchell v. FedEx Express, Case No. 03-2659," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Susan Illston.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Guy B. Wallace of Schneider & Wallace, 180 Montgomery
         Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, Ca 94109, Phone:
         415-421-7100, Fax: 415-421-7105, E-mail:
         gwallace@schneiderwallace.com;  

     (2) Michael S. Davis of The Law Offices of Michael S.
         Davis, 345 Hill Street, San Francisco, CA 94114, Phone:
         (415) 282-4315, Fax: (415) 358-5576, E-mail:
         msdlegal@comcast.net; and

     (3) Waukeen Q. Mccoy of The Law Offices of Waukeen Q.
         McCoy, 703 Market Street, Suite 1407, San Francisco, CA
         94103, Phone: 415-675-7705, Fax: 415-675-2530, E-mail:
         mccoylawsf@yahoo.com.  

Representing the company are Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr. and
Francis J. Ortman, III of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 560 Mission
Street, Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-397-
2823, Fax: 415-397-8549, E-mail: gdiekmann@sf.seyfarth.com; and
fortman@sf.seyfarth.com.


FEDEX GROUND: Continues to Face Owner-Operators' Suit in Ind.
-------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a unit of FedEx Corp.,
continues to face Employment Practices Litigation, MDL-1700, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

The company was initially involved in numerous purported class
actions and other proceedings that claim the company's owner-
operators should be treated as employees, rather than
independent contractors.

These matters include "Estrada v. FedEx Ground," a class action
involving single work area contractors that is pending in
California state court.  

Although the trial court has granted some of the plaintiffs'
claims for relief in "Estrada" -- $18 million, inclusive of
attorney's fees, plus equitable relief -- the appellate court
has reversed the trial court's issuance of equitable relief.

The plaintiffs petitioned the California Supreme Court for a
review of the appellate court decision, and that petition was
denied.  The company expects to prevail on the rest of the
pending appeal as well.

Adverse determinations in these matters could, among other
things, entitle certain of the company's contractors to the
reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-
and-hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax
liability for FedEx Ground.

On Aug. 10, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation granted the company's motion to transfer and
consolidate the majority of the class actions for administration
of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court.

The company reported no development in the case at its March 23
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 28.

The consolidated litigation is known as "In re FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation, MDL-
1700," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana under Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

For more details, visit http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com.


GAS COMPANIES: N.Mex., Ariz. Consumers Sue Over "Hot" Fuel
----------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico and Arizona residents, who bought gas when
temperatures were above 60 degrees Fahrenheit, filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico, alleging gas stations sell less fuel than what customers
pay for in states with warm weather, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Conocophillips Co.;  
     -- Costco Wholesale Corp.;
     -- Exxon Mobil Corp.;  
     -- Chevron USA, Inc.;  
     -- Citgo Petroleum Corp.;
     -- Shell Oil Products Co.; LLC and
     -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The suit accuses defendants of refusing to adopt a temperature-
controlled standard when selling retail gas.  As the temperature
rises, gas expands and becomes less dense, making the same
quantity of gas take up more volume at higher temperatures, the
plaintiffs claim.

Plaintiffs bring the class action complaint individually and on
behalf of persons who purchased Motor Fuel in the States of New
Mexico and Arizona when the Motor Fuel at the time of sale to
plaintiffs or class members was greater than 60 degrees
Fahrenheit.

During each such sale of "hot" Motor Fuel, the defendants
allegedly delivered a smaller quantity of Motor Fuel to
plaintiffs or class members than the amount for which defendants
charged them because the defendants measured the amount of Motor
Fuel they delivered in non-standard "gallons" that contained
variable quantities of Motor Fuel depending on the temperature
of the Motor Fuel.

The defendants continue these practices, which are injurious to
plaintiffs and class members.

The National Bureau of Standards defined one gallon as 231 cubic
inches at 60 degrees Fahrenheit, but the plaintiffs say the
defendants rejected this standard.

Questions of law and fact common to the class includes:

     a. Whether the Defendants sell Motor Fuel to consumers at
        temperatures above 60 degrees Fahrenheit;

     b. Whether "gallon," as that term is used in the retail
        sale of Motor Fuel, is a standard unit of measure that
        has a recognized and permanent value, such that the
        amount of Motor Fuel in one gallon does not vary and is
        always the same in every gallon;

     c. Whether the Defendants' practice of measuring Motor Fuel
        delivered in retail sales transactions by a non-
        standard, non-temperature adjusted "gallon" is an unfair
        practice;

     d. Whether the Defendants' practice of measuring Motor Fuel
        delivered in retail sales transactions by a non
        standard, non-temperature adjusted "gallon" is a
        fraudulent practice;

     e. Whether the Defendants' practice of measuring Motor Fuel
        delivered in retail sales transactions by a non-
        standard, non-temperature adjusted "gallon" is a
        deceptive practice;

     f. Whether the Defendants' practice of measuring Motor Fuel
        delivered in retail sales transactions by a non-
        standard, non-temperature adjusted "gallon" is an
        unlawful practice;

     g. Whether the Defendants' practice of measuring Motor Fuel
        delivered in retail sales transactions by a non-
        standard, non-temperature adjusted "gallon" is an
        unconscionable practice;

     h. Whether the Defendants' practice of measuring Motor Fuel
        delivered in retail sales transactions by a non-
        standard, non-temperature adjusted "gallon" has harmed
        Plaintiffs and Class;

     i. Whether the Defendants have been unjustly enriched by
        the sale of non-standard, non-temperature-adjusted
        "gallons" of Motor Fuel to the Plaintiffs and Class.

     j. Whether the Defendants' practice of measuring Motor Fuel
        delivered in retail sales transactions by a non-
        standard, non-temperature adjusted "gallon" should be
        enjoined; and

     k. Whether the Defendants should be required to make
        Plaintiffs and Class members whole for any harm caused
        by the Defendants' practice of measuring Motor Fuel
        delivered in retail sales transactions by a non-
        standard, non-temperature-adjusted "gallon" and, if so,
        in what amount.

Plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- enjoin Defendants from engaging in unlawful conduct
        alleged in the complaint;

     -- require the Defendants to install temperature correcting
        equipment on their retail Motor Fuel dispensing devices
        or require Defendants to post conspicuous notice on
        their retail Motor Fuel dispensing devices notifying
        consumers of the temperature at which the Motor Fuel is
        being sold and the effect of temperature on the energy
        content of Motor Fuel;

     -- require Defendants to notify all affected persons of the
        Court's injunction;

     -- declare that selling Motor Fuel in non-standard gallons
        or at temperatures above 60 degrees Fahrenheit without
        volume adjustment violates the Arizona Consumer Fraud
        Act;

     -- award monetary damages incidental to the requested
        injunctive or declaratory relief; and

     -- award Plaintiffs and/or Class members a reasonable
        attorneys' fee and award such other relief as the Court
        may deem just and proper.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ce6

The suit is "Barker et al. v. Chevron USA, et, al., Case No.
2:07-cv-00293-RB-RLP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico under Judge Robert Brack, with referral
to Judge Richard L. Puglisi.

