---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 17, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 75

                            Headlines


CATALINA MARKETING: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April
CEMEX SAB: U.S. Files Antitrust Suit Over $12B Bid for Rinker
CHARLIE BROWN: Recalls Olives on Possible Contamination
CHECK POINT: June 6 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement
CIGNA CORP: April Hearing Set in $93M Securities Suit Settlement

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Award in Calif. Labor Litigation
COSTCO WHOLESALE: JPMDL Mulls Consolidation of "Hot Fuel" Suits
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Labor Suit Settlement Hearing Set May
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Faces Suits Over Membership Procedures
DIRECT FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsuit in Penn. Over Interest Rates

EIGHT IN ONE: Recalls Jerky Treats on Risk of Contamination
EQUITABLE LIFE: Ruling in Suit Over Child Rider Premium Vacated
GRANDVIEW MEMORIAL: Cemetery in Madison, Ind. May Face Lawsuit
HILL'S PET: Recalls Canned Pet Food Manufactured by Menu Foods
HOMEBANC CORP: Denied Summary Judgment in Fla. Labor Lawsuit

INDIAN TRUST: High Court Rejects Appeal on Judge's Removal
INTERLOCK INDUSTRIES: Regulator Wants Part of $1.2M Settlement
JESSIE P. SILVA: Settles Calif. Labor Lawsuit for $275,035
MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada Over Recalled Pet Food
MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Dismisses Vioxx Securities Lawsuits

MOTOROLA INC: Faces Fla. Consumer Suit Over Razr Phone Batteries
MURPHY OIL: $60M Settlement Checks in Oil Spill Suit Sent Out
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Settles Securities, Derivative Suits for $8M
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Mulls MDL-1604's Federal Preemption Issue
PDI INC: Calif. Court Mulls Final Approval of Labor Suit Deal

PDI INC: N.J. Court Denies Request to Amend Securities Complaint
PNC FINANCIAL: Penn. Court Approves $9.075M Settlement by E&Y
PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Court Mulls Consolidation of Securities Suits
ROBERT G. MICHAELS: TCPA Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 23
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Third Circuit Mulls Appeal in N.J. Suit

SECURE COMPUTING: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COS: Faces Right-of-Way Lawsuit in Mass.
TXU ELECTRIC: Faces Texas Suit Over "Deceptive" Trade Practices
VENMAR VENTILATION INC: Recalls Ventilators Due to Fire Hazard
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in W.Va.

WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Seal Documents in "Savaglio"
ZIX CORP: Discovery Begins in Tex. Consolidated Securities Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHECKFREE CORP: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Lawsuit in Ga.
WORLDSPACE INC: Zwerling Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.

          
                            *********


CATALINA MARKETING: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the Middle District of Florida will hold
a fairness hearing on April 26, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $8,500,000.00 settlement in the matter, "In Re Catalina
Marketing Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03-CV-1582-T-
27TBM."

The hearing will be held before Judge James D. Whittemore of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Sam M.
Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Courtroom 13B,
Tampa, Florida.

The settlement covers all persons who purchased the common stock
of Catalina Marketing Corp. between Oct. 14, 1999 and Aug. 25,
2003.

                        Case Background

Numerous complaints purporting to be class actions were filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle  
District of Florida, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and  
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
and  Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The actions were originally brought on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock between Jan. 17, 2002 and  
Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.  

The complaints contain various allegations, including that,
during the alleged class period, the defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business and
operations with the result of artificially inflating the
company's share price and maintained inadequate internal
controls.  It seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.   

In October 2003, the complaints were consolidated in the U.S.  
District Court for the Middle District of Florida as, "In re  
Catalina Marketing Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03-
CV-1582-T-27TBM."    

Named as co-lead plaintiffs in December 2003 are:

     -- Virginia P. Anderson, and  
     -- the Alaska Electric Pension Fund  

On June 21, 2004, they served their consolidated amended class
action complaint on behalf of those who purchased the company's
stock between Aug. 14, 1999 and Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.   

The company and other defendants subsequently moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended class action complaint which motion was
denied by the court on March 31, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification in May 2005, which was
subsequently granted, by the court on Feb. 16, 2006.   

The suit is "Corwin, et al. v. Catalina Marketing, et al., Case
No. 8:03-CV-1582-T-27TBM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida under Judge James D. Whittemore.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth J. Arleo, Andrew Brown, William S. Lerach and  
         Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins  
         LLP, 401 B St., Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:  
         619/231-1058, E-mail: AndrewB@lerachlaw.com;
  
     (2) Jack G. Fruchter of Fruchter & Twersky, One Penn Plaza,  
         Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212/279-5050;  

     (3) Christopher S. Jones, Christopher S. Polaszek, Maya  
         Saxena, Joseph E. White of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad &  
         Schulman LLP, Tower One, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite  
         600, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone: 561/361-5000,  
         Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail: cjones@milbergweiss.com,
         cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com, msaxena@milbergweiss.com;
         and
  
     (4) Andrei Rado and Steven G. Schulman of Milberg, Weiss,  
         Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,  
         49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212/594-
         5300.

Representing the company are Michael L. Chapman and Tracy A.  
Nichols of Holland & Knight, LLP, 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100,  
P.O. Box 1288, Tampa, FL 33601-1288, Phone: 813/227-8500, Fax:  
813/229-0134, E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com or  
tracy.nichols@hklaw.com.

For more details, contact Catalina Shareholder Litigation,
Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte
Madera, CA 94976-0990, Phone: 1-800-447-7657, Web site:
http://www.gilardi.com.


CEMEX SAB: U.S. Files Antitrust Suit Over $12B Bid for Rinker
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. faces a purported antitrust class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that seeks
to prevent it from buying Rinker Group Ltd. in a $12 billion
hostile bid.

The offer was due to expire on March 30, 2007, but Cemex
extended it until April 27, 2007.

According the complaint, the civil antitrust action was filed on
April 4 by the U.S. government, acting under the direction of
the U.S. Attorney General.  

The case, which is seeking equitable and other relief, generally
alleges that the company's proposed acquisition of Rinker would
reduce the number of significant suppliers of ready mix concrete
in various metropolitan areas in Florida and Arizona, of
concrete block in several metropolitan areas in Florida, and of
aggregate in Tucson, Arizona.

The complaint states that the proposed acquisition of Rinker by
Cemex would substantially lessen competition and tends to create
a monopoly in interstate trade and commerce in violation of the
Clayton Act.

It further states that unless unrestrained, the transaction will
have the following anticompetitive effects:

      -- actual and potential competition between Cemex and
         Rinker in the production of ready mix concrete,
         concrete block, and aggregate in the relevant
         geographic markets will be eliminated;

      -- competition generally in the production of ready mix
         concrete, concrete block, and aggregate in the relevant
         geographic markets will be substantially lessened; and

      -- prices for ready mix concrete, concrete block, and
         aggregate in the relevant geographic markets will
         increase.

In their complaint, the government is requesting that:

      -- CEMEX proposed acquisition of Rinker be adjudged and
         decreed to be unlawful and in violation of Section 7 of
         the Clayton Act;

      -- defendant and all persons acting on its behalf be
         permanently enjoined and restrained from consummating
         the proposed acquisition or from entering into or
         carrying out any contract agreement, plan, or
         understanding, the effect of which would be to combine
         Cemex with the operations of Rinker;

      -- they be awarded its costs for this action; and

      -- they receive such other and further relief as the court
         deems just and proper.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1d41

The suit is "United States Of America v. Cemex, S.A.B. DE C.V.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.

Representing the plaintiff is Frederick H. Parmenter, U.S.
Department Of Justice, Anti-Trust Division, Litigation II, 1401
H Street, NW Washington, DC 20530, Phone: (202) 307-0620, Fax:
202-307-6283, E-mail: frederick.parmenter@usdoj.gov.


CHARLIE BROWN: Recalls Olives on Possible Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Brown di Rutigliano & Figli S.r.l, of Bari Italy, is
recalling Cerignola Olives, Nocellara Olives and Castelvetrano
Olives from distribution because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium that can
cause a life-threatening illness or death.

Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not
look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing.  Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

The recalled olives were distributed to wholesalers, who then
distributed them nationally to restaurants and retail stores.

This recall covers all sizes of cans, glass jars and pouches of
Cerignola Olives, Nocerella Olives and Castelvetrano Olives
containing codes beginning with the letter "G" followed by 3 or
4 digits under the following brands: Borrelli, Bonta di Puglia,
Cento, Corrado's, Dal Raccolto, Flora, Roland and Vantia.

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

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
found that the product had a higher than required pH.

In response to these findings, the firm has amended its process
to assure new product meets pH requirements.

Consumers who have purchased these types of olives are urged to
visit their retailer to determine if the olives are from Charlie
Brown di Rutigliano & Figli S.r.l.  If they are the recalled
products a full refund will be given.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 011-039-080-
7839073 (phone), or E-mail: charliebrownbari@yahoo.com.


CHECK POINT: June 6 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on June 6, 2007 at 2:15 p.m. for a
proposed $13 million settlement in the class action, "In Re:
Check Point Software Securities Litigation, Case 1:03-cv-06594-
RMB-DFE."

The hearing will be held before Judge Richard M. Berman in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312 Courtroom
14A.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before May 17.

                         Case Background

Beginning on Aug. 29, 2003, the company received a number of
class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by holders of its ordinary shares,
alleging violations of the U.S. federal securities laws.

On Jan. 14, 2004, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of ordinary shares between July 10, 2001 and
April 4, 2002.

The complaint generally alleges that the company and certain of
its senior officers made misrepresentations and omissions
regarding, among other things, sales and future prospects.

The company retained counsel and filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On March 7, 2005 the District Court granted the
company's motion to dismiss but permitted the lead plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint to attempt to cure the defects in the
dismissed complaint.  

On Sept. 2, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint.  On April 25, 2006, the court denied the company's
motion to dismiss.

On Dec. 20, 2006, the company reached an agreement-in-principle
with the lead plaintiffs to settle this matter.  The company
expects that its insurance carrier will pay the $13 million
settlement, which is subject to the completion of appropriate
documentation and to court approval.  

Also on Dec. 20, 2006, the lead plaintiffs dismissed without
prejudice the senior officers named as defendants in the
lawsuit, according to the company's March 15 Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Check Point Software Securities Litigation,
Case 1:03-cv-06594-RMB-DFE," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard M.
Berman with referral to Judge Douglas F. Eaton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kirk E. Chapman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: (212)-946-9377, Fax: (212)-273-4391, E-mail:
         kchapman@milbergweiss.com; and

     (2) Aaron Lee Brody of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
         Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-
         7230, Fax: 212-4902022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com.

     (3) Kay E. Sickles of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler,
         LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone:
         (610) 822-2218, Fax: (610) 667-7056, Web site:
         http://www.sbclasslaw.com/.


CIGNA CORP: April Hearing Set in $93M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold on April 27, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. a hearing in the $93
million settlement of the class action "In Re: Cigna Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-08088-MMB."

The class consists of all persons or entities who purchased
Cigna Corp. common stock between Nov. 2, 2001 and Oct. 24, 2002,
inclusive.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in the courtroom of Judge Michael M.
Baylson.

Deadline to file for exclusion was April 9, 2007.  Deadline to
file claims is May 29, 2007.

In 2002, CIGNA and some of its officers and directors faced
numerous securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

The complaints charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements to the market.

According to the complaint, the company issued numerous press
releases, and filed financial reports with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, regarding its performance during the
class period which represented that the company was experiencing
strong growth, that its operating income for 2002 is expected to
be $1.1 billion and that its liabilities on its discontinued
reinsurance operations were not expected to be material to its
liquidity.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that
CIGNA had been under-reserving for its reinsurance obligations,
particularly for its reinsurance of guaranteed minimum death
benefits, by (at least) hundreds of millions of dollars.

In addition, according to the complaint, the statements were
materially false and misleading because CIGNA was experiencing
declining demand for its offerings, particularly in its Employee
Health Care, Life and Disability segment, and its income
guidance for 2002 was lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

The complaint also alleges the defendants failed to disclose
computer integration problems and customer service problems
within the company's Health Care, Life and Disability segments
that forced CIGNA to grant substantial margin concessions in
order to retain aggrieved customers causing the company to
revise third quarter and full year 2002 earnings estimates.

The suit further alleges that defendants engaged in the conduct
alleged therein because CIGNA was planning to, and on Oct. 16,
2002 did issue $250 million of 6-3/8% notes and that the
offering would have been negatively affected if the truth
regarding CIGNA's business and financial condition was known.

In 2006, the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System,
Attorney General Tom Corbett, and governor's general counsel,
Barbara Adams, announced a $93 million settlement on behalf of a
class of all purchasers of the common stock of CIGNA Corp. from
Nov. 2, 2001 through Oct. 24, 2002 (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
12, 2006).

The Retirement System served as lead plaintiff in the suit and
vigorously prosecuted this case for the benefit of the class
during the past four years.  

The suit is "In Re: Cigna Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:02-cv-08088-MMB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Michael M. Baylson.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick and Barbara A.  
         Podell all of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622 Locust  
         Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000 or  
         215-875-4690, Fax: 215-875-5715 or 215-875-5804 or 215-
         875-4673, E-mail: ssavett@bm.net or bpodell@bm.net;

     (2) Stephanie M. Beige, Michael S. Bigin, Brian S. Cohen,  
         Jeffrey M. Haber and Timothy J. Macfall all of  
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th  
         Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, E-
         mail: beige@bernlieb.com or bigin@bernlieb.com or  
         haber@bernlieb.com; and  

     (3) Keith M. Fleischman of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &  
         Lerach, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York,  
         NY 10119.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) John G. Harkins, Jr. and Eleanor Morris Illoway both of  
         Harkins Cunningham, 2800 One Commerce Square, 2005  
         Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-7042, Phone: 215-
         851-6700, Fax: 215-851-6710, E-mail:  
         jharkins@harkinscunningham.com or  
         emi@harkinscunningham.com; and

     (2) David M. Morris and Alexander R. Sussman both of Fried  
         Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, One New York Plaza,  
         New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212-859-8204 or 212-859-
         8005, Fax: 212-859-4000, E-mail: sussmal@ffhsj.com.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Award in Calif. Labor Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is appealing a $5,304 award to plaintiffs
in the class action, "Anthony Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
Case No. RG-04150447," which was filed in the Superior Court for
the County of Alameda.

The overtime compensation case was certified as a class action
on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California,
in which plaintiffs principally allege that Costco's semi-annual
bonus formula is improper with regard to retroactive overtime
pay.

In December 2006, a judgment in the amount of $5,304 was entered
in favor of the class.  The company is appealing, according to
the company's March 30 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 18.

Costco Wholesale Corp. on the Net: http://www.costco.com/.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: JPMDL Mulls Consolidation of "Hot Fuel" Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has yet to rule
on a request to consolidate numerous putative "hot fuel" class
actions filed against motor fuel retailers, including Costco
Wholesale Corp.

Generally, the suits are alleging that defendants have been
overcharging drivers by selling gasoline or diesel that is
warmer than 60 degrees without adjusting the volume sold to
compensate for heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect
of such expansion on the energy equivalent received by the
consumer.

These lawsuits are:

      -- "Raphael Sagalyn, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.);"

      -- "Phyllis Lerner, et al. v. Costco Wholesale
         Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.);"

      -- "Linda A. Williams, et al. v. BP Corporation North
         America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.);"

      -- "James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);"

      -- "Betty A. Delgado, et al. v. Allsups, Convenience
         Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.);"

      -- "Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 07-285 (D. Nev.);"

      -- "Mark Rushing, et al. v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.);"

      -- "James Vanderbilt, et al. v. BP Corporation North
         America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.);"

      -- "Zachary Wilson, et al. v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.);" and

      -- "Diane Foster, et al. v. BP North America Petroleum,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.)."

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment interest.  At the
present time, these cases are all at a preliminary stage.

Certain defendants have filed a request to handle these cases as
part of a multidistrict litigation proceeding, entitled, "In re
Motor Fuel Temperature Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840."  

