CAR_Public/070416.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 16, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 74

                            Headlines


AT&T INC: Employees File Suit Over Calif. Labor Laws Violations
AWB LTD: Shareholders to File $25M Suit Against Wheat Exporter
CIRCUIT CITY: Recalls TV Tilt-Mount Brackets to Repair Lock Bar
CONNECTICUT: ACLU Mulls Reviving Suit Against York Correctional
EV3 INC: Still Faces Litigation in Del. Over MTI Transaction

FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Judge Finds Overpayments to Stan Chesley
FIRST DATA: Stockholder Opposes Kohlberg Kravis' $29B Buyout
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses GMAC Debt Securities Litigation
GENERAL MOTORS: 6th Circuit Yet to Finally Rule in UAW's Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Still Faces Consolidated Mich. Securities Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Certification in Canadian Antitrust Case
HAWAII: Homeland Beneficiaries' Lawsuit Granted Certification
HOOPER HOLMES: Settles Labor Suit by Calif. Examiners for $1.2M
H&R BLOCK: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Litigation in Mo.
H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs in POM-Related Lawsuit to Seek Trial

HYTHIAM INC: Faces Suits in Del. Over CompCare Merger Agreement
ICONIX BRAND: Settles Del., Calif. Suits Over Mossimo Merger
IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT: Shareholder Sues Over $132M Sale to BTP
INFOUSA INC: Del. Court Consolidates Shareholder's Litigation
INTER-TEL INC: Ariz. Investors' Suit Nixed, Del. Case Remains

LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuit in La.
MENU FOODS: Benton County Residents Sue Over Recalled Pet Food
MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Colo. Over Recalled Pet Food
NESTLE PURINA: Recalls Alpo Dog Food Over Wheat Gluten Content
NESTLE PURINA: Faces Tenn. Lawsuit Over Recalled Pet Food

NETRATINGS INC: Del. Court Junks Consolidated Shareholder Suit
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Discovery Yet to Begin in La. Securities Suit
NORTH FORK: June Hearing Set in $20M Securities Suit Settlement
OMNI FINANCIAL: Court Mulls Motion to Add Defendant in "Gage"
P&G PET: Recalls Contaminated Pouches of 'Wet' Cat and Dog Foods

QC HOLDINGS: Appeals Ruling in Ariz. Deferred Presentment Case
QC HOLDINGS: Mo. Customers File Lawsuit Over Unsecured Loans
QC HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans
SMALL WORLD TOYS: Recalls Wooden Sound Puzzles for Choking Risk
SRAM CORP: Recalls Bicycle Brake Calipers Prone to Breakage

TEXAS: Settles Suit Over Health Care for Indigent Children
UNITED STATES: Sued for "Withholding" Care to Nuclear Workers
WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Penna. Racketeering Act Violations Lawsuit
WILLIAM LYON: Investors' Suit Settlement Appealed to High Court


* April 18 Hearing Set in "Freed & Weiss v. Lakin" Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHECKFREE CORP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
NEW CENTURY: KGS Files First Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.

          
                            *********


AT&T INC: Employees File Suit Over Calif. Labor Laws Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two computer support and repair technicians employed by AT&T
Inc. and Yellowpages.com filed a class action in Los Angeles
Superior Court (Central District) against both companies,
alleging multiple violations of the California Labor Code.

The case (BC 367 856) was filed by Chris Shoff and Richard
Traister.  It alleges that AT&T and Yellowpages.com failed to
pay overtime wages, failed to pay for meal and rest breaks, and
maintained unfair business practices in violation of
California's Business & Professions Code.

The lawsuit states, "While defendants assert that computer
support and repair technicians are exempt from the California's
mandatory wage and hour laws by calling them 'managers' or
'engineers,' the job duties which they perform demonstrate
clearly that they are misclassified by defendant companies."

V. James De Simone of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &
Hoffman, LLP, one of the attorneys for Mr. Shoff and Mr.
Traister said, "These computer support technicians comprise the
engine which makes these technology companies run.  As such,
they work long hours but with no additional pay.  We believe
this is contrary to the law."

Thomas Falvey, of the Law Offices of Thomas Falvey, co-counsel
for the plaintiffs added, "Employers such as Yellowpages.com are
not above the law.  They must pay their computer support and
repair technicians overtime wages which are required by the
California Labor Code."     

For more information contact V. James DeSimone of Schonbru
DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP, Phone: (310) 396-0731,
Website: http://www.losangelesemploymentlawyer.com;or Thomas  
Falvey of the Law Offices of Thomas Falvey, Phone: (626) 795-
0205.


AWB LTD: Shareholders to File $25M Suit Against Wheat Exporter
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman has been instructed to
commence proceedings against AWB Ltd. on behalf of shareholders,
WA Business News reports.

According to AWB, it had received a letter from the law firm
saying Maurice Blackburn Cashman are prepared, prior to filing
these proceedings, to enter into discussions with AWB to agree
on claims resolution process.
  
IMF (Australia) Ltd. is allegedly funding the proceedings and
has offered to fund litigation for AWB shareholders who are
eligible to participate.

The suit would, generally, cover those shareholders who
purchased AWB shares on ASX between 11 March 2002 and Jan. 13,
2006 and held some or all of those shares as at Jan. 13, 2006.

AWB Limited -- http://www.awb.com.au/-- is Australia's leading  
agribusiness and one of the world's largest wheat marketing
companies.  It is also one of Australia's top 100 publicly
listed companies.

Shareholders interested in joining this action are to contact
Ben Slade, Jason Geisker or Juliana Tang, all of Maurice
Blackburn Cashman, Phone: (02) 9261 1488.


CIRCUIT CITY: Recalls TV Tilt-Mount Brackets to Repair Lock Bar
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit City Stores Inc., of Richmond, Virginia, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 9,900 "Verge" flat panel television tilt-mount brackets,
manufactured by Logitek (HK) International Co. Ltd., of Hong
Kong.

The company said if upward force is applied to a mounted
television, the bracket's lock bar could unfasten.  This could
cause the television to fall and injure bystanders.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recalled tilt-mount brackets for flat panel televisions are
sold under Circuit City's private label, "Verge."  The two model
numbers involved in this recall are VPSW103M and VPSW103M2.  
"Verge" and the model numbers are written on the packaging.  
There is no writing on the brackets.  The brackets were sold
individually and through an installation package.

These recalled flat panel television tilt-mount brackets were
manufactured in China and were sold at Circuit City stores
nationwide from September 2006 through April 2007 for about $180
for Model VPSW103M and $140 for Model VPSW103M2.

Pictures of recalled flat panel television tilt-mount brackets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07155a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07155b.jpg

Circuit City has mailed free repair kits to those consumers it
can contact.  Consumers who have not received the free repair
kit are advised to contact Circuit City immediately to request
it.  Consumers can also request a free repair by a professional
installer.

For additional information, contact Circuit City toll-free at
(888) 666-9897 anytime, or visit Circuit City's Web site:
http://www.circuitcity.com.


CONNECTICUT: ACLU Mulls Reviving Suit Against York Correctional
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is
considering reopening a class action filed decades ago over the
treatment of women prisoners at the York Correctional
Institution, according to Associated Press.

In 1983, ACLU filed a class action against top officials at
York, the Correction Department and the state Department of
Children and Youth Services, now the Department of Children and
Families.  Settlement in the suit, "West v. Manson," led to
improvements, but mistreatments still exists in the prison,
according to inspection reports.

Negligence at the York Correctional Institution has led to
inmate deaths, attempted suicides, sexual abuse and illnesses,
according to ACLU.

The ACLU cited court-ordered monitoring reports that have been
mandated twice a year since the 1980s.  A court has ordered the
reports sealed to protect prisoners' privacy.

The state Department of Correction denied any institutional
negligence or wrongdoing in response to ACLU's allegations
involving York.


EV3 INC: Still Faces Litigation in Del. Over MTI Transaction
------------------------------------------------------------
ev3, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported stockholder class
action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in
relation to its proposal to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of its majority owned subsidiary, Micro
Therapeutics, Inc., that it does not already own.  

On Oct. 11, 2005, a purported stockholder class action filed
purportedly on behalf of Micro Therapeutics' minority
shareholders was filed against Micro Therapeutics, Micro
Therapeutics' directors and ev3 challenging the previously
announced exchange offer.

The complaint alleged the then-proposed transaction constituted
a breach of defendants' fiduciary duties.  It sought an
injunction preventing the completion of the transaction with
Micro Therapeutics or, if the transaction were to be completed,
rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages, unspecified
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the company completed the transaction with
Micro Therapeutics.

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

ev3 Inc. on the Net: http://www.ev3.net/.


FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Judge Finds Overpayments to Stan Chesley
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge William Wehr ruled that Cincinnati lawyer Stan
Chesley got more than $20 million in fees for his services in
Kentucky's $200 million fen-phen settlement.

"Mr. Chesley was paid more than he should have been and,
therefore, will ultimately be responsible for some repayment,"
Judge Wehr wrote in an order filed in Boone Circuit Court (Ky.)
on April 4.  The judge stopped short of stating a specific
amount that Mr. Chesley should return, according to Jim Hannah
of The (Cincinnati) Enquirer.com.

Judge Wehr denied a request by the plaintiff's lawyer for
summary judgment.

It appears that Judge Wehr will "let a jury decide how much he
will repay," said Angela Ford, the lawyer representing 440 fen-
phen victims who are suing their former attorneys.  A jury also
will have to decide what fiduciary duty Mr. Chesley had with the
plaintiffs, according to the report.

                        Case Background

More than 400 former fen-phen plaintiffs are suing their former
attorneys:

      -- William Gallion,
      -- Melbourne Mills,
      -- Shirley Cunningham, Jr., and
      -- Stanley Chesley

accusing them of taking more money from the settlement than what
they agreed to give them.

The attorneys sued American Home Products Corp., maker of the
diet drug fen-phen, and won the $200 million settlement in 2001
for the former plaintiffs.

Judge Wehr had ruled that Messrs. Gallion, Mills and Ms.
Cunningham violated their fiduciary duty to their clients by
taking more than half the proceeds from the settlement.  They
and others involved in the case received about $105 million,
while the clients only received $74 million.

Part of the $200 million settlement was placed in the Kentucky
Fund for Healthy Living, a non-profit that paid Messrs. Gallion,
Mills and Ms. Cunningham more than $60,000 a year for serving as
its directors.

The fund gave about $1.5 million to hospitals and other non-
profits for various health-care related projects.  However,
according to court records, much of that money was given after
questions were raised about the legitimacy of the fund.

Ms. Ford said the money would not be disbursed to the clients
until all claims against the lawyers are settled.  She sued the
lawyers on behalf of their former clients in 2004, arguing that
they took about $64 million more from their clients than they
should have received.  

In August, the state Supreme Court temporarily suspended the law
licenses of Messrs. Mills, Gallion and Ms. Cunningham until the
Kentucky Bar Association could complete an investigation into
possible misconduct in the case.