Representing plaintiffs is Shane C. Youtz, 900 Gold Ave. SW,
Albuquerque, NM 87102, Phone: 5052441200, E-mail:
shane@youtzvaldez.com.


INSURANCE BROKERAGE LITIGATION: Antitrust Charges Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Garrett E. Brown Jr. dismissed charges of bid rigging and
account steering against numerous commercial insurers and
brokers, the Insurance Journal reports.

Judge Brown determined that plaintiffs, who consist of public
entities and companies that purchased insurance from and through
the defendants, failed to show that the defendants conspired to
suppress competition and fraudulently sell insurance and
benefits in violation of the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt
Organization Act or federal Sherman Antitrust Act.  He granted
plaintiffs 30 days to amend the case.

A number of class actions filed against more than 100 insurance
companies and brokers have been consolidated into two actions
currently pending before Judge Brown in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey:

     -- "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Civil
         No. 04-5184 (GEB) (concerning the brokering of
         commercial insurance); and

     -- "In re Employee Benefits Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
         Litigation, Civil No. 05-1079 (GEB) (concerning the
         brokering of employee benefits insurance)."

The suits alleged brokers and insurers conspired in an industry-
wide practice of manipulating the market for insurance through
the use and payment of undisclosed contingent commissions, bid-
rigging and other practices.

In summary, the ruling dismissed conspiracy charges against
insurers and brokers; pointed out that the contingent
commissions are not illegal or anticompetitive; and freed The
Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers of charges of
racketeering.  

While CIAB provides its members with networking opportunities
and communications tools, Judge Brown ruled that plaintiffs
"failed to assert any fact indicating the presence of a nexus"
between CIAB and defendants' alleged fraudulent activity,
according to the report.

The rulings involved consolidated cases brought by employees of
companies that bought employee benefits from MetLife and other
insurers through various large insurance brokers, including
Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc, Seabury & Smith Insurance and Aon
Corp., and employees whose companies purchased property/casualty
insurance from AIG Inc., Chubb Corp., Fireman's Fund Insurance
Co., XL Insurance, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and other insurers
through Marsh, Aon, Willis, Brown & Brown and others.

The suit was originally filed by about 14 businesses, two
municipalities and three individuals against 78 commercial
insurers and 37 broker defendants.  The insurer defendants
include American International Group Inc., Hartford Financial
Services Group Inc., Ace Ltd. Broker defendants include Marsh,
Aon Corp., Willis Group Holdings Ltd. and Arthur J. Gallagher &
Co.


INTEX RECREATION: Recalls Pool Ladders After Reports of Breakage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intex Recreation Corp., of Long Beach, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 466,000 "Intex," "Easy Set" and "Sand N Sun"
above-ground pool ladders.

The company said the ladder's plastic steps can be assembled
backward on the support brackets.  If this happens, the ladder
steps can break and the user can fall.

Intex has received 172 reports of steps breaking during use.
There were 127 reports of injuries, including six leg
lacerations requiring up to 21 stitches, five reports of bone
fractures, two back injuries, two reports of torn ligaments,
eight sprained ankles, and other minor injuries.

The recall includes 42-inch, 48-inch, and 52-inch "A" frame pool
ladders.  The ladders were sold with above ground pools with the
brand names "Intex," "Easy Set" and "Sand N Sun" in the
following sizes:

    15-foot by 42-inch 15-foot by 48-inch 16-foot by 42-inch
    16-foot by 48-inch 18-foot by 48-inch 24-foot by 52-inch

Each leg of the recalled ladder has two pieces joined together
with a metal sleeve.  The ladders have either three or four blue
plastic steps on each side of the "A" that attach to blue
plastic support brackets mounted on the legs.

The following pool ladders are not included in the recall:

     -- "A" frame ladders with single piece legs
     -- "A" frame ladders with two-piece legs and a 300 lb.
        weight limit listed on the ladder warning label (sold
        with pools after February 2007).

These recalled above-ground pool ladders were manufactured in
China and are being sold at Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, and Target
stores nationwide, from February 2006 through February 2007.  
Pools with 52-inch ladders were also sold at other retailers
nationwide during this time.  Above-ground pool sets that
included the ladders sold for between $150 and $800 depending on
pool size and included accessories.

Picture of recalled above-ground pool ladders:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07147.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the ladders and
contact Intex to obtain information about how to obtain a free
replacement ladder.

Consumers should call Intex at (800) 549-8829 between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.intexcorp.com.


IPO LITIGATION: 2nd Circuit Refuses to Review Decertification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request to
reconsider its decision to overturn the certification of six
cases in the Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation (05-
3349-cv), reports say.

On Oct. 13, 2004, six selected focus cases, among the more than
300 coordinated cases in the IPO allocation litigation, were
certified as class actions.  The actions are coordinated for
pretrial purposes before U.S. District Court Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York.

The six focus cases are that against Corvis Corp.; Engage
Technologies, Inc.; Firepond, Inc.; iXL Enterprises, Inc.;
Sycamore Networks, Inc.; and VA Linux Corp.

The IPO Litigation consists of 309 class actions involving more
than 300 IPOs marketed between 1998 and 2000.  The defendants
include the companies brought public, certain of their officers
and directors and 55 of the investment banks that brought them
public and underwrote various follow-on offerings.

The lawsuits allege that the IPO offerings were manipulated by
the investment banks to artificially inflate the market price of
those securities and to reap excessive compensation and that
their conduct was concealed from the public, in violation of the
federal securities laws.  There are also allegations that they
misused their securities analysts to hype the stock.

In June 2006, The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee announced that
a proposed settlement between the issuer defendants and their
directors and officers and the plaintiffs has been structured in
the IPO Securities Litigation which would guarantee at least (or
the first) $1 billion dollars to investors who are class members
from the insurers of the issuers.

On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
issued a decision reversing the court's ruling certifying six of
the cases in the consolidated proceedings as class actions.

On Dec. 14, 2006, the court agreed to stay all proceedings,
including consideration of the settlement, pending a decision
from the 2nd Circuit on whether it will hear further argument on
the class certification issue.

In seeking for a review, plaintiffs argued that the initial
decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted
incorrect standards that a district court must apply in
determining whether to grant class certification, according to
Law.com.

They also said the circuit erred in concluding that the
criterion for certification set out in Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure could not be satisfied with
respect to their class, and argued that a remand was appropriate
to enable the district court to reconsider the class
certification motion under the standards set forth by the
circuit.

"Our ruling rejected class certification only of the class as
certified by the district court," U.S. Circuit Judge Jon O.
Newman wrote in the order, according to Dow Jones.  "Nothing in
our decision precludes the petitioners from returning to the
district court to seek certification of a more modest class."

The proposed class is any person or entity who bought shares of
any of the corporations listed below on or prior to Dec. 6,
2000.