The JPMDL has not yet ruled on the request, according to the
company's March 30 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 18.

Costco Wholesale Corp. on the Net: http://www.costco.com/.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Labor Suit Settlement Hearing Set May
--------------------------------------------------------------
A May 2007 final fairness hearing is scheduled for a tentative
settlement in the matter, "Kevin Doty and Sarah Doty v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV-05-3241 FMC (JWJ)," which was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

A case brought as a class action on behalf of present and former
hourly employees in California, in which plaintiffs principally
allege that Costco did not properly compensate and record hours
worked by employees and failed to provide meal and rest breaks.

On Dec. 11, 2006, the court tentatively approved a $7,500
settlement.  A hearing is scheduled for May 2007 to consider
final approval of the settlement, according to the company's
March 30 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 18.

The suit is "Kevin Doty et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. et al.
Case No. 2:05-cv-03241-FMC-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge
Florence-Marie Cooper with referral to Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson.

Representing the plaintiffs is Alan Harris Harris & Ruble, 5455
Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, CA 90036, Phone:
323-931-3777, Fax: 323-931-3366.

Representing the defendants is Christopher A. Crosman of
Seyfarth Shaw, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300, Los Angeles,
CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-1528, E-mail: ccrosman@seyfarth.com.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Faces Suits Over Membership Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. remains a defendant in putative class
actions brought on behalf of certain present and former Costco
members in state courts in California and New York.

These suits are:

      -- "Barmak v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., No.
         BC348857, Superior Court for the County of Los
         Angeles;"

      -- "Evans, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No.
         BC351869, (commenced in the Superior Court for the
         County of Los Angeles and removed to the U.S. District
         Court for the Central District of California);" and

      -- "Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Index No. 06-007555,
         (commenced in the Supreme Court of Nassau County, New
         York and removed to the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York)."

In "Barmak" it is asserted that the company violated various
provisions of the common law and California statutes in
connection with its former practice of paying executive members
who downgraded or terminated their memberships a 2% reward for
less than 12 months of eligible purchases.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest, and
punitive damages.

The company removed the case to federal district court, where
proceedings are pending on whether the action should be remanded
to state court.

The company also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the challenged practice, while it was still in
effect, was appropriately disclosed to executive members.

Counsel for the plaintiff in "Barmak" has also sent a letter
purporting to invoke consumer protection statutes in
Massachusetts and Texas.

In "Evans" and "Dupler" it is asserted that the company violated
various provisions of California and New York common law and
statutes in connection with a certain membership renewal
practice.

Under that practice, members who pay their renewal fees late
generally have their 12-month membership renewal periods
commence at the time of the prior year's expiration rather than
the time of the late payment.

Plaintiffs in these two actions seek compensatory damages,
restitution, disgorgement, preliminary and permanent injunctive
and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment
interest, and, in "Evans" punitive damages.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its March
30 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 18.

Costco Wholesale Corp. on the Net: http://www.costco.com/.


DIRECT FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsuit in Penn. Over Interest Rates
---------------------------------------------------------
Direct Financial Solution of Utah is facing a suit alleging it
unlawfully charges Pennsylvania consumers excessive interest
rates in violation of the state's usury laws.

The suit was filed by New Jersey attorney Steven Weisbrot on
behalf of a Philadelphia woman who claims the company charges
clients interest rates in excess of 2000% annual percentage
rate.  It seeks to recover millions of dollars in illegal
interest and to halt the allegedly unlawful loans, according to
Consumer Affairs.

Mr. Weisbrot's contact: Phone: (973) 618-0400 ext. 150, Fax:
(973) 618-9194, E-mail: sweisbrot@nrmlaw.com.


EIGHT IN ONE: Recalls Jerky Treats on Risk of Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eight In One, Inc., a division of United Pet Group, Inc., in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is
voluntarily recalling nationally all lots of Dingo CHICK'N JERKY
treats due to concerns that the jerky treats have the potential
to be contaminated with Salmonella, which can cause serious
infections in dogs and cats, and, if there is cross
contamination, in people, especially children, the aged, and
people with compromised immune systems.

The products affected were sold at Target, PetSmart and other
retailers.  The products subject to this voluntary recall are
Dingo CHICK'N JERKY 3.5 oz. and 8 oz. for dogs and Dingo Kitty
CHICKEN JERKY 1.5 oz. for cats and Dingo Ferret CHICKEN JERKY
1.5 oz for ferrets.

Laboratory testing has shown that some samples of these chicken
jerky treats were contaminated with Salmonella.  The company is
recalling all these products out of an abundance of caution.

Salmonella can potentially be transferred to people handling
these pet treats, especially if they have not thoroughly washed
their hands after having contact with the products or any
surfaces exposed to these products.  Healthy people infected
with Salmonella can have some or all of nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.

Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments,
including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle
pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers
exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product
should contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some pets
will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.
Apparently well animals can be a carrier and infect other
animals or humans.   Pet owners whose pets have consumed the
recalled product and the pets have these symptoms are advised to
contact their veterinarians.

The company has received one report of Salmonellosis in a dog.
There are no reports of human illness.

These products are being removed from retail stores.  Consumers
should immediately stop feeding these treats to their pets.

Consumers who purchased any of the above-identified CHICK'N
JERKY TREATS should discontinue use of the products and should
discard the unused portion.

Consumers can obtain information on receiving refunds by
contacting the Eight In One consumer affairs department at 1-
888-232-9889.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Ruling in Suit Over Child Rider Premium Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit vacated a judgment
in a suit filed by Shirley Ring regarding billing for the
premium for child term rider insurance offered by the Equitable
Life Assurance Society of the U.S. and its parent company AXA
Financial, Inc.

A unanimous decision written by Judge Pooler of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit on April states that the practice
may be a deceptive business practice under the law of New York
after the policy ceases to provide coverage because the child or
youngest child has reached age 25.  

It means owners of life insurance policies with a children's
term rider may have a claim for deceptive practices under New
York law if the insurance company continues to bill for the
premium including for the Child Rider after the youngest reaches
age 25 and is no longer "a child" within the meaning of the
policy.  

The plaintiff, Ms. Ring, and the class of premium payers are
represented by Joshua N. Rose of Rose & Rose, P.C., a
Washington, D.C.-based law firm.  Rose & Rose received a
favorable ruling in November 2006 from the New York State
Appellate Division concerning a similar claim against the
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Ms. Ring claims the child rider premium violates New
York consumer protection law under General Business Law 349.
Equitable moved to dismiss the state law claims as completely
pre-empted by federal law, namely the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998.  

The question was whether the Children's Term Rider that is not
by itself a "covered security" becomes one, and thus is subject
to removal and dismissal under the SLUSA, because it is attached
to a variable life insurance policy under the definition of a
"covered security."  The appellate court ruled that the
Children's Term Rider and the policy it was attached to must be
considered separately, as opposed to the district court, which
analyzed them together.  

The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court,
and remanded the matter to the district court with instructions
to send the case to the New York County Supreme Court.  

Rose & Rose, P.C. on the Net: http://www.roselawyers.com/


GRANDVIEW MEMORIAL: Cemetery in Madison, Ind. May Face Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two southern Indiana families whose relatives are buried at the
Grandview Memorial Gardens, a 40-acre cemetery north of Madison,
plan to file a class action, according to WAVE 3.

The families had asked the operator of Grandview Memorial
Gardens to exhume the remains of their relatives after hearing
dozens of complaints about flooded crypts.  They requested to
remove their relatives' caskets, which were found to have been
filled with water.

Meanwhile, the Indiana attorney general's office is
investigating alleged irregularities at the cemetery after state
cemetery regulators received complaints about the alleged misuse
of money paid by families for burial plots, vaults and grave
markers.


HILL'S PET: Recalls Canned Pet Food Manufactured by Menu Foods
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. announces a voluntary precautionary
recall in the U.S. and Canada of a very small number of canned
cat products that are co-manufactured by Menu Foods, Inc., in
response to the recent Menu Foods nationwide recall of wet pet
foods.

Hill's is voluntarily recalling these products:

     -- Science Diet Kitten Savory Cuts Ocean Fish 3 oz. and
        5.5 oz.