Former Boone Circuit Court Judge Jay Bamberger, who presided
over the original fen-phen settlement in 2001, resigned after
being publicly reprimanded by the state judicial conduct
commission.  

That reprimand was a result of his role in approving the
lawyer's fees and for receiving payment as a board member of the
Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living.

                      Recent Developments

Judge Wehr said in the April 4 ruling that the plaintiffs will
be entitled to damages against Messrs. Mills, Gallion and Ms.
Cunningham, but that it will be up to a jury to decide if Mr.
Chesley defrauded the clients.

After Judge Wehr ruled that the Lexington lawyers breached their
duty, Mr. Mills asked the judge to reconsider.  In the April 4
order, Wehr wrote, "as to Mr. Mills, the math and law do not
support his argument."

Mr. Chesley's lawyers filed a motion on March 28 in Boone
Circuit Court to strike a pleading that alleges he is "chief
architect" of the scheme after Ms. Ford filed court documents
saying a letter intending to hide the plan was originally
written on a computer in Mr. Chesley's Cincinnati office.  Mr.
Chesley said he didn't know a lawyer in his office drafted the
letter.

Meanwhile, at least two Lexington lawyers are targets of a
related federal grand jury investigation.  Sonya Pickett of
Lexington and W.L. Carter of Lawrenceburg are currently under
investigation.

For more details, contact Angela M. Ford, Chevy Chase Plaza, 836
Euclid Avenue, Suite 311, Lexington, Kentucky 40502, (Fayette
County), Phone: 859-268-2923, Fax: 859-268-9141, Web site:
http://www.angelafordlaw.com.


FIRST DATA: Stockholder Opposes Kohlberg Kravis' $29B Buyout
------------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corp. stockholder Chris Larson filed a lawsuit in
Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington, claiming a $29 billion
buyout of the world's largest processor of credit card payments,
by investment firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. will
shortchange investors, Bloomberg reports.

Earlier, First Data entered into an agreement to be acquired by
an affiliate of Kohlberg Kravis in a transaction with a total
value of approximately $29 billion (Troubled Company Reporter,
Apr. 4, 2007).

Under the agreement, First Data shareholders will receive $34 in
cash for each share of First Data common stock they hold,
representing a premium of approximately 26% over First Data's
closing share price of $26.90 on March 30, 2007 and a premium of
approximately 34% over the average closing share price during
the previous 30 trading days.

Further, the merger agreement stipulates, First Data may solicit
proposals from third parties during the next 50 days.  

In accordance with the agreement, the Board of Directors of
First Data, through its Strategic Review Committee and with the
assistance of its independent advisors, intends to actively
solicit proposals during this period.  

The agreement was unanimously approved by the First Data Board
of Directors based upon the recommendation of the Strategic
Review Committee comprised of three independent directors.  

But Mr. Larson is seeking an order blocking the deal "until the
company adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain
the highest possible price."

Colin Wheeler, First Data spokesman, wouldn't comment on the
suit.  David Lilly, a spokesman for New York-based KKR, said the
company doesn't comment on pending litigation "as a matter of
policy."

Morgan Stanley & Co. is serving as sole financial advisor to
First Data and Evercore Group L.L.C. is serving as financial
advisor to the Strategic Review Committee of the First Data
board of directors.  Sidley Austin LLP is acting as legal
counsel to First Data.  Sullivan & Cromwell LLP is acting as
legal counsel to the company's independent directors.

                           About KKR

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. -- http://www.kkr.com/-- is one  
of the world's oldest and most experienced private equity firms
specializing in management buyouts.  Founded in 1976, it has
offices in New York, Menlo Park, London, Paris, Hong Kong and
Tokyo.  Throughout its history, KKR has brought a long-term
investment approach to its portfolio companies, focusing on
working in partnership with management teams and investing for
future competitiveness and growth.  Over the past 30 years, KKR
has invested in eleven transactions in the financial services
and processing sectors, representing over $35 billion of
aggregate value.  KKR has completed and announced over 150
transactions with an aggregate value of over $345 billion.

                       About First Data

First Data Corp. (NYSE: FDC) -- http://www.firstdata.com/--
provides electronic commerce and payment solutions for
businesses worldwide.  The company's portfolio of services and
solutions includes merchant transaction processing services;
credit, debit, private-label, gift, payroll and other prepaid
card offerings; fraud protection and authentication solutions;
electronic check acceptance services through TeleCheck; as well
as Internet commerce and mobile payment solutions.  The
company's STAR Network offers PIN-secured debit acceptance at 2
million ATM and retail locations.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses GMAC Debt Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action against General Motors Corp.,
General Motors Acceptance Corp. (GMAC) and certain of the
company's officers and directors with regards to GMAC debt
securities has been dismissed.

Initially, several suits were filed, namely:

      -- "Zielezienski, et al. v. General Motors, et al.," filed
         on Nov. 29, 2005, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach
         County, Florida;

      -- "J&R Marketing, et al. v. General Motors Corporation,
         et al.," filed on Dec. 28, 2005, in the Circuit Court
         for Wayne County, Michigan; and

      -- "Mager v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," filed on
         Feb. 17, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of Michigan.

Filed by Stanley Zielezienski, the Zielezienski action was filed
against the company, GMAC, the company's chairman and chief
executive officer, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; GMAC's chairman,
Eric A. Feldstein; and company and GMAC officers William F.
Muir, Linda K. Zukauckas, Richard J.S. Clout, John E. Gibson, W.
Allen Reed, Walter G. Borst, John M. Devine, and Gary L. Cowger.  
The action also names certain underwriters of GMAC debt
securities as defendants.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 11 of the
U.S. Securities Act, and with respect to all defendants except
the company, Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.  It also
alleges that the company violated Section 15 of the Securities
Act.  

In particular, the complaint alleges material misrepresentations
in certain GMAC financial statements incorporated by reference
with GMAC's 2003 Form S-3 Registration Statement and Prospectus.

More specifically, the complaint alleges material
misrepresentations in connection with the offering for sale of
GMAC SmartNotes in certain GMAC financial statements contained
in GMAC's Forms 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended in March
31, 2004 and June 30, 2004 and the Form 8-K which disclosed
financial results for the quarterly period ended in Sept. 30,
2004, as evidenced by GMAC's 2005 restatement of these quarterly
results.

In December 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
making substantially the same allegations as were in the
previous filing, with respect to additional debt securities
issued by GMAC during the period April 23, 2004 to March 14,
2005, and adding approximately 60 additional underwriters as
defendants.

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought and
the defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs
will seek based upon the limited information available in the
complaint.

On Jan. 6, 2006, defendants named in the original complaint
removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  

On Feb. 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
Florida state court, which is currently being briefed by the
parties.

On March 28, 2006, the parties submitted a proposed stipulated
order withdrawing plaintiff's motion to remand and transferring
the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  If this order is entered, the parties have agreed to
seek to have this case consolidated with the J&R Marketing and
Mager cases.

Filed by J&R Marketing, SEP, the J&R Marketing action was filed
against the company, GMAC, the company's chairman and chief
executive officer, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; GMAC's Chairman,
Eric Feldstein; William F. Muir; Linda K. Zukauckas; Richard
J.S. Clout; John E. Gibson; W. Allen Reed; Walter G. Borst; John
M. Devine; Gary L. Cowger; and several underwriters of GMAC debt
securities.

Similar to the original complaint filed in the Zielezienski
case, the complaint alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a), and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act based on alleged material
misrepresentations or omissions in the Registration Statements
for GMAC SmartNotes purchased between Sept. 30, 2003 and March
16, 2005, inclusive.

The complaint alleges inadequate disclosure of the company's
financial condition and performance as well as issues arising
from GMAC's 2005 restatement of quarterly results for the three
quarters ended Sept. 30, 2005.  

It does not specify the amount of damages sought and the
defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs will
seek based upon the limited information available in the
complaint.  

On Jan. 13, 2006 defendants removed this case to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Filed by Alex Mager, the Mager action is substantively identical
to the J&R Marketing case.  On Feb. 24, 2006, J&R Marketing
filed a motion to consolidate the Mager case with its case and
for appointment as lead plaintiff and the appointment of lead
counsel.  

On March 8, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating the
two cases, and subsequently consolidated those cases with the
Zielezienski case described above.

Lead plaintiffs' counsel has been appointed, and on July 28,
2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
differing mainly from the initial complaints by asserting claims
for GMAC debt securities purchased during a different time
period, of July 28, 2003 through Nov. 9, 2005, and adding
additional underwriter defendants.

On Aug. 28, 2006, the underwriter defendants were dismissed
without prejudice.  The GM and GMAC defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  No determination has been made
that the case may be maintained as a class action.

On Feb. 27, the district court in the consolidated case
captioned J&R Marketing issued an opinion granting defendants'
motion to dismiss, and dismissing plaintiffs' complaint.  

Under the terms of the GMAC Transaction, GM is indemnifying GMAC
in connection with these cases, according to the company's March
15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

General Motors Corp. on the Net: http://www.gm.com/.


GENERAL MOTORS: 6th Circuit Yet to Finally Rule in UAW's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has yet to make a
final determination on the settlement agreement in the putative
class action "UAW, et al. v. General Motors Corp."

On Oct. 18, 2005, the United Automobile Workers (UAW) and two
hourly retirees filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of hourly retirees,
spouses and dependants, seeking to enjoin unilateral
modifications by the company to hourly retiree health-care
benefits, claiming that such benefits are unalterably vested.

The company though maintains that retiree health-care benefits
are not vested and that it has expressly reserved the right to
make unilateral changes.  

On Oct. 29, 2005, the company and the UAW entered into a
memorandum of understanding that provided for a number of
changes to health care coverage for both UAW represented active
employees and UAW retirees.

On Oct. 31, 2005, plaintiffs' filed an amended complaint adding
four additional retirees and one surviving spouse as putative
class representatives.  The lawsuit followed months of
negotiations between the company and the UAW regarding changes
to retiree health-care benefits and is the initial step in
implementing this agreement.

On Dec. 16, 2005, the company, the UAW and the putative class
representatives finalized a settlement agreement and submitted
motions to the court for certification of the class, preliminary
approval of the final settlement and approval of the proposed
notice to class members.

On Dec. 22, 2005, the district court certified the class and
preliminarily approved the UAW Health Care Settlement Agreement,
among General Motors, the UAW, and the putative class
representatives.

The court's March 31, 2006 order approving the UAW Health Care
Settlement Agreement, on a class-wide basis has been appealed to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit by a small number
of individual objectors.  

The appeal has been fully briefed and is awaiting oral argument
and final decision, according to the company's March 15 Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, et al. v. General Motors Corp.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-73991-RHC-VMM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Robert H.
Cleland with referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael F. Saggau and Daniel W. Sherrick of UAW
         International Union, 8000 E. Jefferson Avenue, Detroit,
         MI 48214, US, Phone: 313-926-5216, Fax: 313-926-5240,
         E-mail: msaggau@uaw.net;

     (2) John M. West of Bredhoff and Kaiser (Washington), 805
         Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC
         20005, Phone: 202-842-2600, Fax: 22-842-1888, E-mail:
         jwest@bredhoff.com; and

     (3) William T. Payne, 1007 Mt. Royal Boulevard, Pittsburgh,
         PA 15223, US, Phone: 412-492-5797, Fax: 412-492-8978,
         E-mail: wpayne@stargate.net.