ISSUER                                      BEGIN DATE END DATE

724 Solutions, Inc.                         01/27/00 12/06/00
Accelerated Networks, Inc.                  06/22/00 12/06/00
ACLARA BioSciences, Inc.                    03/20/00 12/06/00
Aether Systems, Inc.                        10/20/99 12/06/00
AGENCY.COM, Ltd.                            12/08/99 12/06/00
Agile Software Corp.                        08/20/99 12/06/00
Agilent Technologies, Inc.                  11/17/99 12/06/00
AirNet Communications                       12/06/99 12/06/00
Airspan Networks, Inc.                      07/19/00 12/06/00
Akamai Technologies, Inc.                   10/28/99 12/06/00
Alamosa PCS Holdings, Inc.                  02/03/00 12/06/00
Alloy Online, Inc.                          05/14/99 12/06/00
Antigenics Inc. (named as Antigenics, Inc.) 02/03/00 12/06/00
Apropos Technology, Inc.                    02/17/00 12/06/00
Ariba, Inc.                                 06/23/99 12/06/00
Ashford.com, Inc.                           09/22/99 12/06/00
AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc.                     03/03/00 12/06/00
Ask Jeeves, Inc.                            07/01/99 12/06/00
Audible, Inc.                               07/15/99 12/06/00
Autobytel.com, Inc.                         03/26/99 12/06/00
AutoWeb.com, Inc.                           03/23/99 12/06/00
Avanex Corporation                          02/03/00 12/06/00
AvantGo, Inc.                               09/27/00 12/06/00
Avenue A, Inc.                              02/28/00 12/06/00
Avici Systems Inc. (named as Avici Systems, 07/27/00 12/06/00
Inc.)                                           
BackWeb Technologies Ltd.                  06/07/99 12/06/00
Be Free, Inc.                              11/03/99 12/06/00
Blue Martini Software, Inc.                07/24/00 12/06/00
Bookham Technology PLC                     04/11/00 12/06/00
Bottomline Technologies, Inc.              02/12/99 12/06/00
Braun Consulting, Inc.                     08/10/99 12/06/00
Breakaway Solutions, Inc.                  10/05/99 12/06/00
Brocade Communication Systems, Inc.        05/24/99 12/06/00
BSQUARE Corporation                        10/19/99 12/06/00
Buy.com, Inc.                              02/07/00 12/06/00
CacheFlow, Inc. (now Blue Coat Systems)    11/19/99 12/06/00
Caldera International, Inc.                03/20/00 12/06/00
Calico Commerce, Inc.                      10/06/99 12/06/00
Caliper Technologies Corp. (now Caliper Life
Sciences, Inc.)
                                           12/14/99 12/06/00
Capstone Turbine Corp.                     06/28/00 12/06/00
Carrier1 International SA                  02/23/00 12/06/00
Centra Software, Inc.                      02/03/00 12/06/00
chinadotcom corporation                    07/12/99 12/06/00
Choice One Communications, Inc.            02/16/00 12/06/00
Chordiant Software, Inc.                   02/14/00 12/06/00
Clarent Corporation                        06/30/99 12/06/00
CNET Networks (named as successor-ininterest
to Ziff-Davis)1                            03/30/99 12/06/00
Cobalt Networks, Inc.                      11/05/99 12/06/00
Commerce One, Inc.                         07/01/99 12/06/00
Concur Technologies, Inc.                  12/16/98 12/06/00
Copper Mountain Networks, Inc.             05/12/99 12/06/00
Corio, Inc.                                07/21/00 12/06/00
Corvis Corp.                               07/27/00 12/06/00
Cosine Communications, Inc.                09/25/00 12/06/00
Covad Communications Group, Inc.           01/21/99 12/06/00
Critical Path, Inc.                        03/29/99 12/06/00
CyberSource Corporation                    06/23/99 12/06/00
Daleen Technologies, Inc.                  09/30/99 12/06/00
Data Return Corp.                          10/27/99 12/06/00
deCODE Genetics, Inc.                      07/17/00 12/06/00
Delano Technology Corporation              02/09/00 12/06/00
deltathree, Inc.                           11/22/99 12/06/00
Dice, Inc. (named as EarthWeb, Inc.)       11/10/98 12/06/00
Digimarc Corporation                       12/01/99 12/06/00
Digital Impact, Inc.                       11/22/99 12/06/00
Digital Insight Corp.                      09/30/99 12/06/00
Digital Island Corporation (now Cable &
Wireless plc)                              06/29/99 12/06/00
Digital River, Inc.                        08/11/98 12/06/00
DigitalThink, Inc.                         02/24/00 12/06/00
Digitas, Inc.                              03/13/00 12/06/00
Diversa Corp.                              02/14/00 12/06/00
DoubleClick, Inc.                          12/11/98 12/06/00
Drugstore.com, Inc.                        07/28/99 12/06/00
Epiphany, Inc.                             09/21/99 12/06/00
eBenX Inc.                                 12/09/99 12/06/00
eGain Communications Corp.                 09/23/99 12/06/00
El Sitio, Inc.                             12/10/99 12/06/00
E-Loan, Inc.                               06/28/99 12/06/00
Eloquent, Inc.                             02/16/00 12/06/00
Engage Technologies, Inc.                  07/20/99 12/06/00
Equinix, Inc.                              08/10/00 12/06/00
eToys, Inc.                                05/20/99 12/06/00
Evolve Software, Inc.                      08/09/00 12/06/00
Exchange Applications, Inc.                12/09/98 12/06/00
EXFO Electro Optical Engineering, Inc.     06/29/00 12/06/00
Expedia, Inc.                              11/09/99 12/06/00
Extensity, Inc.                            01/26/00 12/06/00
Extreme Networks, Inc.                     04/08/99 12/06/00
F5 Networks, Inc.                          06/04/99 12/06/00
Fairmarket, Inc.                           03/14/00 12/06/00
Fatbrain.com                               11/19/98 12/06/00
Finisar Corp.                              11/11/99 12/06/00
FirePond, Inc.                             02/04/00 12/06/00
FlashNet Communications, Inc.              03/16/99 12/06/00
Focal Communications                       07/28/99 12/06/00
Foundry Networks, Inc.                     09/27/99 12/06/00
FreeMarkets, Inc.                          12/09/99 12/06/00
Gadzoox Networks, Inc.                     07/19/99 12/06/00
Gigamedia Ltd.                             02/17/00 12/06/00
Global Crossing Ltd.                       08/13/98 12/06/00