     -- Science Diet Feline Adult Savory Cuts Beef 5.5 oz.

     -- Science Diet Feline Adult Savory Cuts Chicken 5.5 oz.

     -- Science Diet Feline Adult Savory Cuts Ocean Fish 5.5 oz.

     -- Science Diet Feline Senior Savory Cuts Chicken 5.5 oz.

No other Hill's products are affected by this recall.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., is taking this precautionary step to
protect the health and well being of pets.  Hill's has received
no reported cases of illness.  Consumers of other pet food
brands manufactured by Menu Foods have reported a small number
of cases of cats becoming ill with loss of appetite, vomiting,
and lethargy which are potential signs of kidney failure.

Hill's is recalling these product codes.  Product codes can be
found at the bottom of the can.  Only relevant code numbers have
been listed ('X's indicate irrelevant numbers).

     1. BESTBEFORE 09 2008         5. BESTBEFORE 08 2008
        M06XXXXXX 4414                M28XXXXXX 4603

     2. BESTBEFORE 08 2008         6. BESTBEFORE 08 2008
        M28XXXXXX 4416                M25XXXXXX 4457

     3. BESTBEFORE 08 2008         7. BESTBEFORE 08 2008
        M28XXXXXX 4415             M28XXXXXX 4414

     4. BESTBEFORE 08 2008
        M28XXXXXX 4601
   
Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., has informed the Food and Drug
Administration and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on this
issue.  The company regrets any inconvenience to its consumers,
retail customers and veterinarians.

This voluntary product recall involves discontinuation of all
retail sales and product retrieval from consumers.  Consumers
should stop using the affected products immediately.  Consult
with a veterinarian if any symptoms are present in pet.  All
Science Diet products carry a 100 percent guarantee, and
consumers can receive a refund for recalled products.

For more information, consumers can contact the company at 1-
800-445-5777 or visit http://www.HillsPet.comfor details.


HOMEBANC CORP: Denied Summary Judgment in Fla. Labor Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley denied summary judgment requests by
HomeBanc Corp. and Patrick S. Flood, the company's founder and
former chief executive, but granted partial summary judgment on
one employees' request in how their jobs are classified,
according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Fiver former employees of HomeBanc sued the company last year,
alleging the Atlanta-based mortgage company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  They claim the company owes them millions
in overtime pay.

HomeBanc is also facing a lawsuit filed by 136 former HomeBanc
loan officers before a federal judge in Middle Florida.

The plaintiffs in the HomeBanc cases are seeking class-action
status, according to the report.

If HomeBanc loses the cases, the overtime and salary owed for a
three-year period going back to February 2003 could be in the
range of $40 million to $100 million, depending upon the final
size of the class of plaintiffs, according to E. Nannette
Piccolo, the Fort Lauderdale, Fla., attorney representing the
workers.

In their lawsuits, the former loan officers allege they
routinely put in upward of 60, 70 and even 90-hour workweeks
with no overtime compensation.

The suit is "Tyler v. Homebanc Mortgage, et al., Case No. 0:06-
cv-60332-DTKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley
with referral to James M. Hopkins.

Representing the plaintiffs is Nannette Piccolo at Marshall A.
Adams PA, 1 E Broward Boulevard, Suite 1410, Fort Lauderdale, FL
33301, Phone: 954-764-6450, Fax: 764-6448, E-mail:
Npiccolo@marshall-laws.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Matthew A. Boyd at King & Spalding, 1180 Peachtree
         Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30309-3521, Phone: 404-572-4600,
         E-mail: mboyd@kslaw.com; and

     (2) Denise Lynda Wheeler at Fowler White Gillen Boggs
         Villareal & Banker, 2201 2nd Street, 5th Floor PO Box
         1567, Fort Myers, FL 33902, Phone: 239-985-4839, E-
         mail: 334-3240, Fax: dwheeler@fowlerwhite.com.


INDIAN TRUST: High Court Rejects Appeal on Judge's Removal
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal against a ruling that
removed U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth from the suit,
"Cobell v. Kempthorne," Associated Press reports.

The court also refused to review another appeals court ruling
that reversed Judge Lamberth's order for the Interior Department
to disconnect its computers from the Internet for failing to
provide adequate security for the Indians' trust records.

In July, the D.C. Circuit ordered the removal of the Judge
Lamberth, finding that he had lost his objectivity.   Chief U.S.
District Judge Thomas F. Hogan subsequently assigned the case to
Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

Earlier this year, the plaintiffs rejected a new $7 billion
settlement proposal from the U.S. government.

                        Case Background

Elouise Pepion Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe in
Montana, filed the class action on June 10, 1996 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

It seeks to force the federal government to account for billions
of dollars belonging to approximately 500,000 American Indians
and their heirs, and held in trust since 1887.

Specifically, the case involves royalties for farming, grazing,
mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.  
It dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break
up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160
acres to some individual Native Americans.

Back then, the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber,
grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds
for Indians and their survivors.

Through document discovery and courtroom testimony, the case has
revealed mismanagement, ineptness, dishonesty and delay by
federal officials, which lead a federal judge to declare their
conduct "fiscal and governmental irresponsibility in its purest
form."

As the case moved on, new revelations of false testimony,
financial misconduct and bureaucratic retaliation continued to
surface.

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

      -- to force the government to account for the money, and

      -- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
under Judge James Robertson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net;

     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com;

     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American
         Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org; and

     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:
         elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com.

Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-
0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov.

For more details, contact

     (i) Elouise Cobell, Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund,
         Inc., PO Box 3029, 101 Pata Street, Browning, MT 59417,
         E-mail: info@indiantrust.com, Web site:
         http://www.indiantrust.com.

    (ii) The Committee on Indian Affairs, Phone: 202-224-2251,
         Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and

   (iii) House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web
         site: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov.


INTERLOCK INDUSTRIES: Regulator Wants Part of $1.2M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii's Contractors Land Board is asking a Circuit Court judge
for reimbursement from a settlement reached by Interlock
Industries Inc. and homeowners, it emerged in a report by The
Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Interlock and Mark Wenzel, owner of Interlock Industries, has
agreed to pay $1.2 million in cash and to disburse some $15,000
to $17,000 a month for the next eight years to settle a class
action filed by clients in Hawaii.

In 2001, the Hawaii Regulated Industries Complaints Office,
which enforces professional licensing laws in this state, began
investigating Interlock Industries after the company closed its
Hawaii office shortly after 9/11.

A state order found that Interlock Industries and the Wenzels,
who installed some 2,700 roofs in Hawaii from 1997 to 2001,
failed "to maintain a record or history of competency,
trustworthiness, fair dealing and financial integrity."

Consumers said Interlock left them with leaky roofs and useless
lifetime warranties when it closed its Hawaii office.  It also
left them with bad credit and pursued liens on homes when some
owners defaulted on high-interest, in-house financing deals.

In a 2005 hearing, the state Department of Commerce and Consumer
Affairs found Interlock and Mr. Wenzel, to have violated several
state laws "by failing to maintain a record or history of
competency, trustworthiness, fair dealing and financial
integrity."  

The state found that Interlock Industries, which installed
approximately 2,700 roofs in Hawaii from 1997 to 2001, failed to
report address and telephone number changes to the state
contractors license board, engaged in unfair or deceptive acts,
refused to complete work and failed to provide contracts to
customers as well as obtain bonding for roofing projects.

It thus revoked their licenses.  The state board that oversees
contractors also fined Mr. Wenzel $205,000 and paid $25,000 from
a state monetary pool to settle two consumer lawsuits.  It has
won court orders to collect money, but was unable to.  

Subsequently, Kailua-based attorney Buck Ashford of Ashford &
Associates filed a class action against Interlock.  The suit,
filed on behalf of a class of about 1,000 people, sought to
prevent Interlock Industries from ever again contracting in
Hawaii to install roofs with lifetime warranties without
complying with state requirements.

Parties in the suit sought restitution as well as general,
special, compensatory and punitive damages.  Interlock and Mr.
Wenzel agreed to pay $1.2 million in cash.  A hearing to approve
the settlement is scheduled for April 20.