Representing the defendants are: Richard C. Godfrey of Kirkland
& Ellis, (Chicago), 200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 6000, Chicago,
IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2391; and Edward W. Risko and Francis
S. Jaworski of General Motors Corporation, Legal Staff, 300
Renaissance Center, Phone: 313-667-2408, Fax: 313-667-6323, E-
mail: edward.w.risko@gm.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Still Faces Consolidated Mich. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp., General Motors Acceptance Corp. and
certain of the company's officers and directors remain
defendants in the consolidated lawsuit, "In re General Motors
Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation," which is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
under the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

On Sept. 19, 2005, a purported class action complaint, "Folksam
Asset Management v. General Motors, et al.," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
naming as defendants:

     -- the company;
     -- GMAC;
     -- the company's chairman and chief executive officer, G.
        Richard Wagoner, Jr.;
     -- vice chairman, John Devine;
     -- treasurer, Walter Borst; and
     -- chief accounting officer, Peter Bible.

Plaintiffs purported to bring the claim on behalf of purchasers
of the company's debt and/or equity securities from Feb. 25,
2002 to March 16, 2005.  The complaint alleged that defendants
violated Section 10(b) and, with respect to the individual
defendants, Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.

The complaint also alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a),
and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 15 of
the Securities Act, in connection with certain registered debt
offerings during the class period.  In particular, the complaint
alleged that the company's cash flows during the class period
were overstated based on the reclassification of certain cash
items described in its 2004 Form 10-K.

The reclassification involves cash flows relating to the
financing of GMAC wholesale receivables from dealers that
resulted in no net cash receipts and the company's decision to
revise Consolidated Statements of Net Cash for the years ended
2002 and 2003.  

The complaint also alleged misrepresentations relating to
forward-looking statements of the company's 2005 earnings
forecast that were later revised significantly downward.

In October 2005, a substantially identical suit was filed and
consolidated with the Folksam case as, "Galliani v. General
Motors, et al."  The consolidated suit is now called, "In re
General Motors Securities Litigation."

On Nov. 18, 2005, plaintiffs in the Folksam case filed an
amended complaint, which added several additional investors as
plaintiffs, extended the end of the class period to Nov. 9,
2005, and named as additional defendants three current and one
former member of the company's audit committee, as well as its
independent accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP.  

In addition to the claims asserted in the original complaint,
the amended complaint also added allegations regarding the
company's Form SEC 8-K dated Nov. 8, 2005, which reported that
its 2001 earnings would be restated and added a claim against
defendants Wagoner and General Motors Acceptance Corporation
Devine for rescission of their bonuses and incentive
compensation during the class period.

It also included further allegations regarding the company's
accounting for pension obligations, restatement of income for
2001, and financial results for the first and second quarters of
2005.

Neither the original complaint nor the amended complaint specify
the amount of damages sought and the defendants have no means to
estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited
information available in the complaint.  Defendants have not yet
filed their response to the complaints, but intend to vigorously
defend these actions.

On Dec. 13, 2005, defendants in "In re General Motors Securities
Litigation," and in certain other litigation against the company
filed a Motion with the JPMDL to transfer and consolidate those
cases for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.

On Jan. 5, 2006, defendants submitted to the JPML an Amended
Motion seeking to add to their original Motion the cases:

     * "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al.;" and
     * "Gluckstern v. Wagoner, et al."

for consolidated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On April 17, 2006, the JPML entered an order transferring, "In
re General Motors Corp. Securities Litigation" to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with:

      -- "Stein v. Bowles, et al.;"

      -- "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al.;"

      -- "Gluckstern v. Wagoner, et al.;" and

      -- "Orr v. Wagoner, et al."

While the motion was pending, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
"Rosen."  The case is now captioned as "In re General Motors
Corporation Securities and Derivative Litigation," according to
the company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

General Motors Corp. on the Net: http://www.gm.com/.


GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Certification in Canadian Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. and Nissan Motor Corp., Ltd. are asking the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit for leave to appeal
the certification of a nationwide class of buyers and lessees in
the purported class action, "In re New Market Vehicle Canadian
Export Antitrust Litigation Cases."

Some 79 purported class actions were filed in various state and
federal courts on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles
in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001.  The defendants include:

     -- General Motors Corp.,  
     -- General Motors of Canada Ltd. along with Ford,  
     -- Daimler Chrysler,  
     -- Toyota,  
     -- Honda,  
     -- Nissan and BMW,  
     -- their Canadian affiliates,  
     -- the National Automobile Dealers Association, and  
     -- the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association

The federal court actions were consolidated for coordinated
pretrial proceedings in federal court under the caption "In re
New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases"
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.  Meanwhile
the more than 30 California cases were consolidated in the
California Superior Court in San Francisco County as:

      -- "Belch v. Toyota, et al.," and
      -- "Bell v. General Motors"  

The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant
manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired
among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to  
U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and
sold by dealers in Canada.   

The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10%
to 30% lower than those in the U.S. and that preventing the sale
of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of
supracompetitive prices by U.S. consumers.  In addition, the
complaints also alleged unjust enrichment and violations of
state unfair trade practices act.

As amended, the complaints sought injunctive relief under
federal antitrust law and treble damages under federal and state
antitrust laws, but did not specify damages.  
   
On March 5, 2004, the federal court in Maine issued a decision
holding that the purported indirect purchaser classes failed to
state a claim for damages but allowed a separate claim seeking
to enjoin future alleged violations to continue.  

On March 10, 2006, the federal court in Maine certified a
nationwide class of buyers and lessees under Federal Rule
23(b)(2) solely for injunctive relief.  General Motors and
Nissan filed a motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st
Circuit to appeal this decision.

The district court ruled that it would likely certify a class
action for damages under various state law theories for six
exemplar states under Federal Rule 23(b)(3) after further
discovery to determine the proper scope of the classes.

Plaintiffs subsequently moved for certification of damages
classes for 17 additional states and have asked the court to
certify the damages classes for the period from Jan. 1, 2001
through April 30, 2003.

General Motors intends to appeal any damages classes certified
as class actions and anticipates that its appeal will be
consolidated with the pending appeal of the class certification
for injunctive relief described above.

General Motors Corp. on the Net: http://www.gm.com/.   


HAWAII: Homeland Beneficiaries' Lawsuit Granted Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Honolulu Circuit Judge Victoria Marks granted certification to a
lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of native for past breaches
of trust by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Honolulu
Advertiser reports.

About 2,700 homelands beneficiaries were denied properties after
the state shut down the claims process in 1999 (Class Action
Reporter, June 1, 2006).

The lawsuit alleges breach of trust on the part of the DHHL and
involves a variety of claims from individuals and families who
were on the list to be awarded homesteads from 1959 through
1988.

The claims range from lengthy waits for parcels to the
dissemination of wrong information to beneficiaries to problems
associated with the construction of homes.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court in Hawaii allowed the class
action to proceed (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2007).  Trial
is set to begin Oct. 1.

Representing plaintiffs are Carl M. Varady, 1001 Bishop Street,
Suite 2870, Honolulu, HI 96813, Phone: 808-523-8447, Fax: 808-
523-8448; and Thomas R. Grande, 400 Davis Levin Livingston
Grande Place, 851 Fort Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, Phone:
(808) 524.7500 x310, Fax: (808) 545.7802, Mobile: (808)
271.7500, E-mail: tgrande@davislevin.com; Website:
http://www.quitamonline.com.


HOOPER HOLMES: Settles Labor Suit by Calif. Examiners for $1.2M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc. settled for $1.2 million a class action
filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
that alleges violations of the state's wage and hour laws,
according to the company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Jan. 25, 2005, Sylvia Gayed, one of the company's examiners
in California, filed the suit, alleging that the company failed
to pay overtime wages, to provide meal and rest periods, and
reimbursement for expenses incurred in performing examinations.  

The company currently employs approximately 400 examiners in
California and have employed in excess of 1,400 examiners in
California over the past 60 months.

Following mediation on Dec. 6, 2006, the parties reached a
settlement, pursuant to which the company will pay the sum of
$1.2 million to the class members in full settlement of the
matter.

Hooper Holmes, Inc. on the Net: http://www.hooperholmes.com/.


H&R BLOCK: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Litigation in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. is facing a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri, according to the company's March 14 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 31.

On March 17, 2006, the first of three putative class actions
alleging violations of certain securities laws are were filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

The suits alleged, among other things, deceptive, material and
misleading financial statements, failure to prepare financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and concealment of the potential for lawsuits
stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the company's
operations.  They seek unspecified damages and equitable relief.

On Sept. 20, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri ordered all of the cases consolidated into
a single action, "In re H&R Block Securities Litigation."

The suit is "In Re H&R Block Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-
0236-CV-W-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri.


H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs in POM-Related Lawsuit to Seek Trial
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Lorie J. Marshall, et
al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action
2003L000004," pending in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois, have indicated that they plan to seek a trial in July
2007 for the case.

The suit, which is in relation to the company's Peace of Mind
program, was filed on Jan. 18, 2002, and granted class-action
status on Aug. 27, 2003.  

Plaintiffs' claims consist of five counts relating to the POM
program under which the applicable tax return preparation
subsidiary assumes liability for additional tax assessments
attributable to tax return preparation error.

The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees
constitutes:

      -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license;

      -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it); and

      -- a breach of fiduciary duty.

In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes
consisting of all persons who from Jan. 1, 1997 to final
judgment:

      -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a
         defendant H&R Block class member;

      -- reside in certain class states and were charged a
         separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R
         Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and

      -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills
         by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member.

Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block
Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded
from the plaintiff class.  

The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any
entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are
otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product.  The trial court
subsequently denied the defendants' motion to certify class
certification issues for interlocutory appeal.  

Discovery is proceeding.  No trial date has been set, although
plaintiffs have indicated that they plan to seek a trial in July
2007, according to the company's March 14 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31.

H&R Block, Inc. on the Net: http://www.handrblock.com.


HYTHIAM INC: Faces Suits in Del. Over CompCare Merger Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hythiam, Inc. and Comprehensive Care Corp. (CompCare) and the
officers and board members of CompCare were named defendants in
two class actions filed in Delaware Chancery Court by CompCare
stockholders on Jan. 23, and Feb. 1.

The suits seek to enjoin the company's merger with CompCare on
the grounds that it is unfair and that the directors of CompCare
breached their fiduciary duties to CompCare's minority
stockholders in approving the transaction, according to the
company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Hythiam, Inc. on the Net: http://www.hythiam.com/.


ICONIX BRAND: Settles Del., Calif. Suits Over Mossimo Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. settled purported class actions that
were filed with regards to its merger agreement with Mossimo,
Inc., according to the company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In April 2005, Mr. Mossimo Giannulli offered to acquire all of
the outstanding publicly held common stock of Mossimo at a price
of $4.00 per share.