GlobeSpan, Inc. (now GlobeSpanVirata, Inc.)06/23/99 12/06/00
GoTo.com (now Overture Services, Inc.)     06/18/99 12/06/00
GRIC Communications                        12/14/99 12/06/00
GT Group Telecom, Inc.                     03/09/00 12/06/00
Handspring, Inc. (now PalmOne, Inc.)       06/20/00 12/06/00
High Speed Access Corp.                    06/04/99 12/06/00
Hoover's, Inc.                             07/20/99 12/06/00
iBasis, Inc.                               11/10/99 12/06/00
iBeam Broadcasting Corporation             05/17/00 12/06/00
iManage, Inc.                              11/17/99 12/06/00
Immersion Corp.                            11/12/99 12/06/00
Impsat Fiber Networks, Inc.                01/31/00 12/06/00
Informatica Corp.                          04/28/99 12/06/00
InforMax, Inc. (now Invitrogen Corp.)      10/02/00 12/06/00
Inforte Corp.                              02/17/00 12/06/00
Inrange Technologies Corp.                 09/21/00 12/06/00
InsWeb Corp.                               07/22/99 12/06/00
Integrated Information Systems, Inc.       03/17/00 12/06/00
Integrated Telecom Express, Inc.           08/18/00 12/06/00
InterNAP Network Services Corporation      09/29/99 12/06/00
Internet Capital Group                     08/04/99 12/06/00
Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.            08/03/99 12/06/00
Intersil Holding Corp.                     02/24/00 12/06/00
InterTrust Technologies Corp.              10/26/99 12/06/00
interWAVE Communications InternationalLtd. 01/31/00 12/06/00
Interwoven, Inc.                           10/08/99 12/06/00
Intraware, Inc.                            02/25/99 12/06/00
iPrint.com, Inc. (now iPrint Technologies,
inc.)                                      03/07/00 12/06/00
ITXC Corporation                           09/27/99 12/06/00
iVillage, Inc.                             03/18/99 12/06/00
iXL Enterprises, Inc.                      06/02/99 12/06/00
Jazztel PLC                                12/08/99 12/06/00
JNI Corp.                                  10/26/99 12/06/00
Juniper Networks Inc.                      06/24/99 12/06/00
Kana Software, Inc.                        09/21/99 12/06/00
Keynote Systems Inc.                       09/24/99 12/06/00
Korea Thrunet Co. Ltd.                     09/16/99 12/06/00
Lante Corporation                          02/10/00 12/06/00
Latitude Communications, Inc.              05/06/99 12/06/00
Lexent Inc.                                07/27/00 12/06/00
Liberate Technologies (named as Liberate
Technologies, Inc.)                        07/27/99 12/06/00
Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.              08/20/99 12/06/00
Liquid Audio, Inc.                         07/08/99 12/06/00
Loudeye Technologies, Inc.                 03/15/00 12/06/00
Manufacturers Services Ltd.                06/22/00 12/06/00
Marimba, Inc.                              04/29/99 12/06/00
MarketWatch.com, Inc.                      01/15/99 12/06/00
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.      10/18/99 12/06/00
Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.             06/27/00 12/06/00
MatrixOne, Inc.                            03/01/00 12/06/00
Maxygen, Inc.                              12/15/99 12/06/00
McAfee.com Corp.                           12/01/99 12/06/00
McData Corporation                         08/09/00 12/06/00
MCK Communications, Inc.                   10/22/99 12/06/00
Mediaplex, Inc.                            11/19/99 12/06/00
MedicaLogic, Inc.                          12/10/99 12/06/00
MetaSolv Software, Inc.                    11/17/99 12/06/00
Metawave Communications Corp.              04/26/00 12/06/00
Microtune, Inc.                            08/04/00 12/06/00
Modem Media, Inc.                          02/05/99 12/06/00
MP3.com, Inc.                              07/21/99 12/06/00
Multex.com, Inc.                           03/17/99 12/06/00
NaviSite, Inc.                             10/22/99 12/06/00
Neoforma.com, Inc.                         01/24/00 12/06/00
Net Perceptions, Inc.                      04/22/99 12/06/00
Net2000 Communications, Inc.               03/06/00 12/06/00
Net2Phone, Inc.                            07/29/99 12/06/00
Netcentives, Inc.                          10/13/99 12/06/00
NetRatings, Inc.                           12/08/99 12/06/00
Netro Corporation (now SR Telecom Inc.)    08/18/99 12/06/00
NetSilicon, Inc.                           09/15/99 12/06/00
NetSolve, Inc.                             09/29/99 12/06/00
Network Engines Inc.                       07/13/00 12/06/00
Network Plus Corporation                   06/29/99 12/06/00
NetZero, Inc.                              09/23/99 12/06/00
New Focus, Inc.                            05/17/00 12/06/00
Next Level Communications                  11/09/99 12/06/00
NextCard, Inc.                             05/14/99 12/06/00
Nextel Partners, Inc.                      02/22/00 12/06/00
Niku Corp.                                 02/28/00 12/06/00
Northpoint Communications Group Inc.       05/05/99 12/06/00
Nuance Communications, Inc.                04/12/00 12/06/00
OmniSky Corp.                              09/20/00 12/06/00
OmniVision Technologies, Inc.              07/14/00 12/06/00
ON Semiconductor Corporation (named as
ON Semiconductor Corp.)                    04/27/00 12/06/00
ONI Systems Corp. (now CIENA Corp.)        06/01/00 12/06/00
Onvia.com, Inc.                            02/29/00 12/06/00
Onyx Software Corp.                        02/11/99 12/06/00
OpenTV Corp.                               11/23/99 12/06/00
Openwave Systems Inc. (named as Openwave
Systems, Inc.) (f/k/a Phone.com, Inc.)     06/11/99 12/06/00
Oplink Communications, Inc.                10/03/00 12/06/00
Optio Software, Inc.                       12/15/99 12/06/00
OraPharma, Inc.                            03/09/00 12/06/00
Oratec Interventions, Inc.                 04/04/00 12/06/00
Orchid Biosciences, Inc.                   05/04/00 12/06/00
Organic, Inc.                              02/09/00 12/06/00
OTG Software, Inc.                         03/10/00 12/06/00
Pacific Internet Ltd.                      02/05/99 12/06/00
Packeteer, Inc.                            07/27/99 12/06/00
Pac-West Telecomm, Inc.                    11/03/99 12/06/00
Palm Inc.                                  03/01/00 12/06/00
Paradyne Networks, Inc.                    07/15/99 12/06/00