George W. Ashford Jr. is with Ashford & Associates, 1050 Auloa
Rd., Kailua, HI 96734-4605, Phone: (808) 261-5707.


JESSIE P. SILVA: Settles Calif. Labor Lawsuit for $275,035
----------------------------------------------------------
A judge gave preliminary approval to a $275,035 settlement in a
labor class action filed by the California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation against Laton company Jesse P. Silva
Dairy, the Fresno Bee (Calif.) reports.

The foundation represented three plaintiffs who worked at the
dairy and more than 60 milkers and other workers who are part of
the class action.

The workers alleged they were not paid overtime, despite working
seven days straight, did not take meal breaks and lacked safety
equipment.

The class consists of milkers, those who bring the cows to be
milked, called pushers, who worked at the dairy between June 16,
2001, and March 1, 2006.  Part-time and full-time, and current
and former workers are eligible to avail of the settlement.

The money will be allocated based on how much time they worked
at the dairy, said Virginia Villegas of Talamantes, Villegas and
Carrera LLP, the San Francisco law firm overseeing the payments.

Rural Legal Assistance on the Net: http://www.crla.org/.
Talamantes, Villegas and Carrera on the Net: http://www.e-
licenciados.com.


MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada Over Recalled Pet Food
----------------------------------------------------------
The O'Mara Law Firm, P.C. filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada against Menu Foods,
Inc., reports say.

Filed on behalf of Reno resident, Marion Streczyn, the lawsuit
claims the Canadian pet food manufacturer, waited too long
before recalling more than 60 million containers of contaminated
pet food.

Ms. Streczyn claims the Iams brand food killed her 20-year-old
cat, "Patches."  She seeks unspecified damages from the Ontario,
Canada-based Menu Foods.

Her attorney, Brian O'Mara, says the suit joins a growing number
of others filed around the country against the pet food maker
and is believed to be the first in Nevada.

It raises claims of negligence, product liability and breach of
implied and express warranty.  It further argues that the
company received "unjust enrichment" by selling the tainted pet
food.

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

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

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

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

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

The suit is "Streczyn v. Menu Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-00159-LRH-VPC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada under Judge Larry R. Hicks with referral to
Judge Valerie P. Cooke.

Representing plaintiffs is Brian O O'Mara of the O'Mara Law
Firm, P.C., 311 East Liberty Street, Reno, NV 89509, Phone: 775-
323-1321, Fax: 775-323-4082, E-mail: brian@omaralaw.net.


MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Dismisses Vioxx Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley Chesler of the U.S. District Court in New Jersey
dismissed with prejudice a consolidated securities class action
filed by investors against Merck & Co., Inc. in connection with
disclosures regarding VIOXX.

In addition to the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, the company
and various current and former officers and directors are
defendants in various putative class actions and individual
lawsuits under the federal securities laws and state securities
laws (the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits).

All of the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits pending in federal court
have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey before District Judge Stanley R. Chesler for inclusion in
a nationwide MDL.

Judge Chesler has consolidated the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits for
all purposes.  Plaintiffs request certification of a class of
purchasers of company stock between May 21, 1999 and Oct. 29,
2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding Vioxx in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees.  The complaint also asserts a claim
under Section 20A of the Securities and Exchange Act against
certain defendants relating to their sales of Merck stock.

In addition, the complaint includes allegations under Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 that certain
defendants made incomplete and misleading statements in a
registration statement and certain prospectuses filed in
connection with the Merck Stock Investment Plan, a dividend
reinvestment plan.

Defendants hafiled a motion to dismiss the complaint.

In his April 12 ruling, Judge Chesler found that the securities
action should be dismissed because all of the plaintiffs' claims
were time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations.

The suit is "Merck & Co. Inc. Securities Litigation In Re:
MDL1658, Case No. 2:05-cv-02367-SRC-MF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Stanley R. Chesler, with referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Paul B. Brickfield of Brickfield & Donahue, 70 Grand
         Avenue, River Edge, NJ 07661, Phone: (201) 488-7707, E-
         mail: pbrickfield@bricdonlaw.com;

     (2) James E. Cecchi and Lindsey H. Taylor, both of Carella
         Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein, PC, 5
         Becker Farm Road, Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone: (973) 994-
         1700, Fax: (973) 994-1744, E-mail:
         jcecchi@carellabyrne.com or ltaylor@carellabyrne.com;
         and

     (3) Peter S. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann
         & Knopf, LLP, Park 80, Plaza West One, Saddle Brook, NJ
         07663, Phone: (201) 845-9600, E-mail:
         PSP@njlawfirm.com.

Representing defendants are Sally Anne Mulligan, Lawrence M.
Rolnick and Sheila A. Sadighi, all of Lowenstein Sandler, 65
Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone: (973) 597-2422 or
(973) 597-2500, E-mail: smulligan@lowenstein.com or
lrolnick@lowenstein.com or ssadighi@lowenstein.com.


MOTOROLA INC: Faces Fla. Consumer Suit Over Razr Phone Batteries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Inc. is facing a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida that claims its Razr
cell phones have defective white batteries, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The complaint alleges Motorola knew that its so-called white
batteries, named for their color, were "inherently flawed and
defective," but never recalled them.  

Instead, it tried to fix the problem by switching to black
batteries and passing the "expense, hassle and frustration" of
replacing the white batteries to consumers, the complaint
states.

The complaint quotes online consumer reviews of customers
complaining that the Razr battery "doesn't seem to be fully
charged or doesn't hold a charge" and "dies after only 24 hours
on standby."

Lead plaintiff, Miami-resident, Diego Romano claims he
experienced the same problem with three Razr phones.

The complaint claims the white battery in the Razr cellular
phones fail to perform as intended because is does not
adequately maintain a charge, thereby violating the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breaching implied
warranties, and causing plaintiff and proposed class members to
incur loss of use and monetary damages.

The slim Razr was introduced in 2004 and is one of Motorola's
most popular cell phones.  The white batteries were used in
phones such as the Motorazr and Motokrzr.

Mr. Romano brings this action individually and on behalf of all
persons who since 2004:

     -- purchased a Motorola Razr phone with white battery; and

     -- purchased a replacement battery (or batteries), during
        the class period.

Common questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (a) whether Motorola RAzr cellular phones with a white
         battery was defectively designed;

     (b) whether Motorola knew or should have known that the
         Razr/white battery was defectively designed;

     (c) whether Motorola misrepresented the durability and
         usefulness of the Razr battery;

     (d) whether Motorola breached implied warranties in selling
         the Razr cellular telephone;

     (e) whether Motorola's sale of the Razr violates FDUPTA and
         similar state consumer fraud statutes;

     (f) whether the sale of the Razr results in Motorola
         obtaining money that rightfully belongs to plaintiff
         and the class for Motorola's unjust enrichment; and

     (g) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         damages, and if so, the proper measure of their
         damages.

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, prays for an order as follows:

     -- certifying a class, naming plaintiff as the
        representative of the class and his attorneys as class
        counsel;

     -- entering judgment against Motorola and in favor of
        plaintiff and the class;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their damages in an
        amount to be determined by the court as fair and just
        for the wrongful activities of Motorola described in
        the complaint;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class prejudgment interest
        on any damages awarded by the court;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their reasonable
        attorneys' fees and expenses and costs of this lawsuit;
        and

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class such further relief as
        the court deems just and proper.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d35

The suit is "Romano v. Motorola, Inc., Case No. 0:07-cv-60517-
MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida under Judge Marcia G. Cooke.

Representing plaintiffs are Tod N. Aronovitz, Steven R. Jaffe
and Christopher Lang Marlowe, all of Aronovitz Trial Lawyers,
150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower, Miami, FL 33130,
Phone: 305-372-2772, Fax: 375-0243, E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com
or srj@aronovitzlaw.com or cm@aronovitzlaw.com; and Jay Martin
Klitzner of Paul J. Ansel PA, 601 S Ocean Drive, Hollywood, FL
33019, Phone: 954-922-9100.