Following the announcement of such offer, six purported class
actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware seeking an injunction preventing the acquisition of
Mossimo by the company and asserting that the Mossimo directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Mossimo stockholders.
These six cases were consolidated.

Although Mr. Giannulli subsequently withdrew his acquisition
proposal, plaintiffs filed a first consolidated amended
complaint in March 2006, in which they allege, among other
things, that Mossimo and its board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties and engaged in self-dealing in approving the
merger agreement with the company.

In addition, on April 12, 2006, a purported shareholder class
action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles asserting similar
claims against Mossimo and its directors with respect to the
merger and seeking, among other relief, to enjoin the merger and
rescind any agreements entered into in connection with the
merger, and to recover costs, including attorney's fees.

On Sept. 27, 2006, Mr. Giannulli and other defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the Delaware plaintiffs
to settle the Delaware action.

The settlement was subject to the closing of the merger, the
negotiation of a definitive stipulation of settlement and final
approval by the Delaware Chancery Court.

The terms of the memorandum of understanding provide that if the
company sells Mossimo or the Mossimo business prior to Oct. 31,
2007 to an unaffiliated third party and if the consideration for
such sale is greater than 120% of the amount paid to the Mossimo
stockholders in the merger, 30% of that excess amount will be
paid into a settlement fund to be administered and distributed
by the plaintiffs' lawyers under the supervision of the Delaware
court.

This additional amount, if it becomes due and distributable,
will be paid to all persons who owned Mossimo stock, directly or
indirectly, between April 12, 2005 and Oct. 31, 2006, and will
not constitute additional merger consideration.

Mossimo also negotiated in good faith with the plaintiffs' lead
counsel concerning the amount of attorney fees and expenses to
be paid by Mossimo or the company, as its successor, and not to
oppose such counsel's application to the court of up to $800,000
in payment of such fees and expenses.

In consideration of these terms, the parties agreed that they
would fully and finally release and discharge all claims against
each other.

On Dec. 4, 2006, the parties finalized the terms of the
definitive settlement agreement and filed the same with the
Delaware court.

The Delaware court has entered an order directing the parties to
issue a written notice to all Mossimo stockholders informing
them, among other things, of the terms of the settlement and of
their right to appear at a Feb. 22, 2007 court hearing at which
the Delaware court would consider whether the settlement is
reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of the class.

The Delaware court conducted the hearing on Feb. 22, 2007 and on
Feb. 26, 2007, entered an order approving the settlement and
dismissing the action with prejudice.

On Oct. 27, 2006, Mr. Giannulli and other defendants also
entered into a settlement letter with the California plaintiffs
in the California action.

Under the terms of this settlement, Mr. Giannulli and the other
defendants have agreed to pay Plaintiffs' counsel between
$620,000 and $650,000.  

The California plaintiffs are bound by the terms of the Delaware
settlement.

On March 1, the parties filed a stipulation with the California
court dismissing the action with prejudice and requesting an
order awarding plaintiffs' counsel between $620,000 and
$650,000.  A March 29 hearing on the stipulation was set.

Iconix Brand Group, Inc. on the Net: http://www.iconixbrand.com.


IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT: Shareholder Sues Over $132M Sale to BTP
------------------------------------------------------------
Image Entertainment, Inc. shareholder Cindy Henzel filed a
potential class action in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles in an effort to block the company's $132
million sale to BTP Acquisition Co., LLC, Video Business
reports.

Image defendants listed in the suit include chief executive
Martin W. Greenwald and board of directors David Coriat, Ira S.
Epstein and Gary Haber.

In March, Image Entertainment -- a licensor, producer and
distributor of DVDs and CDs -- signed an agreement to sell the
company for about $132 million to BTP Acquisition Co. -- an
investor group led by film producer David Bergstein.

According Mr. Greenwald, the transaction allows Image to remain
a viable and important force in the entertainment industry, and
to continue leveraging the company's strong home entertainment
operations.

But Ms. Henzel hopes to stop the consummation of the BTP merger
and force Image to better maximize shareholder value.

On April 10, 2007, a purported class action shareholder
complaint entitled "Henzel v. Image Entertainment, Inc., et al."
was filed against Image Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and certain of its officers and members of its board
of directors in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, according to the company's April 13 Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

The named plaintiff proposes to represent a class of the
company's stockholders and claims, among other things, that in
connection with the proposed business combination transaction
with BTP Acquisition, the directors breached their fiduciary
duties of due care, good faith and loyalty by failing to
maximize stockholder value and by creating deterrents to third
party offers.

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

"In pursuing the unlawful plan to sell Image via an unfair
process ... each of the defendants violated applicable law by
directly breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care,
candor, independence, good faith and fair dealing," according to
the complaint.

Image is now asking its shareholders to carefully read all
upcoming proxy statements as they relate to the case and the
proposed merger with BTP. Its merger with BTP must be approved
by Image voting shareholders before it can be finalized.


INFOUSA INC: Del. Court Consolidates Shareholder's Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery for the state of Delaware in and for New
Castle County consolidated a lawsuit filed by infoUSA Inc.
shareholder Cardinal Value Equity Partners, L.P. against certain
directors of the company including Vinod Gupta.

The lawsuit was filed on February 2006 as a derivative action on
behalf of the company and as a class action on behalf of
Cardinal Value Equity Partners, L.P., which beneficially owns
6.1% of the infoUSA's stock, and other shareholders.  It asserts
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks an order that
would require the company to reinstate the special committee of
directors.

The special committee was formed to consider a proposal from Mr.
Gupta to acquire the shares of the company not owned by him and
was dissolved in August 2005 following Mr. Gupta's withdrawal of
his proposal.

The suit seeks an order awarding the company and the class
unspecified damages.

In May 2006, Cardinal amended its complaint to add several new
allegations and named two additional directors of the company as
defendants.  The company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

On Oct. 17, 2006, the court granted that motion and dismissed
the lawsuit without prejudice.  The court's order permits
Cardinal to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the
order.

Cardinal subsequently filed a third amended complaint, alleging
derivative claims of breach of fiduciary duty and violations of
Delaware law.

In January 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
consolidate the action with a similar action filed by Dolphin
Limited Partnership I, L.P. et al., according to the company's
March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

infoUSA, Inc. on the Net: http://www.infousa.com/.


INTER-TEL INC: Ariz. Investors' Suit Nixed, Del. Case Remains
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inter-Tel, Inc., and selected board members face a purported
shareholder class action that was filed in Delaware state court,
according to the company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Delaware action was filed on June 16, 2006.  The Arizona
actions were filed on June 16 and 20, 2006, respectively.

The Delaware action, as amended July 14, 2006, raises claims
related to the re-incorporation filing by Inter-Tel in Delaware
and primarily seeks injunctive relief.  

The Arizona actions claimed breach of fiduciary duty related to
the 13D filings by the company's former chief executive.  The
Arizona claims were both dismissed by the plaintiffs in the
fourth fiscal quarter of 2006.

INTER TEL, Inc. on the Net: http://www.inter-tel.com/.


LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuit in La.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lafarge North America, Inc. faces a purported class action filed
in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana by
people damaged by Hurricane Katrina, according to the company's
March 23 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In late 2005, several class actions were filed.  In their
complaints, plaintiffs allege that that company and several
other defendants are liable for death, bodily and personal
injury and property and environmental damage to people and
property in and around New Orleans, Louisiana, which they claim
resulted from a barge that allegedly breached the Industrial
Canal levee in New Orleans during or after Hurricane Katrina.

Lafarge North America, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.lafargenorthamerica.com/.


MENU FOODS: Benton County Residents Sue Over Recalled Pet Food
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three Benton County (Arkansas) residents filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
claiming they lost their cats to pet food contamination, the
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports.

Sandra L. Gray and couple Nick and Deena Jackson filed the suit
against:

     -- Menu Foods, Inc.;
     -- Menu Foods Income Fund;  
     -- Menu Foods Gen Par Limited;  
     -- Menu Foods Limited Partnership;  
     -- Menu Foods Operating Partnership;  
     -- Menu Foods Midwest Corp.;  
     -- Menu Foods South Dakota;  
     -- Menu Foods, Inc.;  
     -- Menu Foods Holdings, Inc.;  
     -- Walmart Stores, Inc.; and
     -- Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. Ltd.,
        a Chinese company that exports wheat gluten.

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

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

Plaintiffs are asking the court for injunctive relief "to
prevent further contamination of the American pet food supply,"
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs also seek compensatory and punitive damages for
their cats, Poopie, Skittles and Boomer, who were euthanized.

The three say veterinarians diagnosed the felines with kidney
failure resulting from eating contaminated food.

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

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

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

The suit is "Gray et al. Menu Foods, et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-
05065-RTD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas under Judge Robert T. Dawson.

Representing plaintiffs is Bill Horton of Nolan, Caddell &
Reynolds, P.A., 122 North Eleventh Street, P.O. Box 184
Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902, Phone: 479-782-5297 or 800-709-5297
(Toll Free), Fax: 479-782-5184, Website:
http://www.nolancaddellandreynolds.com.


MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Colo. Over Recalled Pet Food
---------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Jennifer Thomaidis filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of cat
owner Emily Tompkins, whose cat, Grover, died in March after
eating contaminated pet food, The Denver Post reports.

Named defendants in the 23-page lawsuit are:

     -- Menu Foods Midwest Corp.;
     -- Menu Foods Income Fund;  
     -- Menu Foods Limited;  
     -- Menu Foods Inc.;  
     -- Menu Foods Holdings, Inc.;  
     -- Proctor & Gamble Co., The;  
     -- Iams Co., The;  
     -- Safeway Inc.;  
     -- Kroger Co., The;  
     -- Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.; and
     -- Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.

Ms. Tompkins accused the chain stores of selling the allegedly
tainted pet food, which the Canadian manufacturer recalled
because it was suspected of causing death or sickness in
hundreds of dogs and cats.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified punitive damages for pet owners in
Colorado.

"Colorado pet owners want justice served," Ms. Thomaidis said.
"They want companies that allowed this to happen to take
responsibility."

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

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

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

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

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

The suit is "Tompkins v. Menu Foods Midwest Corp. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00736-JLK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, under Judge John L. Kane.

Representing plaintiffs is Jennifer Reba Thomaidis of the
Thomaidis Law, LLC, 1866 Vine Street, Denver, CO 80206, Phone:
303-322-4355, Fax: 303-322-4354, E-mail:
jennifer@thomaidislaw.com.


NESTLE PURINA: Recalls Alpo Dog Food Over Wheat Gluten Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Purina PetCare Co. is voluntarily recalling all sizes and
varieties of its ALPO Prime Cuts in Gravy wet dog food with
specific date codes.

The company is taking this voluntary action after learning that
wheat gluten containing melamine, a substance not approved for
use in food, was provided to Purina by the same company that
also supplied Menu Foods, Inc.

The contamination occurred in a limited production quantity at
only one of Purina's 17 pet food manufacturing facilities.