pcOrder.com, Inc. (named as PCOrder.com,
Inc.) (now Trilogy Software, Inc.)         02/25/99 12/06/00
Perot Systems Corp.                        02/01/99 12/06/00
PlanetRX.com                               10/06/99 12/06/00
Portal Software, Inc.                      05/05/99 12/06/00
Predictive Systems, Inc.                   10/27/99 12/06/00
Preview Systems, Inc.                      12/07/99 12/06/00
priceline.com Inc. (named as Priceline.com,
Inc.)                                      03/30/99 12/06/00
Primus Knowledge Solutions Inc.            07/01/99 12/06/00
Prodigy Communications Inc.                02/10/99 12/06/00
Proton Energy Systems, Inc.                09/28/00 12/06/00
PSi Technologies Holdings, Inc.            03/16/00 12/06/00
PurchasePro.com, Inc.                      09/13/99 12/06/00
Quest Software, Inc.                       08/13/99 12/06/00
Quicklogic Corp.                           10/14/99 12/06/00
Radio One, Inc.                            05/06/99 12/06/00
Radio Unica Communications Corp.           10/19/99 12/06/00
Radware Ltd.                               09/30/99 12/06/00
Ravisent Technologies, Inc.                07/16/99 12/06/00
Razorfish, Inc.                            04/26/99 12/06/00
Red Hat, Inc.                              08/11/99 12/06/00
Redback Networks, Inc.                     05/17/99 12/06/00
Regent Communications Inc.                 01/24/00 12/06/00
Register.com, Inc.                         03/02/00 12/06/00
Repeater Technologies, Inc.                08/08/00 12/06/00
Resonate, Inc.                             08/02/00 12/06/00
Retek Inc.                                 11/17/99 12/06/00
Rhythms NetConnections, Inc.               04/06/99 12/06/00
Rowecom, Inc.                              03/09/99 12/06/00
Saba Software, Inc.                        04/06/00 12/06/00
Satyam Infoway, Inc.                       10/18/99 12/06/00
SciQuest.com, Inc.                         11/19/99 12/06/00
Selectica, Inc.                            03/09/00 12/06/00
Sequenom, Inc.                             01/31/00 12/06/00
Silicon Image, Inc.                        10/05/99 12/06/00
Silicon Laboratories, Inc.                 03/24/00 12/06/00
SilverStream Software, Inc.                08/16/99 12/06/00
Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. (f/k/a Stanford
Microdevices)                              05/24/00 12/06/00
SmartDisk Corporation                      10/05/99 12/06/00
SMTC Corp.                                 07/20/00 12/06/00
SonicWALL, Inc.                            11/11/99 12/06/00
Sonus Networks, Inc.                       05/24/00 12/06/00
Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc.          10/27/99 12/06/00
Stamps.com, Inc.                           06/24/99 12/06/00
StarMedia Network, Inc. (now CycleLogic,
Inc.)                                      05/25/99 12/06/00
StorageNetworks, Inc.                      06/29/00 12/06/00
Stratos Lightwave, Inc. (now known as
Stratos International, Inc.)               06/26/00 12/06/00
Support.com, Inc. (now SupportSoft, Inc.) 07/18/00 12/06/00
Switchboard, Inc.                         03/02/00 12/06/00
Sycamore Networks, Inc.                   10/21/99 12/06/00
Talarian Corporation                      07/20/00 12/06/00
Telaxis Communications Corp. (now YDI
Wireless, Inc.)                           02/01/00 12/06/00
TeleCommunication Systems Inc.            08/07/00 12/06/00
TeleCorp PCS, Inc.                        11/23/99 12/06/00
TenFold Corp.                             05/21/99 12/06/00
Terra Networks, S.A.                      11/15/99 12/06/00
TheGlobe.com, Inc.                        11/12/98 12/06/00
TheStreet.com, Inc.                       05/10/99 12/06/00
TIBCO Software, Inc.                      07/13/99 12/06/00
Ticketmaster Online-CitySearch, Inc. (now
Ticketmaster)                             12/02/98 12/06/00
Tickets.com, Inc.                         11/03/99 12/06/00
Tippingpoint Technologies, Inc.           03/17/00 12/06/00
TiVo, Inc.                                09/29/99 12/06/00
Transmeta Corporation (named as Transmeta
Corp.)                                    11/06/00 12/06/00
Triton Network Systems, Inc.              07/12/00 12/06/00
Turnstone Systems, Inc.                   01/31/00 12/06/00
Tut Systems, Inc.                         01/29/99 12/06/00
UAXS Global Holdings Inc. (now Universal
Access Global Holdings Inc.)              03/16/00 12/06/00
United Pan-European Communications NV     02/11/99 12/06/00
Usinternetworking, Inc.                   04/08/99 12/06/00
UTStarcom, Inc.                           03/02/00 12/06/00
VA Linux Systems Inc. (now VA Software
Corp.)                                    12/09/99 12/06/00
ValiCert, Inc.                            07/27/00 12/06/00
Valley Media, Inc.                        03/26/99 12/06/00
Value America, Inc.                       04/08/99 12/06/00
Variagenics, Inc.                         07/21/00 12/06/00
Ventro Corporation (now NexPrise, Inc.)   07/26/99 12/06/00
Verado Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a First World   
Comm. Inc.)                               03/08/00 12/06/00
VerticalNet, Inc.                         02/10/99 12/06/00
VIA Net.Works, Inc.                       02/11/00 12/06/00
Viador, Inc.                              10/25/99 12/06/00
Viant Corporation                         06/17/99 12/06/00
Vicinity Corporation                      02/09/00 12/06/00
Vignette Corp.                            02/19/99 12/06/00
Virage, Inc.                              06/29/00 12/06/00
Vitria Technology, Inc.                   09/16/99 12/06/00
Vixel Corp. (now Emulex Corp.)            10/01/99 12/06/00
WebMD Corporation                         02/10/99 12/06/00
webMethods, Inc. (named as WebMethods,
Inc.)                                     02/10/00 12/06/00
Webvan Group, Inc.                        11/04/99 12/06/00
Wink Communications                       08/19/99 12/06/00
Wireless Facilities, Inc.                 11/04/99 12/06/00
Women.com Networks, Inc.                  10/14/99 12/06/00
World Wrestling Federation Entertainment,
Inc.                                      10/18/99 12/06/00
XCare.net, Inc. (now Quovadx, Inc.)       02/09/00 12/06/00
Xpedior, Inc.                             12/15/99 12/06/00
Z-Tel Technologies, Inc.                   12/15/99 12/06/00