MURPHY OIL: $60M Settlement Checks in Oil Spill Suit Sent Out
-------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corp. has mailed $60 million in settlement checks,
the first batch of payments from a $330 million settlement
between the Murphy Oil Corp. and about 6,000 St. Bernard Parish
homeowners for damages caused by an oil spill during Hurricane
Katrina, The Associated Press reports.

A company spokesman said Murphy expects to send out another $60
million to affected property owners and renters in several
biweekly mailings.

                        Case Background

The class action was filed on Sept. 9, 2005 on behalf of
residents of St. Bernard Parish who were claiming compensation
for damages caused by a release of crude oil at the company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, a refinery of Murphy Oil USA in Meraux,
Louisiana.  Crude oil leaked from the plant's storage tank that
was damaged by Hurricane Katrina (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
17, 2006).

Property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on behalf of at
approximately 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish filed
the suit.

Additional class actions have been consolidated with the first
suit into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.  The court certified the class on
Jan. 30, 2006.

                        Settlement Terms

In October 2006, Judge Fallon gave preliminary approval to the
proposed $330 million settlement (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
12, 2006).

Under the settlement, all residential and commercial properties
in the class area will receive a cash payment pursuant to a fair
and equitable allocation subject to court approval following
recommendations by a court-appointed Special Master.

The entire class area will have the benefit of a comprehensive
remediation program as approved by the court and regulatory
bodies and to be overseen by regulatory authorities.

About $80 million would go to settle roughly 2,700 household and
business claims, according to Sidney Torres, the court-appointed
liaison for the committee that would help disburse the
settlement.

Another $160 million would go toward property buyouts and paying
property owners in the area, while the remaining $90 million
would be for cleanup, Mr. Torres said.

Additionally, the company has agreed to make bona fide offers to
purchase, at fair market value, all residential and business
properties located on the first four streets west of the
refinery and north of St. Bernard Highway up to the Twenty
Arpent Canal.

The settlement spells out four levels of compensation, depending
on how bad the pollution was.  Compensation ranges from $15,000
in damages to homes farthest from the spill's epicenter to
buyouts of homes at a rate of $40 a square foot of living space,
plus $19 a square foot in damages.

The settlement puts to rest the vast majority of lawsuits filed
after a huge oil-storage tank at Murphy's flooded refinery near
New Orleans floated off its foundation and broke in 2005,
unleashing about 25,000 barrels of oil in the surrounding
neighborhoods.

The settlement affects residents who live in the area of the
Murphy Oil spill in Saint Bernard Parish.  

In January, Judge Fallon approved the $330 million settlement
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2007).  He also approved more
than $36 million in attorney fees and costs to be paid by
Murphy.

The settlement spells out four levels of compensation from a
flat $15,000 for damages to homes farthest from the tank to
buyouts of the closest houses: $40 per square foot (0.09 square
meters) of living space, plus $19.25 per square foot in damages,
plus $3,375 per occupant.

The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-
04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral
to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:     

     (1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common     
         St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299-     
         1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com;

     (2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St.,     
         P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181,     
         E-mail: madro@att.net; and   

     (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Law Offices of Daniel E.     
         Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H.     
         Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail:     
         dbecnel@becnellaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and    
Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone:    
337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and  
pmcshane@fpkc.com.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Settles Securities, Derivative Suits for $8M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, Inc. has reached settlements with plaintiffs
in shareholder class action and derivative litigation.

Under the terms of the settlement, Newpark will pay $1,550,000,
and the company's directors and officers' liability insurance
carrier will pay $8,300,000.  Both amounts include the cost of
certain legal fees and administration costs.

Between April 21, 2006 and May 9, 2006, five lawsuits asserting
claims against Newpark for violation of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and
Exchange Commision Rule 10b-5 were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  

The suits are:  

     -- "Kim v. Newpark Resources, Inc.,"  
     -- "Lowry v. Newpark Resources, Inc.,"
     -- "Galchutt v. Newpark Resources, Inc.,"  
     -- "Wallace v. Newpark Resources, Inc.," and  
     -- "Farr vs. Newpark Resources, Inc."  

All five complaints assert that James D. Cole, Newpark's former
chief executive officer and Matthew W. Hardey, Newpark's former
chief financial officer are liable for Newpark's violations as
control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

The latter four lawsuits have been transferred to the judge
presiding over the Kim Suit who has consolidated all five
actions as "In re: Newpark Resources, Inc. Securities
Litigation."  

The complaints, asserting unspecified damages, allege that:

     -- Newpark's April 17, 2006 press release concerning the  
        internal investigation into potential irregularities in  
        the processing and payment of invoices at one of its  
        subsidiaries, Soloco Texas, LP;

     -- establishes that Newpark misrepresented or omitted to  
        disclose to the investing public irregularities in the  
        processing and payment of invoices at Soloco and a lack  
        of internal controls and flawed accounting practices  
        and;  

     -- consequently, that Newpark did not prepare its  
        consolidated financial statements according to generally  
        accepted accounting principles.

As part of the settlement, the company is preserving certain
claims it may have against its former CEO and CFO for matters
arising from the potential invoicing irregularities at Soloco
and the backdating of options.  Newpark will accrue its share of
the settlement costs, along with the legal fees incurred to
conclude this settlement, in the first quarter of 2007.

Once approved, the settlements will resolve all class and
derivative litigation against the company, its former and
current directors, and former officers.

Paul Howes, Newpark's President and Chief Executive Officer,
stated, "We are extremely pleased to have our shareholder
litigation settled. This removes the uncertainty that is
inherent in any litigation and allows us to focus 100% of our
energy on increasing shareholder value here at Newpark."

The suit is "In re: Newpark Resources, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 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 with referral to 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.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Mulls MDL-1604's Federal Preemption Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal against a federal preemption issue in a multi-district
litigation over the servicing of mortgage loans by Ocwen
Financial Corp. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Ocwen Federal
Bank FSB.

On April 13, 2004, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation granted the company's petition to transfer and
consolidate a number of lawsuits against Ocwen Federal, Ocwen
Financial and various third parties in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois under the caption, "In re
Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL Docket
No. 1604," (MDL Proceeding).

Currently, there are approximately 58 lawsuits consolidated in
the MDL Proceeding involving 74 mortgage loans that the company
currently or previously serviced.  Additional similar lawsuits
have been brought in other courts, some of which may be
transferred to and consolidated in the MDL Proceeding.

The borrowers in many of these lawsuits seek class-action
certification.  Others have brought individual actions.  No
class has been certified in the MDL Proceeding or any related
lawsuits.

On May 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint containing various claims under federal
statutes, including the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, federal bankruptcy laws,
state deceptive trade practices statutes and common law.

The claims are generally based on allegations of improper loan
servicing practices, including:

      -- charging borrowers allegedly improper or unnecessary
         fees such as breach letter fees, hazard insurance
         premiums, foreclosure-related fees, late fees, property
         inspection fees and bankruptcy-related fees;

      -- untimely posting and misapplication of borrower
         payments; and

      -- improperly treating borrowers as in default on their
         loans.  

While the amended consolidated complaint does not set forth any
specific amounts of claimed damages, plaintiffs are not
precluded from requesting leave of court to amend further the
consolidated complaint or otherwise seeking damages should the
matter proceed to trial.  

On April 25, 2005, the court entered an opinion and order
granting the Bank partial summary judgment finding that, as a
matter of law, the mortgage loan contracts signed by plaintiffs
authorize the imposition of breach letter fees and other
legitimate default or foreclosure related expenses.

The court explained that it's ruling was in favor of defendants
to the specific and limited extent that plaintiffs' claims
challenge the propriety of the above-mentioned fees.  

On May 16, 2006, after having denied defendants' motions to
dismiss various portions of the consolidated complaint on
federal preemption and procedural grounds, as well as the
company's motion to dismiss Ocwen Financial from the case for
lack of personal jurisdiction, the court granted the company's
motion to take an interlocutory appeal on the federal preemption
issue.  

On July 29, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
granted the company's request to hear its appeal on the federal
preemption issue.  The appeal on that issue is presently
pending.  The appeal on that issue is presently pending.

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

The suit is "In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing
Litigation, MDL-1604, Master Docket No. 04cv2714," on appeal
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.