Earlier, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced the
finding of melamine in products related to the March 16 Menu
Foods recall, and advised Purina of the source of the
contaminated supply.

Purina then determined that it had received some quantity from
the suspect supplier.  The company proactively notified the FDA
and immediately began this recall process.

Purina is confident that the contaminated wheat gluten has been
isolated to this limited production quantity of ALPO Prime Cuts
canned products.

The recalled 13.2-ounce and 22-ounce ALPO Prime Cuts cans and 6-
, 8-, 12- and 24-can ALPO Prime Cuts Variety Packs have four-
digit code dates of 7037 through 7053, followed by the plant
code 1159.  Those codes follow a "Best Before Feb. 2009" date.**
This information should be checked on the bottom of the can or
the top or side of the multi-pack cartons.

Purina's 5.3-ounce Mighty Dog pouch products, manufactured by
Menu Foods, were previously withdrawn from the market as a
precaution on March 16 as part of the Menu Foods recall.

ONLY Mighty Dog pouch products and specific date codes of ALPO
Prime Cuts canned dog food are being recalled.

Importantly, no Purina brand dry pet foods are affected by the
recall -- including ALPO Prime Cuts dry.  In addition, no other
Purina dog food products, no Purina cat food products, Purina
treat products or Purina Veterinary Diet products are included
in this recall, nor have been impacted by the contaminated wheat
gluten supply.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop feeding ALPO Prime
Cuts products with the above-listed date codes to their dogs and
consult with a veterinarian if they have any health concerns
with their pet.

Purina is fully cooperating with the FDA and made the decision
to voluntarily recall this product in consultation with the FDA.

At Purina, nothing is more important to the company than the
health and well-being of the pets whose nutrition has been
entrusted to the company by their owners, and the company deeply
regrets this unfortunate situation.

Purina will continue to take any and all actions necessary to
ensure the quality and safety of the company's products.

Due to a product name change in early 2007, this voluntary
recall also covers one item with the same date code labeled as
ALPO Prime Entrees in Gravy with Chicken, Rotini Pasta &
Vegetables.

Purina guarantees all of its products, and consumers can receive
the full replacement value of the recalled products.  Consumers
can visit http://www.purina.comor call 1-800-218-5898, Monday  
through Friday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. CDT, to receive more
information.


NESTLE PURINA: Faces Tenn. Lawsuit Over Recalled Pet Food
---------------------------------------------------------
Shelby County, Tennessee resident Kimberly Bowser filed a class-
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee against Nestle Purina Pet Care Co.,
claiming, among other things, that the now-recalled Alpo dog
food made by the company had caused the sickness of her golden
retriever, the Memphis Daily News reports.

Ms. Bowser claims her dog showed symptoms of kidney-related
problems after eating possibly contaminated Alpo products.

Purina recalled certain Alpo and Mighty Dog brand products in
March after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration linked pet
illnesses to pet foods containing contaminated wheat gluten from
China.

The wheat gluten tested positive for melamine, a product used as
a fertilizer with other industrial and commercial uses.

The lawsuit asks the court to certify the class as all persons
who bought the recalled food between August and now.

Other companies that have recalled possibly contaminated foods
include Menu Foods, Del Monte Pet Products, Hill's Pet Nutrition
Inc. and Sunshine Mills Inc., according to the FDA.

The suit is "Bowser v. Nestle Purina Pet Care Co., Case No.
2:07-cv-02246-JDB-tmp," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee under Judge J. Daniel Breen, with
referral to Judge Tu M. Pham.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) A. James Andrews of the Law Offices of A. James
         Andrews, 905 Locust Street, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone:
         865-660-3993, Fax: 865-523-4623, E-mail:
         andrewsesq@icx.net;

     (2) Perry A. Craft of Craft & Sheppard, PLC, Shiloh
         Building, 214 Centerview Dr., Ste. 233, Brentwood, TN
         37027, E-mail: perrycraft@craftsheppardlaw.com; and

     (3) Karl A. Schledwitz of The Southland Companies, The
         Tower at Peabody Place, 100 Peabody Place, Ste. 1325,
         Memphis, TN 38013, Phone: 901-680-0590, Fax: 901-680-
         9836.


NETRATINGS INC: Del. Court Junks Consolidated Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leo E. Strine of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a
plaintiff's notice to voluntarily dismiss a Delaware
consolidated shareholder action filed against Netratings, Inc.

Following an Oct. 9, 2006 announcement of The Nielsen Co. B.V.'s
proposal to purchase all of the outstanding shares of
Netratings' common stock at a price of $16 per share in cash,
three substantially similar putative class actions were filed --
two on Oct. 9, 2006 and one on Oct. 10, 2006 -- by certain
stockholders of the company against the company, The Nielsen Co.
and the company's directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Additionally, one putative class action was filed on Nov. 6,
2006 by a stockholder of the company against the company, The
Nielsen Co. and the company's directors in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York.  

The complaints in these actions, which purported to be brought
on behalf of all of stockholders of the company excluding the
defendants and their affiliates, generally alleged:

     -- breaches of fiduciary duty by the company's directors;

     -- that the consideration offered by The Nielsen Company
        was inadequate and constituted unfair dealing; and

     -- that The Nielsen Company, as controlling stockholder,
        breached its duty to the remaining stockholders of
        NetRatings by acting to further its own interests at the
        expense of the remaining stockholders of NetRatings.

The complaints sought to enjoin the proposal, or in the
alternative, damages in an unspecified amount and rescission in
the event a merger occurred pursuant to the proposal.  The
Delaware actions were consolidated under the caption "In re:
NetRatings, Inc., Consolidated Shareholders Litigation."

On Feb. 5, 2007, Judge Leo E. Strine of the Delaware Court of
Chancery granted the Delaware plaintiffs' notice to voluntarily
dismiss the Delaware consolidated actions without prejudice.  No
compensation has passed from any defendant in that action to the
Delaware plaintiffs or their attorneys and no promise to give
any such compensation has been made.

The New York complaint has not been served on any of the
defendants in the action.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Discovery Yet to Begin in La. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
No discovery has been conducted yet in a consolidated securities
fraud lawsuit filed against Newpark Resources, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, according
to the company's March 13 form 10-k filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

Between April 21, 2006 and May 9, 2006, five lawsuits asserting
claims against the company for violation of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Exchange Act, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5 were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

All five lawsuits have been transferred to Judge Marcel
Livaudais who has consolidated these actions as "In re: Newpark
Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation."

Following the filing of the Amendment No. 2 to the company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for 2005 on Oct. 10, 2006, the
plaintiffs filed on Nov. 9, 2006 a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint for Securities Fraud against the company and directors
and officers James Cole, Matthew Hardey, Thomas Ballantine,
David Hunt, Alan Kaufman, James Stone, Roger Stull and Jerry
Box.

The Consolidated Class Complaint alleges that the company and
the individual defendants made false and misleading statements
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  
These allegations arise from a disclosure of an internal
investigation into potential irregularities in the processing
and payment of invoices at one of the company's subsidiaries,
Soloco Texas, LP, and alleged improper granting, recording and
accounting of backdated grants of stock options to executives.

The Consolidated Class Complaint does not specify the damages
sought by the plaintiffs and no discovery has been conducted to
date.

The suit is "Kim v. Newpark Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.   
2:06-cv-02150-ML-KWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the   
Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Marcel Livaudais under
Judge Karen Wells Roby.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Dawn M. Barrios of Barrios, Kingsdorf & Casteix, LLP,  
         One Shell Square, 701 Poydras St., Suite 3650, New   
         Orleans, LA 70139-3650, Phone: (504) 524-3300, E-mail:  
         barrios@bkc-law.com; and  

     (2) Lewis Stephen Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC, 650   
         Poydras St., Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone:   
         504-455-1400, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com.   

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Robert B. Bieck, Jr. of Jones, Walker, Waechter,   
         Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, Place St. Charles, 201   
         St. Charles Ave., 50th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70170-  
         5100, Phone: (504) 582-8000, E-mail:  
         rbieck@joneswalker.com; and  

    (ii) Donald Lucas Hyatt, II, Donald L. Hyatt, II, APLC  
         Energy Center, 1100 Poydras St., Suite 2960, New   
         Orleans, LA 70163, Phone: 504-582-2466, E-mail:  
         hyattlaw@aol.com.   


NORTH FORK: June Hearing Set in $20M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the state of New York for the County of New
York will hold on June 15, 2007 at 11:00 a.m., a hearing on a
proposed $20 million settlement of the class action "Lasker v.
Kanas et al., Index No. 06/103557."

The class consists of all persons who held the common stock of
North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. and their successors-in-interest
and transferees, immediate and remote, at any time during the
period March 12, 2006 through Dec. 1, 2006 other than defendants
and any person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity
related to or affiliated with any of the defendants.

The hearing will be at the Supreme Court of New York, New York
County in the courtroom of the Honorable Karla Moskowitz.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is May 25, 2007.

On March 12, 2006, the company announced that it had entered
into an agreement and plan of merger with Capital One Financial
Corp. pursuant to which the company would merge with and into
Capital One, with Capital One continuing as the surviving
corporation (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2006).

On March 15, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed
on behalf of North Folk's public shareholders against the
company and each of its directors in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County.  The suit is "Lasker v. Kanas et al.,
Index No. 06/103557."  

On Mar. 16, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of North Folk's public shareholders against the company
and each of its directors in the Supreme Court of New York,
Nassau County.  The suit is "Showers v. Kanas et al., Index No.
06-004624."

Two further putative class actions on behalf of the public
shareholders of North Fork were subsequently filed:

     -- "New Jersey Building Laborers Pension & Annuity Fund v.   
        Kanas et al., Index No. 06-004786," filed in the Supreme   
        Court of New York, Nassau County on Mar. 21, 2006; and

     -- "Gold v. Kanas, et al., Index No. 06105091," filed in   
        the Supreme Court of New York, New York County on Apr.   
        12, 2006.  

These complaints allege, among other things that the directors
of the company breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize shareholder value in the transaction.

Pursuant to a Court Order dated May 31, 2006, the Lasker and
Gold actions were consolidated under the caption "Lasker and
Gold v. Kanas, et al., Index No. 103557/06" and the Court
appointed the law firms of Stull, Stull & Brody and Vianale &
Vianale LLP as co-lead counsel to represent the class.

On July 12, 2006, North Fork and Capital One filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission a joint proxy
statement/prospectus concerning the merger.

On or about July 17, 2006, plaintiffs served upon defendants a
consolidated amended class action complaint.

The action predominantly seeks injunctive and other relief on
the ground that, among other things, the alleged conduct of the
Defendants in connection with the merger constitutes a breach of
fiduciary duties by the defendants to North Fork's shareholders.

On July 27, 2006, the court:

     (i) ordered the parties to proceed in good faith on an
         expedited discovery program and directed defendants to
         make deponents available for depositions;

    (ii) approved a briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion for
         preliminary injunction; and

   (iii) scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a
         preliminary injunction for Aug. 18, 2006.