1 This settlement applies only to investors in the class of
Ziff-Davis, Inc. stock intended to track the performance of the
ZDNet business unit, which is traded under the symbol ZDZ.  This
settlement does not apply to investors in other securities
issued by Ziff-Davis, Inc. or CNET Networks, Inc.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


LEADING EDGE: Settles Colo. Lawsuit Over VigRx for $6.5M
--------------------------------------------------------
Leading Edge Marketing Inc., a Canadian company that sells
penis-enlargement products, agreed to settle a class action
filed on behalf of more than 420,000 users of the VigRx dietary
supplement for $6.5 million, the CourtHouse News reports.

Under the agreement, class members -- namely, anyone who has
purchased VigRx since October 2001 -- are entitled to either:

     -- a $10 cash rebate;
     -- a $39.95 e-book "relating to men's sexual and
        reproductive health;" or
     -- a six-month subscription to anti-spam software worth
        $24.95.

The settlement fund includes $4.2 million for the cash rebate,
with the remaining $2.3 million to cover attorney's fees and a
well-deserved incentive award for lead plaintiff Jeffery Horton.

Mr. Horton filed a consumer fraud suit in 2004 against the
Canadian company and others involved in the manufacture and sale
of the product.

The suit was filed against:

     -- Leading Edge Marketing Inc. (British Columbia);   
     -- Leading Edge Marketing Inc. (Bahamas);
     -- Leading Edge Marketing Ltd.;
     -- Unipay Processing, Ltd.;
     -- DM Contact Management Ltd.;
     -- TechniPak, L.L.C.;
     -- Advanced Botanicals, Ltd.;
     -- Geoffrey M. MacKay;
     -- Andrew A. MacKay;
     -- Mark D. Scheidt;
     -- Douglas R. MacKay;
     -- Matthew Clayton; and
     -- Warren S. Brander.

The suit claims the VigRx products don't produce the permanent
enlargement and cure for erectile dysfunction that the company
promises on its website and elsewhere.

In May 2005, Judge Phillip Figa of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado found enough merit in the case to grant
conditional class certification (Class Action Reporter, May 30,
2005).

While an appeal of that decision was pending, the parties
conducted lengthy negotiations with a mediator that culminated
in the settlement.

With the settlement, Leading Edge Marketing, avoids a jury award
that would not have been covered by insurance and could have
exceeded its total assets.

"Any judgment or settlement would have to be financed from the
assets of the Leading Edge Defendants, the Other Defendants
being unable to contribute significantly to the settlement
without severe hardship and business interruption," a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement says.

The suit is "Horton v. Leading Edge Mkt BC, et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-00212-PSF-CBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Phillip S. Figa with referral
to Judge Craig B. Shaffer.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bradley S. Corsello of Corsello Law P.C., 485 Seventh
         Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10471, Phone: 646-330-
         5409, Fax: 646-202-2833, E-mail:
         bcorsello@corsellolaw.com;

     (2) James A. Jablonski of Rumler Tarbox Lyden Law Corp.
         P.C., 1777 South Harrison Street, #1250 Denver
         Centerpoint II, Denver, CO 80210, Phone: 303-333-7733,
         Fax: 303-355-6036, E-mail: jjablonski@rumlerlaw.com;
         and

     (4) David B. Seserman of Hale Friesen, LLP, 1430 Wynkoop
         Street, #300 Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 720-904-6000,
         Fax: 720-904-6006, E-mail:
         sesermanusdc@halefriesen.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Steven Robert Ebert of Ebert & Associates, LLC, 350 5th
         Avenue, #4011 New York, NY 10118, Phone: 212-290-4000,
         Fax: 212-290-1717, E-mail: steven.ebert@ejlaw.net;

     (2) Michael Stephen Freeman and Steven David Zansberg, both
         of Faegre & Benson, LLP-Denver CO, 1700 Lincoln Street,
         #3200 Wells Fargo Center, Denver, CO 80203-4532, Phone:
         303-607-3500, Fax: 303-607-3600, E-mail:
         mfreeman@faegre.com or szansberg@faegre.com;

     (3) Stanley L. Garnett, Annie T. Kao and Connie Louise
         Peterson, all of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, P.C.,
         410 17th Street, #2200 Denver, CO 80202-4437, Phone:
         303-223-1100, Fax: 303-223-1111, E-mail:
         sgarnett@bhfs.com or akao@bhf-law.com or
         cpeterson@bhf-law.com;

     (4) Robert Benson Jancu of Jancu PLLC, 101 Groton Street,
         Third Floor, Forest Hills, NY 11375, Phone: 718-263-
         2010, Fax: 718-732-2663, E-mail: rjancu@jancu.com;

     (5) James Raymond Prochnow and Justin James Prochnow, both
         of Greenberg Traurig, LLP-Denver, 1200 Seventeenth
         Street, #2400 Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-572-6546 or
         303-572-6562, Fax: 303-572-6540, E-mail:
         prochnowj@gtlaw.com or prochnowjj@gtlaw.com.


LOS ALAMOS: Former Pathologist Settles Lawsuit for $800T
--------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico District Judge James Hall has approved a $800,000
settlement reached by a former Los Alamos pathologist with
families of people whose organs were taken at Los Alamos Medical
Center for use in a Cold War-era study into radiation, the
plaintiff's attorney, John Bienven, said, according to The
Associated Press.

Dr. Michael W. Stewart was involved in a program in which
pathologists at the hospital provided Los Alamos National
Laboratory with tissue samples from patients whose families were
not told of the use of the tissues in autopsy releases.

The class action was filed in 1996 by Katie Kelley Mareau, whose
father, Cecil Kelley, died in January 1959 after being exposed
to a plutonium mixture at the laboratory.  His organs were the
first tissues removed for the study.

Dr. Stewart was added as a defendant in 1999.  He admitted no
wrongdoing in the settlement.  About $200,000 of the settlement
will go for attorneys' fees, according to court documents.

The medical center and the University of California, which ran
the lab at the time, agreed to settle their part of the lawsuit
in 2001 for $9.5 million.  More than 400 families shared in the
settlement.


MICHIGAN: Corrections Dept. Ordered to Install Cooling Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Richard Enslen ordered the Michigan
Corrections Department to install cooling equipment in some
Jackson-area prisons to address concerns in a suit accusing the
state of providing inferior medical and mental health care for
inmates, Citizen Patriot News Service.

The case filed in the 1980s against the prison system alleges
that the hospital and other medical units in the Jackson prison
complex are understaffed by doctors and nurses.  As a result,
written requests by inmates for medical help often are delayed
for several days or ignored; referrals to outside medical
specialists are routinely delayed for weeks and even months
while sick inmates get sicker and, in some case, die; and
prescriptions for serious illnesses often go unfilled for
several days.  

Twenty-one-year-old inmate Timothy Souders died of dehydration
after being shackled to a bed for most of four days last August.

In an April 3 ruling, Judge Enslen rejected the state's proposal
to use large portable fans.  Instead, he ordered the department
to provide cooling equipment by July 15.

Judge Enslen also gave the state 45 days to come up with a plan
to keep temperatures within safe limits for medically fragile
inmates.


MICHIGAN: U.S. High Court Rejects Appeal in MHSAA Title IX Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal against a
ruling declaring that Michigan's prep sports scheduling
discriminates against girls, Associated Press reports.

In 2006, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed a ruling in
favor of female high school athletes in a class alleging
discrimination by the Michigan High School Athletic Association,
the Niles Daily Star reports (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 30,
2006).

Communities for Equity sued MHSAA in 1998 for alleged
discrimination between boys in girls in scheduling sports
events.  The group claimed the association narrowed the girls'
opportunities to be seen by college recruiters and to compete
for athletic scholarships, as well as garner awards and
recognition by holding only their sports in nontraditional and
less advantageous seasons.  It claims the act violated the girl
athletes' U.S. Constitution and Title IX rights.

The district court ruled in 2001 that MHSAA's scheduling of
girls' seasons violated Title IX, the U.S. Constitution, and
Michigan state law.

In 2004, the 6th Circuit agreed with the district court on the
constitutional claim.  In 2005, the Supreme Court asked the 6th
Circuit to determine whether the girls can sue under the
constitution in addition to Title IX.  