PDI INC: Calif. Court Mulls Final Approval of Labor Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
PDI, Inc. has yet to report that the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Francisco has granted final
approval to a settlement of a labor-related class action filed
against the company.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the company was served with a complaint in a
purported class action that was commenced against the company in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco on behalf of certain of the company's current and
former employees, alleging violations of certain sections of the
California Labor Code.

During the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2005, the company accrued
approximately $3.3 million for potential penalties and other
settlement costs relating to both asserted and unasserted claims
relating to this matter.

In October 2005, the company filed an answer generally denying
the allegations set forth in the complaint.  In December 2005,
the company reached a tentative settlement of this action,
subject to court approval.

As a result, the company reduced its accrual relating to
asserted and unasserted claims relating to this matter to
$600,000 during the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005.  The balance of
the accrual at Sept. 30, 2006 is $87,000.

In October 2006, the company received preliminary settlement
approval from the court and the final approval hearing was held
in January 2007, according to the company's March 16 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

PDI, Inc. on the Net: http://www.pdi-inc.com/.


PDI INC: N.J. Court Denies Request to Amend Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied
plaintiffs' request to amend a third complaint in a securities
fraud class action against the PDI, Inc., its former chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer.

In January and February 2002, three complaints that were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

These complaints were brought as purported shareholder class
actions under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 established thereunder.

On May 23, 2002, the court consolidated all three lawsuits into
a single action as, "In re PDI Securities Litigation, Mater File
No. 02-CV-0211," and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
plaintiffs' counsel.  

On or about Dec. 13, 2002, lead plaintiffs filed a second
consolidated and amended complaint, which superseded their
earlier complaints.

In February 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
second consolidated and amended complaint.  On or about Aug. 22,
2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed the second consolidated and amended complaint without
prejudice to plaintiffs.

On Oct. 21, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a third consolidated and
amended complaint.  Like its predecessor, the third consolidated
and amended complaint:

     -- names the company, its former chief executive officer
        and its chief financial officer as defendants;

     -- purports to state claims against the company on behalf
        of all persons who purchased its common stock between
        May 22, 2001 and Aug. 12, 2002; and

     -- seeks money damages in unspecified amounts and
        litigation expenses including attorneys' and experts'
        fees.

The essence of the allegations in the third consolidated and
amended complaint is that the company intentionally or
recklessly made false or misleading public statements and
omissions concerning the company's financial condition and
prospects with respect to it's marketing of Ceftin in connection
with:

      -- an October 2000 distribution agreement with
         GlaxoSmithKline;

      -- the company's marketing of Lotensin in connection with
         the May 2001 distribution agreement with Novartis; as
         well as

      -- its marketing of Evista in connection with the October
         2001 distribution agreement with Eli Lilly and company.

On Dec. 21, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
third consolidated and amended complaint under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  

On Feb. 24, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law
in opposition of the motion to dismiss the third consolidated
and amended complaint (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2006).

On Nov. 2, 2006, the court issued an opinion and order
dismissing with prejudice all claims asserted in the third
consolidated and amended complaint against all defendants and
denied lead plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint,
according to the company's March 16 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re PDI Securities Litigation, Mater File No. 02-
CV-0211," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New Jersey, under Judge Jose L. Linares, with
referral to Judge Ronald Hedges.

Representing the plaintiffs are Allyn Zissel Lite and Joseph
DePalma of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg And Rivas, LCC, Two Gateway
Center, 12TH Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-
3000, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com and jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Alan S. Naar of Greenbaum, Rowe,
Smith & Davis, Metro Corporate Campus one, P.O. Box 5600,
Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0988, Phone: (732) 549-5600, E-mail:
anaar@greenbaumlaw.com.


PNC FINANCIAL: Penn. Court Approves $9.075M Settlement by E&Y
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
approved a $9,075,000 settlement by Ernst & Young LLP of claims
it faces in the suit, "In Re PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-00271-DSC."

Deadline for submission of proof of claims is May 11.

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

                        Case Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Barry Weprin, Esq., )lawyer for lead
plaintiff) at Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP, One Pennsylvania
Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Telephone: (212) 594-5300; or

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


PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Court Mulls Consolidation of Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion to consolidate several securities
fraud class actions filed against PXRE Group, Ltd.

Initially, several class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the company;
Jeffrey Radke, the company's chief executive officer; and John
Modin, the company's former chief financial officer.

Those suits were brought on behalf of a putative class
consisting of investors who purchased the publicly traded
securities of PXRE between July 28, 2005 and Feb. 16, 2006.

Each of the class action complaints asserts nearly identical
claims and alleges that during the purported class period
certain PXRE executives made a series of materially false and
misleading statements or omissions about PXRE's business,
prospects and operations, thereby causing investors to purchase
PXRE's securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934
Act.

The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the
company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material
adverse facts:

      -- the full impact on PXRE's business of hurricanes
         Katrina, Rita and Wilma;

      -- the doubling of PXRE's cost of the 2005 Hurricanes to
         an estimated $758 million to $788 million; and

      -- the magnitude of the loss to PXRE and PXRE's potential
         loss of its financial-strength and credit ratings from
         A.M. Best.

Further, the complaints allege, based on the foregoing asserted
facts, that PXRE's statements with respect to its loss estimates
for the 2005 hurricane season lacked any reasonable basis.  The
class actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief.  

A motion to consolidate all of the class actions into a single
proceeding is currently pending before the court.

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

The first identified complaint is "Stephen Goldberger, et al. v.
PXRE Group Limited, et al., Case No. 06-CV-3410," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

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

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

     (4) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

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

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

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

     (8) Stull, Stull & Brody, (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and

     (9) Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd.,
         Suite 3000, Manhattan Beach, CA, 90266, Phone:
         310.725.6400, Fax: 310.725.6420.


ROBERT G. MICHAELS: TCPA Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division will hold a fairness hearing on April 23, 2007
at 11:00 a.m. for a proposed $275,000 settlement in the matter,
"Stephen L. Kerschner and Burton T. Witt v. Douglas Liphardt,
d/b/a Robert G. Michaels & Associates, Case No. 03 CH 15384."

The hearing will be held in Room 1703 of the Richard J. Daley
Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago, IL 60602.

Deadline for submission of a proof of claim form and the filing
of objections or exclusions to or from the settlement was Feb.
12, 2007.

Stephen L. Kerschner and Burton T. Witt filed this lawsuit
against Douglas Liphardt d/b/a Robert G. Michaels & Associates
alleging that Robert G. Michaels sent them an unsolicited fax
advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

In filing this lawsuit, plaintiffs filed it as a class action,
on behalf of themselves and all others who received the same
faxes as well.

For more details, contact Daniel A. Edelman and James O.
Latturner of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 South  
LaSalle Street, Phone: 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
(312) 739-4200, E-mail: courtecl@aol.com and
jlatturner@edcombs.com.


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Third Circuit Mulls Appeal in N.J. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has yet to issue a
ruling with regards to an appeal in a purported class action,
"In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities Litigation."

The original class action complaints were filed in December
2002, and January 2003, against Bio-Technology General Corp.,
now known as Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  

They were brought on behalf of investors who had purchased
shares of Bio-Technology General during an alleged Class Period
of April 19, 1999 through Aug. 2, 2002.

The complaints alleged that these investors had been defrauded
because, on Sept. 25, 2002, the company filed restated year-end
and quarterly reports of its earnings and related financial
statements for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001, which the company
had previously announced would be forthcoming in its Form 8-K
and accompanying press release issued Aug. 2, 2002.  

The plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action
complaint on Sept. 25, 2003.  

On Aug. 10, 2005, the court granted, without prejudice, Savient
Pharmaceuticals' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint,
and allowed the plaintiffs to re-plead their complaint.

On Oct. 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, again seeking unspecified compensatory damages,
purporting to set forth particularized facts to support their
allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the company and its
former officers.

On Dec. 13, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  On Oct. 26, 2006, the court
dismissed, with prejudice, the second amended complaint.

The district court declined to allow plaintiffs to file another
amended complaint.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which is currently
pending, according to the company's March 16 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-6048," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Harold A.
Ackerman.   