Between June 30, 2006 and July 30, 2006, defendants produced a
total of 6,596 pages of documents to plaintiffs' counsel, and
plaintiffs obtained thousands of pages of additional documents
from several non-parties.

Plaintiffs took the depositions of:

     (a) Daniel Healy, a director and chief financial officer of
         North Fork, on July 28, 2006;

     (b) A. Robert Towbin, an outside director of North Fork, on
         July 31, 2006; and

     (c) Brian Sterling, principal of Sandler O'Neill &
         Partners, L.P., one of North Fork's financial advisers,
         on August 2, 2006.

Plaintiffs' counsel and counsel for defendants have engaged in
arm's-length negotiations concerning a possible settlement of
the action.

Following negotiations between the parties, counsel for the
parties reached an agreement in principle providing for the
settlement of the action on the terms and conditions
incorporated into a Memorandum of Understanding, dated Aug. 7,
2006, and the plaintiffs believe that entering into the
Stipulation consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding, is in the best interests of the class they seek
to represent.

In the settlement, North Fork will agree:

     -- to establish a settlement fund in an aggregate amount of  
        $20 million, out of which the plaintiffs' attorneys'  
        fees will be paid, with the remaining balance of the  
        settlement fund to be allocated among North Fork  
        stockholders who are members of the class as of the  
        completion of the merger (other than those stockholders  
        who perfect appraisal rights or opt out of the  
        settlement);  

     -- to waive any right to realize total profit in excess of  
        $630 million under the North Fork stock option agreement  
        granted to Capital One in connection with the merger;  
        and

     -- to publicly announce additional information relating to  
        the merger and certain other matters in a Form 8-K filed  
        with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  

Under the terms of the settlement, all claims relating to the
merger agreement and the proposed merger will be dismissed and
released on behalf of the settlement class (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 10, 2006).

As a result of the foregoing and the negotiations among counsel
to the parties, the parties to the action have agreed to the
settlement, which provides as follows:

     -- Capital One has irrevocably waived any right to any
        portion of the Total Profit, as that term is used in the
        Stock Option Agreement between North Fork and Capital
        One, dated March 12, 2006, to the extent that such Total
        Profit exceeded $630,000,000 (notwithstanding the fact
        that the Stock Option Agreement provided for a Total
        Profit of up to $730,000,000;

     -- North Fork included additional disclosures to
        shareholders in a Press Release and in a Form 8-K filed
        with the SEC on Aug. 8, 2006 (and thereby incorporated
        by reference into the Proxy);

     -- During the course of this Action, Plaintiffs requested
        that North Fork undertake additional due diligence on
        certain of Capital One's operations.

        North Fork carried out such additional due diligence on
        July 31, 2006 and Aug. 1, 2006.

     -- North Fork has deposited the sum of $20,000,000 in cash
        into a market-rate, interest-bearing account entitled
        "North Fork Bancorporation Inc Settlement Fund" at North
        Fork Bank (the "Settlement Fund").

        Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the
        Stipulation, the entirety of the Settlement Fund shall
        remain deposited in the North Fork Bancorporation Inc
        Settlement Fund account, and all interest earned on such
        funds shall be part of the Settlement Fund, until such
        time as the Settlement Fund is allocated pursuant to the
        terms of the Stipulation.

        Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the
        Stipulation, within thirty (30) days after Final Court  
        Approval of the Settlement, North Fork or its
        successor(s), on behalf of Defendants, shall cause the
        Settlement Fund to be allocated as follows:

             (a) The amount awarded by the Court as attorneys'
                 fees and expenses (attorneys' fees up to 25% of
                 the Settlement Fund plus up to $100,000 in
                 expenses) shall be paid out of the Settlement
                 Fund payable to Stull, Stull & Brody.

             (b) The Settlement Fund less any amount awarded as
                 Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses shall
                 be distributed to the Class Members in the
                 manner described herein and shall constitute
                 the "Net Settlement Fund." The Net Settlement
                 Fund shall be allocated among Class Members
                 holding North Fork common stock as of December
                 1, 2006 (the "Effective Time") on a pro rata
                 basis in accordance with ownership of North
                 Fork common stock by Class Members at the
                 Effective Time. Payments shall be made within
                 30 days of the Final Court Approval as defined
                 in the Stipulation.

             (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Class Member
                 who has (a) properly exercised such  
                 stockholder's appraisal rights under Section
                 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law or
                 (b) delivered a timely and valid request for
                 exclusion from the Settlement pursuant to the
                 terms herein (collectively, the "Excluded
                 Members") shall not be entitled to receive any
                 distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

             (d) For purposes of allocating the Settlement Fund,
                 shares held by Excluded Members shall not be
                 considered when calculating the total number of
                 shares held by Class Members as of the
                 Effective Time.

             (e) Any money remaining in the Net Settlement Fund
                 more than six months after distribution is
                 completed shall be donated to a Regulation
                 501(c) non-sectarian charity in the State of
                 New York mutually agreed to by the Plaintiffs
                 and North Fork or its successor(s). Plaintiffs
                 and North Fork have agreed that The Legal Aid
                 Society in the City of New York would receive
                 any such remaining money.

             (f) The administration of the Net Settlement Fund
                 shall be undertaken in a manner mutually
                 agreeable to the signatories to the Stipulation
                 subject to the proviso that all costs
                 associated with the administration of the
                 Settlement Fund shall be borne by North Fork or
                 its successor(s).

             (g) In the event the Stipulation is terminated, the
                 Settlement Fund shall be released to North Fork
                 or its successor(s) and neither Plaintiffs nor
                 Plaintiffs' counsel shall have any claim or
                 entitlement to any part thereof.

     -- Each Class Member who was a holder of record of North
        Fork common stock on Dec. 1, 2006, except for
        Excluded Members, shall be sent a check representing
        his, her or its pro rata share of the Net Settlement
        Fund. Checks will be payable in U.S. funds and will be
        sent to eligible shareholders by first-class mail. It is
        not necessary for Class Members who held North Fork
        stock on December 1, 2006 and are otherwise eligible to
        share in the Net Settlement Fund to submit a claim or
        request for payment.

        Class Members, who are North Fork shareholders of record
        on December 1, 2006, and are not Excluded Members, will
        be sent payment. The payment will vary depending upon
        the number of shares of North Fork stock held on
        December 1, 2006 and the size of the Net Settlement
        Fund.  Assuming the $20,000,000 Settlement Fund
        increases with interest to approximately $20,500,000
        when payment is distributed to Class Members, the
        payment for each share of North Fork stock owned on
        December 1, 2006 will vary as follows:

             (a) if 25% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in
                 expenses are awarded, Class Members will
                 receive approximately $0.0337 per share;

             (b) if 20% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in
                 expenses are awarded, Class Members will
                 receive approximately $0.0360 per share;

             (c) if 15% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in
                 expenses are awarded, Class Members will
                 receive approximately $0.0383 per share;

             (d) if 10% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in
                 expenses are awarded, Class Members will
                 receive approximately $0.0405 per share;

             (e) if 5% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in
                 expenses are awarded, Class Members will
                 receive approximately $0.0428 per share; or

             (f) if no attorneys' fees or expenses are awarded,
                 Class Members will receive approximately
                 $0.0453 per share.

     -- Checks sent to Class Members in connection with this
        Settlement must be presented for payment within 120 days
        of issuance. Each check will bear a legend to this
        effect.

     -- North Fork also agreed to and did issue on one or more
        business news wires, a press release devoted solely to
        announcing:

             (a) the fact that the parties have reached an
                 agreement in principle to settle the Action,
                 and

             (b) the general terms of the Settlement. Included
                 in the business news wire and press release was
                 the disclosure of, among other things,
                 conversations during the first half of 2005 by
                 members of North Fork management with
                 management of a financial service company
                 regarding a potential acquisition of North
                 Fork.

                 Such discussions did not lead to an agreement
                 to acquire North Fork. The press release, also
                 disclosed preliminary discussions with another
                 financial services company during late 2005 and
                 the first quarter of 2006 which did not result
                 in an offer for North Fork. In addition the
                 press release discussed changes in the interest
                 rate environment of which North Fork management
                 became aware in the second half of 2005,
                 strategies executed by North Fork in response
                 to that change and its impact as to whether or
                 not North Fork would pursue the merger with
                 Capital One in March 2006.

     -- The Settlement shall be voidable by defendants if a
        certain percentage of North Fork shareholders,
        previously agreed upon by the parties in writing,
        exclude themselves from the Settlement.

On March 12, 2007, the parties entered into the Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, which contains the terms
of the settlement of this action subject to court approval.

Each of the defendants has denied and continues to deny having
committed or attempted to commit any violations of law or
breaches of fiduciary duty of any kind.

Defendants state that they entered into the Stipulation solely
because the proposed settlement would eliminate the burden, risk
and expense of further litigation, and is in the best interests
of North Fork and all of its shareholders.

Plaintiffs state that they brought this action in good faith,
have believed at all times in the merit of their claim, and do
not admit or concede a lack of merit by entering into the
Stipulation.

Upon final court approval, the action shall be dismissed on the
merits with prejudice and without costs, except as set forth in
the Stipulation.

A copy of the Pendency Notice is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d1f

Representing plaintiffs are Mark Levine, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-
7230; and Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. of Vianale & Vianale LLP,
2499 Glades Road, Suite 112, Boca Raton FL 33431, Phone: (561)
392-4750.

Representing defendants is William Savitt, Esq. of Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019.


OMNI FINANCIAL: Court Mulls Motion to Add Defendant in "Gage"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Fulton County, state of Georgia, has yet
to rule on a motion that seeks to add more defendant in a class
action against Omni Financial Services, Inc.

The company was named as a defendant in litigation involving
Georgia Community Bank, which it acquired in 2005.  While the
plaintiffs had initially dismissed the company from the
litigation in May of 2006, they have since filed a motion
seeking leave to add one of its subsidiaries as a party-
defendant.

On Oct. 24, 2005, two shareholders of Georgia Community
Bancshares, Inc., the former parent of Georgia Community Bank,
filed a proposed class action against, among others, Georgia
Community Bancshares, Georgia Community Bank and the company for
fraud under the Georgia Securities Act of 1973, as amended and
the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
common law fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The action is "Gage, et al. v. Georgia Community Bank, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 2005CV107863, Superior Court of Fulton
County, State of Georgia."

The complaint alleged that, prior to the company's acquisition
of Georgia Community Bank, defendants committed fraud in the
sale of Georgia Community.

It alleged that the company merged with Georgia Community Bank
and assumed all of its liabilities, including liability for the
claims alleged in the complaint.

The company said it purchased all of Georgia Community Bank's
stock from Georgia Community Bancshares, caused Georgia
Community Bank to be converted into a national bank and merged
it into the company's subsidiary bank, Omni National Bank.  

After the action was filed, the company was not initially served
with process.  In discussions with plaintiffs' counsel, the
company asserted that neither it nor Omni National Bank has any
liability for the claims alleged in the complaint, that Omni
National Bank owns any claims against Georgia Community Bank's
officers and directors for any breach of their fiduciary duties
to Georgia Community Bank and that the company will assert
ownership of those claims, if the plaintiffs proceed with the
litigation against the company.