The 6th Circuit said that plaintiffs may sue for violation of
their constitutional rights, and that MHSAA's conduct violated
both federal and state statutes and the Constitution.  Diane
Madsen, a Grand Rapids-area teacher, is one of the original
plaintiffs who filed the case.  Another mother, Jay Roberts-
Eveland, was the other plaintiff.

Eight sports seasons will switch next school year as a result of
the ruling.

The case is "Communities for Equity v. MHSAA."


NORDSTROM INC: 9th Circuit Hears Objections to "Azizian" Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has heard oral
arguments with regards to objections made in a settlement of the
California antitrust class action, "Azizian, et al. v. Federated
Department Stores, Inc., et al.," in which Nordstrom, Inc. is a
defendant.

Initially, the company was named as a defendant along with other
department store and specialty retailers in nine separate, but
virtually identical class actions filed in various Superior
Courts of the state of California in May, June and July 1998.  
The suits were consolidated in Marin County Superior Court.

In May 2000, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming a
number of manufacturers of cosmetics and fragrances and two
other retailers as additional defendants.  

Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that the retailer and
manufacturer defendants in violation of the Cartwright Act and
the California Unfair Competition Act collusively controlled the
retail price of the "prestige" or "Department Store" cosmetics
and fragrances sold in department and specialty stores.

Plaintiffs sought treble damages and restitution in an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on
behalf of a class of all California residents who purchased
cosmetics and fragrances for personal use from any of the
defendants during the four years prior to the filing of the
original complaints.

While the company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit, it entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs and the other defendants on July 13, 2003 in order to
avoid the cost and distraction of protracted litigation.

In furtherance of the settlement agreement, the case was re-
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class of all persons who currently
reside in the U.S. and who purchased "Department Store"
cosmetics and fragrances from the defendants from May 29, 1994
through July 16, 2003.

The court gave preliminary approval to the settlement, and a
summary notice of class certification and the terms of the
settlement were disseminated to class members.  

On March 30, 2005, the court entered a final judgment approving
the settlement and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and the
claims of all class members with prejudice, in their entirety.

On April 29, 2005, two class members who objected to the
settlement filed notices of appeal from the court's final
judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

One of the objectors has since dropped her appeal, but the other
filed her appeal brief on March 20, 2006.  Plaintiffs' and
defendants' briefs were filed on May 25, 2006.  The remaining
objector filed her reply brief on June 14, 2006.

The 9th Circuit heard oral arguments on the appeal on March 14,
according to Nordstrom's March 23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Feb. 3.

The suit is "Azizian, et al. v. Federated Department Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-03359," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Guido Saveri of Saveri & Saveri,
Inc., 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111-5630,
Phone: 415-217-6810, Fax: 415-217-6813, E-mail:
guido@saveri.com.  

Representing the company is Larry S. Gangnes, 1420 Fifth Avenue,
Ste. 4100, Seattle, WA 98101-2338, Phone: (206) 223-7036, E-
mail: gangnesl@lanepowell.com.


NY THERMAL: Recalls Gas-Fired Hot Water Boilers for CO Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
NY Thermal Inc., of Sussex, New Brunswick, Canada, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 4,800 NTI Trinity gas-fired hot water boilers.

The company said acidic liquid in a drain line can cause a
fitting in the boiler to leak, posing a risk of carbon monoxide
(CO) poisoning to consumers.

NY Thermal has received one report outside of the U.S. of a
leaking fitting resulting in a CO alarm activation.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recall includes NTI Trinity gas-fired hot water boilers with
model numbers Ti100, Ti150, Ti200 and Ti400.  The boilers were
manufactured between Nov. 28, 2005 and Jan. 8, 2007.  The Ti100,
Ti150 and Ti200 are wall-mounted units, and the Ti400 rests on
the floor.  The boilers are gray in color and "NTI" appears on
the front cover.  The model number and date of manufacture are
located on the ID label inside the front cover of the boiler.

These recalled gas-fired hot water boilers were manufactured in
Canada and are being sold by plumbing and heating contractors
nationwide from November 2005 through February 2007 for between
$3,000 and 8,500, depending on the model.

Pictures of recalled gas-fired hot water boilers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07151a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07151b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07151c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07151d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07151e.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately contact the firm for
instructions and to arrange for a free repair.

Consumer Contact: For more information, contact NY Thermal Inc.
at (800) 688-2575 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.nythermal.com.


OIL COS: 6 Top Industry Players Accused of Inflating Gas Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shonna S. Butler, a 50-year-old university fiscal analyst in
Eugene (Oregon), filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon, accusing six major oil companies of
cheating motorists at the pumps by serving overly warm gas and
diesel, The Oregonian reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Exxon Mobil Corp.,
     -- Chevron U.S.A. Inc.,  
     -- Conocophillips Co.,  
     -- BP America, Inc.,  
     -- Supervalu, Inc., and  
     -- Shell Oil Co.  

Ms. Butler claims these "big oil" companies allow retailers to
sell "hot motor fuel," which she alleges takes up more volume in
fuel tanks but delivers less mileage for motorists.

Her complaint explains that petroleum-based fuels expand as they
get warmer, offering less value per gallon.

She accuses these oil companies of unlawful trade practices,
unjust enrichment, breach of contract and breach of covenant of
good faith.

Her suit is intended to represent Oregonians who purchase motor
fuel that is stored at more than 60 degrees.

Ms. Butler's suit seeks to require oil companies to install
temperature-correcting equipment on retail pumps and post
notices at gas stations that tell customers the temperature of
the fuel they buy.

The suit is "Butler v. Exxon Mobil Corp. et al., Case No. 6:07-
cv-00469-AA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon, under Judge Ann L. Aiken.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew Kierstead of the Law Office of Andrew Kierstead,
         1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204,
         Phone: (503) 220-1822, Fax: (503) 220-1815, E-mail:
         ajkier@aol.com;

     (2) Lawrence A Locke of Kierstead & Locke, 1001 SW 5th
         Ave., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204, Phone: 503-220-
         1822; and

     (3) John S. Stone of John S. Stone, LLC, 1500 SW First
         Avenue, Suite 770, Portland, OR 97201, Phone: (503)
         227-5445, Fax: (503) 227-1398, E-mail:
         johns@pbandf.com.


PC MALL: Settles Calif. Workers' Suit Over "Exempt" Status
----------------------------------------------------------
PC Mall, Inc. settled for about $1.5 million a purported class
action, "Nicole Atkins, et al. v. PC Mall, Inc., et al.," which
was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County.

The suit, filed on Feb. 3, 2006, alleges that the company
improperly classified members of the putative class as "exempt"
employees in violation of California's wage and hour and unfair
business practice laws and seeks unpaid overtime, statutory
penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, punitive damages,
restitution and injunctive relief.

The complaint sought unpaid overtime, statutory penalties,
interest, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, restitution and
injunctive relief.

The potential class consisted of all of the current and former
outbound business account executives that worked for the
company's PC Mall Sales subsidiary in California from Feb. 3,
2002 through Jan. 31.

On Jan. 31, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the class action, according to its March
12 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

Under the MOU, it agreed to pay an aggregate of $1.5 million,
which includes amounts to pay class members (shared
proportionally among class members based on the number of
verified class members and the amount of weeks worked during the
class period), the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs,
enhanced payments for class representatives, and all funds
needed for the administration of the settlement.

PC Mall, Inc. on the Net: http://www.pcmall.com/.


PETRAPPORT INC: Recalls Dog Treats Over Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petrapport, Inc. is voluntarily recalling pig ear dog treats it
imported from a Chilean company during the period August 2006
through December 2006 because the pig ears have the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism that can cause
serious infections in dogs, and, if there is cross
contamination, young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.

Laboratory testing has confirmed that samples of Full-Cut Pig
Ears dog treats sold by BJ's Wholesale Club in 25-count packages
under the "Berkley & Jensen" brand with no lot number and only
the expiration advisory "BEST IF USED BY 2009" (without
referencing a specific month) were contaminated with Salmonella.

Additional testing of other pig ear dog treats from shipments
during the above time period has not revealed any additional
evidence of Salmonella contamination, but Petrapport nonetheless
is voluntarily recalling them out of an abundance of caution due
to concern that the pig ears imported during this period may not
have been effectively irradiated for Salmonella before shipment
from Chile.

The voluntary recall includes dog treats sold by BJ's Wholesale
Club in its 25-count packages of "Berkley & Jensen" Full-Cut Pig
Ears dog treats with no lot number and only the expiration
advisories "BEST IF USED BY 2009" (without referencing a
specific month) as well as "BEST IF USED BY SEPTEMBER 2009,"
"BEST IF USED BY OCTOBER 2009," "BEST IF USED BY NOVEMBER 2009,"
and "BEST IF USED BY DECEMBER 2009."

Also included within this voluntary recall are these lots of pig
ear dog treats sold in bulk by other retailers under the
"Petrapport" brand:

   ITEM #          PRODUCT DESCRIPTION           RECALLED LOT #S

   8915            Bulk Low Fat Pig Ears         101808 & 102108

   8772P           Two Pack Bulk Pig Ears        101707

   8770P           12 Pack Bulk Pig Ears         101707

   8774P           24 Pack Bulk Pig Ears         101907

   7416            1 lb. Bulk Pig Ear Strips     101907

   7425            24 oz. Bulk Pig Ear Strips    5039

Salmonella can potentially be transferred to people handling
these dog treats, especially if they have not thoroughly washed
their hands after having contact with the product or any
surfaces exposed to these products.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.

In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in
the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more
severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.  Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should
contact their healthcare providers.

Dogs that become ill from Salmonella generally will have a fever
and diarrhea that may contain blood or mucus.  Affected animals
may seem more tired than usual, and may have vomiting.  Some
dogs do not have diarrhea, but will have decreased appetite,
fever and excess salivation.  

While there have been no confirmed illnesses to date, consumers
should immediately stop feeding these treats to their dogs.  
These products have been removed from the sales floors and the
sales inventories of all retailers.


QUIGLEY CORP: Cold-Eeze Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a nationwide consumer fraud class action filed in
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
against Quigley Corp. are appealing the dismissal of their case.

In September 2000, Jason Tesauro and Elizabeth Eley, both
residents of Georgia, filed the suit on behalf of a "nationwide
class" of "similarly situated individuals," alleging that the
plaintiffs purchased certain Cold-Eeze(R) products between
August 1996, and November 1999, based upon cable television,
radio and internet advertisements which allegedly misrepresented
the qualities and benefits of the company's products.  

The complaint requests an unspecified amount of damages for
violations of Pennsylvania's consumer protection law, breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment, as well as a judicial
determination that the action be maintained as a class action.

In October 2000, the company filed preliminary objections to the
complaint seeking dismissal of the action.  The court sustained
certain objections thereby narrowing plaintiffs' complaint.  

In May 2001, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the alleged
class.  The company opposed the motion.

In November 2001, the court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  In January 2002, the court denied in
part and granted in part the plaintiffs' motion.  

The court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a class based on
plaintiffs' claim under the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection
Law, however the court certified the class based on plaintiffs'
breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims.  

In August 2002, the court issued an order adopting a form of
notice of class action to be published nationally.  The form of
notice approved by the court included a provision, which limits
the potential class members who may potentially recover damages
in this action to those persons who present a proof of purchase
of Cold-Eeze during the period August 1996 and November 1999.

Afterward, a series of pre-trial motions were filed raising
issues concerning trial evidence and the court's jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action.  In March 2005, the court
held oral argument on these motions.

On Nov. 8, 2006, the court entered an order dismissing the case
in its entirety on the basis that federal law preempted the
action.  

The plaintiffs appealed the court's decision in December 2006,
according to its March 12 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.  

Quigley Corp. on the Net: http://www.quigleyco.com/.


RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Parties Dismiss Nev. Shareholders' Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated shareholders suit against Riviera
Holdings have agreed to dismiss the case, according to the
company's March 9 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

On June 19, 2006, a complaint "In Re Riviera Holdings Corp.
Shareholders' Litigation, Case No. A520100," was filed against
Riviera Holdings and its directors in the District Court of
Clark County, Nevada.  It is a consolidation of four class
action complaints previously filed.

The consolidated complaint was filed pursuant to a Stipulation
and Pretrial Order entered by the court, and was substantially
similar to the prior complaints.  

Plaintiffs requested the court to, among other things:

     -- declare that the case is maintainable as a
        class action;

     -- declare that the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
        April 5, 2006, among Riv Acquisition Holdings Inc., Riv
        Acquisition Inc. and RHC is unlawful;

     -- enjoin consummation of the merger contemplated by the
        Merger Agreement "unless and until ...[RHC] adopts and
        implements a procedure or process to obtain the highest
        possible price for shareholders";

     -- direct the defendants to disclose all material
        information before seeking shareholder approval of "any
        acquisition;" and

     -- impose a constructive trust, in favor of the plaintiffs,
        on any benefits improperly received by the defendants.

On Aug. 29, 2006, company stockholders disapproved the merger
agreement and the company terminated it.  As a result, the
parties to the consolidated complaint agreed to extend the
deadline to file a motion to dismiss from Sept. 1, 2006 to March
1.

On or around Feb. 26, the parties agreed to dismiss the
consolidated complaint and on March 2, the parties filed a
stipulation and order to dismiss the consolidated complaint with
the court.  The consolidated complaint will be formally
dismissed upon the court's execution of the dismissal order.

Riviera Holdings Corp. on the Net: http://www.rivierahotel.com/.  


AFFECT YOU?
ALI-ABA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announces that a securities class
action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired International Coal Group, Inc.
common stock between Nov. 18, 2005 to October 4, 2006, 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 suit charges ICG and one or more of its officers and/or
directors of violating federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 4, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact David Brower and Charles Piven,
both of Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East
Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone:
410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.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  * * *