The company's counsel accepted service of the complaint on April
3, 2006.  On April 18, 2006, the company's counsel served the
plaintiffs and their counsel with written notice of its intent
to file claims for abusive litigation pursuant to Official Code
of Georgia (O.C.G.A.) Section 51-7-80 et seq. and for frivolous
litigation pursuant to O.C. G.A. Section 9-15-14 against the
plaintiffs, their counsel and each counsel's firm if they failed
to withdraw, abandon, discontinue or dismiss the complaint
against the company within 30 days of notice.

Subsequently, on May 3, 2006, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
the action and all claims therein as to the company without
prejudice.  The action is still pending against the remaining
defendants.

On Dec. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave of
court to amend the complaint to add the Bank as a party-
defendant, alleging in their proposed amended complaint that the
Bank, as the successor in interest to Georgia Community Bank
assumed liability in the merger for the plaintiffs' claims
against Georgia Community Bank.  

The court has not yet ruled on the motion, according to the
company's March 21 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Omni Financial Services, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.omnifinserv.com/.


P&G PET: Recalls Contaminated Pouches of 'Wet' Cat and Dog Foods
----------------------------------------------------------------
P&G Pet Care, in response to the recent Menu Foods, Inc.
nationwide recall of wet pet foods, announces a voluntary recall
in the U.S. and Canada on specific 3 oz., 5.5 oz., 6 oz. and
13.2 oz. canned and 3 oz. and 5.3 oz. foil pouch "wet" cat and
dog food products manufactured by Menu Foods Inc. Emporia,
Kansas plant with the code dates of 6339 through 7073 followed
by the plant code 4197.

This voluntary recall is part of a larger product recall by Menu
Foods Inc., a contract manufacturer that makes a small portion
of canned and foil pouch 'wet' cat foods for Iams and Eukanuba
as well as other non-P&G brands.  There have been a small number
of reported cases of cats from the U.S. (none in Canada)
becoming sick and developing signs of kidney failure.  The signs
of kidney failure include loss of appetite, vomiting, and
lethargy.  P&G Pet Care has received no case reports involving
dogs.

This voluntary product recall involves discontinuation of all
retail sales and product retrieval from consumers.  Consumers
should stop using the affected products immediately, and consult
with a veterinarian if any symptoms are present in their pet.

All Iams and Eukanuba products carry a 100 percent guarantee,
and consumers can receive a refund for recalled products.

To read can product codes, refer to the bottom of the can.  The
first four numbers of the second line of numbers are the date
code, and the following four numbers indicate the plant code.  
For example, if the second line begins with four numbers from
6339 to 7073 followed by the plant code 4197, then the can
should be recalled.

For foil pouches, the code numbers are located at the lower left
hand corner on the back of the pouch.  The date and plant codes
appear in the third group of numbers, beginning an 11-digit
sequence.

P&G Pet Care is taking this proactive step out of an abundance
of caution, because the health and well-being of pets is
paramount in the mission of Iams and Eukanuba.  Tests of some
affected product have not revealed the cause of sickness, and
testing will continue until a better understanding of the facts
has been achieved.

All other canned and small foil wet pouch products produced at
other plants are not affected by this issue.  Iams and Eukanuba
"dry" products are not manufactured at Menu Foods and not
affected by this issue.  Iams and Eukanuba biscuits, treats and
sauces are not affected by this issue.

P&G Pet Care has informed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on this issue.  The
company regrets any inconvenience to its consumers and retail
customers.

For more information, consumers can contact the company at 1-
800-882-1591 or visit http://www.Iams.comand  
http://www.Eukanuba.comfor details.


QC HOLDINGS: Appeals Ruling in Ariz. Deferred Presentment Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. appealed a ruling by an Arizona federal court
that compels it and the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the
company to consider the issue of class action standing of the
case while in arbitration.

Originally, the suit was filed by an Arizona customer in
Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, alleging that a loan to
him violated the Arizona Deferred Presentment Companies Statute
and asserting various other claims based in tort, contract and
violations of state law and seeking class.

The company removed the case to federal court and filed a motion
to compel arbitration.  The magistrate judge granted the QC
Holdings' motion to compel arbitration, but found that the
company's class action waiver in the arbitration agreement
signed by the customer to be unconscionable.

The result of this decision is that the judge compelled the
parties to consider the issue of class action standing in
arbitration.  

The company has appealed this ruling to the district court
judge, and it awaits his ruling, according to the company's
March 14 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

QC Holdings, Inc. on the Net: http://www.qcholdings.com/.


QC HOLDINGS: Mo. Customers File Lawsuit Over Unsecured Loans
------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported class
action over unsecured loans, which was filed in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, according to the company's
March 14 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit was filed on Oct. 13, 2006 by one of the company's
Missouri customers as a purported class action.

It alleges violations of the Missouri statute pertaining to
unsecured loans under $500 and the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and a declaratory judgment that
the arbitration agreement with the plaintiff is not enforceable
on a variety of theories.

The company has not filed an answer, but has moved to compel
arbitration of this matter.  Plaintiff has secured the right to
have discovery regarding the company's arbitration provision,
however, prior to the court's ruling on its motion to compel
arbitration.  It anticipates that the court will consider the
motion some time this summer.

QC Holdings, Inc. on the Net: http://www.qcholdings.com/.


QC HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. remains a defendant in a putative consumer
fraud class action filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover
County, North Carolina, according to the company's March 14 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Feb. 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries, including
its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Don Early,
its chairman of the board and chief executive officer, were sued
in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina in a
putative class action filed by James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben
Hubert Cline.  

The two were customers of a Delaware state-chartered bank for
whom the company provided certain services in connection with
the bank's origination of payday loans in North Carolina, prior
to the closing of the company's North Carolina branches in
fourth quarter 2005.  

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance
Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina
Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and
the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by
the bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retail
locations in North Carolina.

The lawsuit alleges that the company made the payday loans to
the plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes, and that
if the company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or makers"
of the payday loans, the company's services to the bank that
made the loans violated various North Carolina statutes.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.  

They have not sued the bank in this matter and have specifically
stated in the complaint that plaintiffs do not challenge the
right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with North
Carolina residents at such rates as the bank's home state may
permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law.

QC Holdings, Inc. on the Net: http://www.qcholdings.com/.


SMALL WORLD TOYS: Recalls Wooden Sound Puzzles for Choking Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Small World Toys, of Culver City, California, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 78,500 units of "Sounds on the Farm" Puzzle and "Sounds on
the Go" Puzzle.

The company said the knobs on the recalled puzzle pieces can
come off, posing a choking hazard to young children.

Small World Toys has received 42 reports of the knobs detaching
from the puzzle pieces.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled involves two separate wooden-knobbed puzzles that
make sounds. "Sounds on the Farm" and "Sounds on the Go" puzzles
were sold under the Puzzibilities and Ryan's Room brands.  The
wooden puzzles have four pieces in farm animal or vehicle shapes
that make animal or motor sounds when the pieces are lifted by
their knobs from the puzzle boards.  "Sounds on the Farm" or
"Sounds on the Go" is printed on the top left of the puzzle
boards.  "2003 Small World Toys" and the number 24101 or 24102
are printed at the bottom of the puzzles boards.

These recalled wooden sound puzzles were manufactured in China.    
Puzzibilities puzzles were sold at toy stores and various
retailers nationwide and by catalogs from June 2003 through
February 2007.  Ryan's Room puzzles were sold at Target Stores
nationwide from January 2006 through February 2007.  Both
puzzles sold for about $16.

Pictures of recalled wooden sound puzzles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07154a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07154b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take this toy away from
children and contact Small World Toys to obtain a free
replacement toy.

For additional information, contact Small World Toys at (800)
421-4153 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday,
visit http://www.smallworldtoys.com,or E-mail:  
puzzlerecall@smallworldtoys.com


SRAM CORP: Recalls Bicycle Brake Calipers Prone to Breakage
-----------------------------------------------------------
SRAM Corp., of Chicago, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 5,400
units of SRAM Force Road Brake caliper sets.

The company said the brake caliper sets could break and detach
from the bicycle's fork or frame.  This could cause the rider to
lose control and crash.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the SRAM Force Road Brake Calipers sets sold
as aftermarket components.  The brake caliper sets have "SRAM
Force" and some have a date or production code embossed on the
unit.

Code             Example         In Recall         Not In Recall

Date code                        Dates between     Dates after
(Day/Month/Year) 01JUN06         01JUN06 and       25DEC06
                                 25DEC06  

No date code     ---------       All sold between  ---------
                                 July 2006 through
                                 March 2007

Production Code  35T61234567     Codes beginning   Codes
                                 With 35T6         beginning
                                 through 51T6      with 52T6 and
                                                   codes with  
                                                   "7" as the
                                                   fourth digit

The SRAM brake caliper sets may have also been installed on the
following makes and models of bicycles:

     -- Specialized (S-Works Tarmac SL, S-Works Roubaix);
     -- Trek (Project One Madone models);
     -- Fuji (Fuji SL1); Scott USA (Addict R3);
     -- Bianchi (Bianchi 928 SL);
     -- Kuota (Kuota KOM, Kuota KREDO, Kuota KEBEL);
     -- Orbea (Orca, Aqua, Loboular, Opal, Arin, Aqua Dama, Dama
        Race and Diva);
     -- Kestrel (Evoke SL/Force, RT700/Force), Titus (Vuelo,
        Solera) and
     -- Sampson (Diablo).

These recalled bicycle brake caliper sets were manufactured in
Taiwan and are being sold at specialty bicycle retailers
nationwide sold individual brake caliper sets from July 2006
through January 2007 for about $270 and bicycles which included
these sets through March 2007 for between $3,000 and $7,300.

Picture of recalled bicycle brake caliper sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07153.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using bicycles equipped with these
brake caliper sets immediately and contact their bicycle
retailer for a free replacement.

For additional information, contact SRAM at (800) 346-2928
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.sram.com.


TEXAS: Settles Suit Over Health Care for Indigent Children
----------------------------------------------------------
The Texas attorney general's office and lawyers representing the
state's poor children reached an agreement to settle a suit
aimed at improving the health care of indigent children,
according to reports.  

The settlement was presented on April 9 to U.S. District Judge
William Wayne Justice for approval.  The judge gave attorneys
until April 27 to submit a final draft of the settlement
agreement.

The Medicaid lawsuit was filed in 1993 by Linda Frew on behalf
of her daughter Carla Frew.  It alleged that Texas failed to
ensure access to checkups and follow-up care.  The case was
certified as a class action in 1994.

According to The Houston Chronicle, the settlement includes
higher reimbursement rates for doctors and dentists who treat
children under the Medicaid program and outreach to make sure
that children who are enrolled get regular checkups.  It is
expected to cost Texas between $500 million and $800 million
according to two state officials.

The agreement will call for as much as five years of state
action, involving the state's obligation to provide
transportation for Medicaid beneficiaries, managed care
improvements and outreach, according to Susan Zinn, a San
Antonio lawyer who represents the children's interests.

Among the items addressed in the settlement is the Medicaid
provider reimbursement rates, which would increase by 25 percent
over current rates to physicians and 50 percent to dentists.

Ms. Zinn asked that the judge wait to sign off on the settlement
until after the legislative session ends on May 28.

The suit is "Frazar, et al. v. Hawkins, et al., Case No.
3:93-cv-00065-WWJ," filed in the Eastern District of Texas under
Judge William W. Justice.

Representing the plaintiffs is John Robert Heard at Heard &
Smith, 3737 Broadway St., Suite 310, San Antonio, TX 78209-6552,
Phone: 210/820-3737, Fax: 12108203777, E-mail:
jrhatty@heardandsmith.com.

Representing the defendants are Linda Ann Halpern, Attorney
General's Office, P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station, Austin, TX
78711, Phone: 512/475-1969, Fax: 15123200667, E-mail:
linda.halpern@oag.state.tx.us.


UNITED STATES: Sued for "Withholding" Care to Nuclear Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Denver law firm Holland & Hart LLP filed a suit on behalf of six
former nuclear weapons workers to claim payment for medical
costs that the government promised but was allegedly
withholding, according to Rocky Mountain News.

The workers named in the lawsuit are: Ismael Montano of Cortez;
Lionel Palacio of Grants, New Mexico; Addison Keaton of Stout,
Ohio; Eugene Bailey of Franklin Furnace, Ohio; Phil DeHerrera of
Grants, New Mexico; Clarence Worthen of Grants New Mexico.

The lawsuit contends that the Labor Department officials in
charge of compensating medical coverage programs are denying,
delaying and limiting doctors' orders to provide high levels of
home nursing care for severely ill and dying weapons workers.

In 2001, federal law created the 2000 Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, a compensation
program that includes home health care.  This was after the
government acknowledged that nuclear weapons workers had faced
health risks that were previously kept from them.

Under the program, created by Congress five years ago, workers
get $150,000 plus future medical benefits.

The suit says the workers "for the most part (are) isolated,
frail and suffering severe and/or terminal disease."  Delaying
medical care or restricting the kind of care they can have is
"life threatening" to the workers, the lawsuit says.

One of the defendants in the suit is Assistant Deputy Labor
Secretary Shelby Hallmark.

For more information, contact Gregory Russell Piche partner at
Holland & Hart LLP, 555 Seventeenth St., Suite 3200, P.O. Box
8749, Denver, Colorado 80201 (Denver Co.), Phone: 303-295-8000
Telecopier: 303-295-8261.


WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Penna. Racketeering Act Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Langer & Grogan, P.C. filed a RICO class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging
that Wachovia Bank, N.A. had conspired with a payment processor,
Payment Processing Center (PPC), in a scheme that facilitated
fraudulent telemarketing directed primarily at the elderly
involving tens of millions of dollars.

The complaint describes the use of "demand drafts" by deceptive
telemarketers based on banking information they obtained over
the phone from victims.

It alleges that PPC prepared the demand drafts and deposited
them in a series of accounts opened at Wachovia.

The complaint also alleges that Wachovia, aware that demand
drafts were commonly used by deceptive telemarketers, continued
to open and to maintain the accounts, even though:

     (1) the accounts had a return rate of approximately 60% of
         the total sums of the drafts deposited, and

     (2) even after a second Philadelphia bank had warned
         Wachovia that it was being flooded by unauthorized bank
         drafts originated by PPC and had solicited Wachovia's
         assistance "in trying to shut down the scam."

The complaint states that, "Wachovia responded that
'overzealous' telemarketers were responsible for the problems
with the PPC bank drafts, but nonetheless continued to accept
such drafts from PPC."

The complaint further alleges that other banks complained to
Wachovia of PPC's activities.

It contends that Wachovia had a special agreement with PPC which
granted Wachovia expanded refund and charge back rights.

The complaint claims that Wachovia knew that the banking
services it provided were an essential element in PPC's scheme.

The suit is "Faloney v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:07-cv-
01455-JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, under Judge John R. Padova.

Representing plaintiffs is Judah I. Labovitz of Langer & Grogan
P.C., 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
Phone: 215-320-5660.


WILLIAM LYON: Investors' Suit Settlement Appealed to High Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the consolidated stockholder class action, "In
re: William Lyon Homes, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No.
05-CC-00092," has been appealed to the Supreme Court of the
State of Delaware.

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

Initially, two purported class actions were filed, purportedly
on behalf of the public stockholders of the company, challenging
the tender offer and challenging related actions of the company
and the directors of the company.  

"Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil Action
No. 2015-N" was filed on March 20, 2006, and "Michael Crady, et
al. v. General William Lyon, et al., Civil Action No. 2017-N"
was filed on March 21, 2006 in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

On March 21, 2006, plaintiff in the "Brown" action filed a first
amended complaint.  The Delaware Complaints name the company and
the directors of the company as defendants.

These complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs in
connection with the tender offer and other related corporate
activities.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the tender offer and, among
other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to
the litigation.

On March 23, 2006, the company announced that its board had
appointed a special committee of independent directors who are
not members of the company's management or employed by the
company to consider the tender offer.  The members of the
Special Committee are Harold H. Greene, Lawrence M. Higby, and
Dr. Arthur Laffer.

The company also announced that the Special Committee had
retained Morgan Stanley & Co. as its financial advisor and
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its legal counsel.

On March 24, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the
Delaware Complaints into a single case entitled, "In re: William
Lyon Homes Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2015-N."

On April 10, 2006, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware
Action executed a Memorandum of Understanding, detailing a
proposed settlement subject to the Delaware Chancery Court's
approval.

Pursuant to the MOU, General Lyon increased his offer of $93 per
share to $100 per share, extended the closing date of the offer
to April 21, 2006, and, on April 11, 2006, filed an amended
Schedule Tender Offer.

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action have determined
that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the
best interests of plaintiffs and the putative Class."

The Special Committee also determined that the price of $100 per
share was fair to the shareholders, and recommended that the
company's shareholders accept the revised tender offer and
tender their shares.

Thereafter, General Lyon also decided to further extend the
closing date of the tender offer from April 21, 2006 to April
28, 2006.

On April 23, 2006, Delaware Chancery Court conditionally
certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The
parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a
Stipulation of Settlement, and the Delaware Chancery Court
approved the settlement on Aug. 9, 2006.

On April 23, 2006, Delaware Chancery Court conditionally
certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The
parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a
Stipulation of Settlement, and on Aug. 9, 2006, the Delaware
Chancery Court certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware
Action, approved the settlement, and dismissed the Consolidated
Delaware Action with prejudice as to all defendants and the
class.

On Feb. 16, the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of the
State of Delaware, according to the company's March 14 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

William Lyon Homes on the Net: http://www.lyonhomes.com/.


* April 18 Hearing Set in "Freed & Weiss v. Lakin" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
3rd Circuit Associate Judge Richard Tognarelli is to hear on
April 18 a suit that arose out a 1999 agreement between Freed &
Weiss LLC and the Lakin Law Firm to cooperate in Madison County
class actions, St. Clair Record reports.

In January, the Lakin firm filed for an injunction against Freed
& Weiss in the court of Madison County to compel Freed & Weiss
to give the Lakin firm backup tapes of files from their cases.

The Lakin firm claimed Freed & Weiss broke their agreement by
filing class actions without consulting the Lakin firm.

Freed & Weiss moved on Feb. 23 to transfer the case to Cook
County, where it filed a suit accusing the Lakin firm of wrongly
withholding its share of proceeds from class action settlements.

Attorney Paul Weiss wrote that the cases his firm filed without
consulting the Lakin firm were not filed in Madison County.

For the Lakin firm, William Lucco of Edwardsville responded Feb.
28 that many clients have terminated Freed & Weiss.  The Lakin
firm on March 27 notified Madison County judges that many of its
clients terminated the Chicago firm of Freed & Weiss as co-
counsel, but Freed & Weiss failed to notify the court of the
terminations

He moved on March 6 to compel a deposition of Weiss's partner,
Eric Freed.

On March 30, another attorney representing the Lakin firm,
Charles Chapman, opposed transfer to Cook County disputing the
other party's claim that Madison County is an inconvenient
forum.

He wrote that among 215 cases involving both firms, 61 percent
were in Madison County, and that about half their plaintiffs
were Madison County residents.

After several substitutions, the case was assigned to Associate
Judge Tognarelli, who has set a hearing on April 18.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHECKFREE CORP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Scott+Scott, LLP, which filed a purported class
action against Checkfree Corp. in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, has expanded the coverage of
the class action to include purchasers of Checkfree publicly
traded securities (Nasdaq:CKFR)  from April 4, 2006 to Aug. 1,
2006 inclusive.

Earlier, the law firm filed the suit on behalf of Checkfree
Corp. publicly traded securities purchasers during the period
April 26, 2006 and Aug. 1, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, April
12, 2007).

The complaint charges Checkfree and certain of its officers and
directors of making false and misleading statements and material
omissions regarding the company's business and operations and
that, as a result, the price of the company's securities was
inflated during the Class Period, thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
company's business, accounting practices and financial results.

As early as April of 2006, Defendants issued objectively
unreasonable guidance regarding the purported sustainability of
month-over-month growth in their electronic commerce business,
which included the projection of "25% annual transaction growth
for the foreseeable future."

Upon these false and misleading representations, stock analysts
raised Checkfree's target price, as well as FY 2006 and 2007 EPS
estimates, while issuing favorable "Buy" and "Outperform"
ratings.

On Aug. 1, 2006, Defendants shocked the market with their
disclosure of laggard fourth-quarter revenues, including a 2%
decline in the company's Payment Services division.

As a result of disclosure of the corrective disclosure of the
laggard nature of the company's consumer transactions growth,
the price of Checkfree shares plummeted $5.93 or 15.9%, to close
on Aug. 2, 2006 at $37.20, on extremely heavy volume of over
17.2 million shares.

For more information, contact Scott+Scott, LLP, Phone: (800)
404-7770 or (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com.


NEW CENTURY: KGS Files First Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC has filed the first class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division, on behalf of shareholders who purchased New
Century Financial Corp. Series A Preferred shares, sold in a
public offering on June 15, 2005, and/or Series B Preferred
shares, offered on Aug. 16, 2006.

The complaint charges New Century and its entire Board of
Directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15.

The action charges defendants with strict liability for the
false statements contained in each Registration Statement and
Proxy/Prospectus.

On Feb. 7, 2007, New Century announced that it will have to
restate its previously reported financial results to correct
errors related to its application of generally accepted
accounting principles, necessary for reporting allowances for
loan repurchase losses. On this news, New Century's Preferred
shares declined precipitously.

Later, on March 2, 2007, New Century also disclosed that the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California
had notified the company that it is conducting a criminal
inquiry in connection with trading in New Century's stock, and
its accounting.

The following trading day, New Century's Preferred Shares again
declined. On April 2, 2007, New Century announced that it would
file for Bankruptcy protection.

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

For more information, contact Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner of
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext., 106 (toll
free), E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.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  * * *