Plaintiff firms in this case are:

     (1) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL), 515
         North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL,
         33401, Phone: 561.835.9400;

     (2) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
         AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
         Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505;

     (3) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree St., N.E., 2900,
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999;

     (4) Dekel-Sabo Law Office, Twin Towers 1, 33 Jabotinsky
         St., Ramat Gan, Phone: 972.3.6133310, Fax:
         972.3.6133321, E-mail: dekel-sabo@isdn.net.il;

     (5) Glancy and Binkow of 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
         311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-
         mail: info@glancylaw.com;

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

     (7) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
         Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

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

     (9) Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego), 1818 Market
         St., Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6611.


SECURE COMPUTING: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Secure Computing Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to the company's March 16 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Jan. 19, Rosenbaum Capital, LLC, filed a putative securities
class action complaint against the company and certain directors
and officers of the company.

The alleged plaintiff class includes persons who acquired the
company's stock between May 4, 2006 through July 11, 2006.

The complaint alleges generally that defendants made false and
misleading statements about the business condition and prospects
for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The suit is "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00392-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Samuel Conti.

Representing the plaintiff is Elizabeth C. Guarnieri of Green
Welling, LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA
94105, Phone: 415-477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail:
ecg@classcounsel.com.

Representing the defendants is Michael L. Charlson of Heller
Ehrman LLP, 275 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506,
Phone: 650/324-7000, Fax: 650 324-0638, E-mail:
michael.charlson@hellerehrman.com.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS COS: Faces Right-of-Way Lawsuit in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Waltham (Massachusetts) attorney Catherine Colinvaux, on behalf
of North Chelmsford couple Richard and Corey Kingsborough, filed
a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against several telecommunications companies, The
Sun reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Sprint Communications Co. L.P.
     -- Qwest Communications Corporation and
     -- Level 3 Communications, LLC

The lawsuit claims the defendants illegally ran fiber-optic
cables under railroad rights of way without getting approval
from neighboring landowners.

Plaintiffs allege defendants illegally ran the cables to install
a nationwide fiber-optic network in a way to achieve both lower
costs and extra speed in installing their systems.

Under the law, the railroads were granted easements, sometimes
forced by the eminent-domain laws, across private property to
install train tracks.  But the lawsuit states the companies
named in this lawsuit had no legal right to allow the rights of
way for commercial telecommunications purposes with consent from
and compensation to the owners of the land adjacent to the
rights of way.

As a result of this unlawful use of the land, the companies in
the lawsuit have earned millions of dollars from rents, profits
and other benefits, according to the lawsuit.

The suit is "Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10651-MLW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Mark L.
Wolf.

Representing plaintiffs are Andrew W. Cohen of Koonz, McKenney,
Johnson, DePaolis & Lighfoot, LLP, 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
James Monroe Building, Suite 450, Washington, DC 20006, Phone:
202-822-1826, Fax: 202-822-1828, E-mail: acohen@koonz.com; and
Catherine M. Colinvaux of Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette
LLP, 950 Winter Street, Suite 1300, Waltham, MA 02451, Phone:
781-466-0700, Fax: 781-466-0701, E-mail: ccolinvaux@zelle.com.


TXU ELECTRIC: Faces Texas Suit Over "Deceptive" Trade Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rankin Law Firm and the Law Office of David Guillory, a
Nacogdoches (Texas) lawyer filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against TXU
Electric Delivery Co., over alleged violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices and breach of contractual agreements
with customers, The Lufkin Daily News reports.

The suit accuses the energy provider of installing electronic
meters that "inflated and inaccurately" calculated energy usage
for a number of Angelina County customers.

The suit is seeking injunctive relief to prevent TXU Delivery
from "altering, removing, converting or otherwise modifying or
tampering with the instruments in question."

It also requests the electric provider stop billing practices
until an audit of the meters can be conducted at the company's
expense.

Plaintiffs' counsel are David J. Guillory, 510 E. Pillar St.
Nacogdoches, TX 75961-4408; and The Rankin Law Firm, PLLC, 510
Ochiltree Street, Nacogdoches, Texas 75961-4408, Phone: (936)
715-9333 or (877) 715-9333 (Toll Free), Fax: (936) 715-9339.


VENMAR VENTILATION INC: Recalls Ventilators Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------=------------------------------------
Venmar Ventilation Inc., of Quebec, Canada, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
75,000 units of Heat Recovery Ventilators.

The company said the motors in these units can overheat, posing
a fire hazard.

Venmar Ventilation has received four reports of ventilator
motors overheating resulting in fires causing extensive property
damage.  One incident in Michigan reportedly resulted in about
$1 million in damages.

Heat Recovery Ventilators are designed to exchange air between
the inside and outside of a home in order to provide fresh air.  
The recall covers units made from 1991 through 2001, and have
the following brand names and model numbers:

        Brand                         Models

        Venmar                        AEXX, EARC, 1XX, 30X, 40X,
                                      40XXX

        Venmar AVS                    1.X, 2.X, 30XX, 55XX

        Flair                         30, 30XX, 55, 55XX, 85115

        v"nEE                         10, 1XX, 100X, 20, 20XX,
                                      30XX, 90

        Conformax                     300, 350, 400

        NuTone                        NUTR130

        Carrier                       VXXXXXXXXX, ERVXXXXXXX or
        Bryant                        HRVXXXXXXX

        Payne                         VXXXXXXXXX
        Day & Night

        Heil                          HEILXXXXX

        York                          5263554XXXX

        Sears Brand                   OPTIMUM

        Guardian by Broan             100X, 200X

        Rheem                         84-ERV100, 84-ERV200,
        Ruud                          84-HRV100, 84-HRV200
        Protech
        Weatherking

The model numbers are written on a silver or black label on the
outside of panel.  The "X" digit used in the model numbers can
be either a letter or a number.

These recalled Heat Recovery ventilators were manufactured in
Canada and are being sold by heating, plumbing and building
supply distributors nationwide from January 1991 through
December 2001 for between $700 and $2,500.

Pictures of recalled Heat Recovery ventilators:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07143a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07143b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07143c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately turn off and unplug their
ventilators, and contact Venmar to receive instructions on how
to participate in the recall.  Venmar will provide a free safety
device that will shut off the ventilator if the motor overheats.

For more information, contact Venmar Ventilation toll-free at
(866) 441-4645 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.venmar.ca


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in W.Va.
------------------------------------------------------------
Three former employees at Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s South
Charleston store filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
at Charleston on April 3, claiming the store did not
appropriately compensate them for time worked, The West Virginia
Record reports.

The plaintiffs sought to represent every Wal-Mart employee in
West Virginia who suffered a similar fate since 1989.  The suit
was filed by Charleston attorney Troy Giatras on behalf of Pam
Brogan, Jane Markins and Francis Gail Patterson, former
employees at Wal-Mart in South Charleston.

The suit claims Wal-Mart routinely asks employees to complete
assignments without recording hours worked and that Wal-Mart
altered records to make it appear employees took full meal
breaks when they worked part of the time.

It also claims Wal-Mart deleted hours over 40 and shaved time
through other unlawful means, according to the report.  The suit
seeks damages for conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, and breach of good faith and fair dealing.  It also
claims violations of West Virginia wage laws.

The suit is "Brogan, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00214," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia under Judge Joseph R.
Goodwin.

Representing the plaintiffs is Troy N. Giatras at The Giatras
Law Firm, Suite 400, 118 Capitol Street, Charleston, WV 25301,
Phone: 304/343-2900, Fax: 304/343-2942, E-mail:
troy@thewvlawfirm.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Seal Documents in "Savaglio"
----------------------------------------------------------
A 1st District panel reversed an order granting a motion by Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. to seal records related to a labor class action
against the company, The Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports.

Alameda Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sabraw had sealed the
documents.  In August 2004, The Berkeley Daily Planet and its
counsel Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld filed a motion to unseal the
labor document to inspect and copy the papers Wal-Mart had filed
in connection with its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and in support of its summary adjudication
motion.  

The judge denied the motion on the reason that the filings at
the Court of Appeal would be under seal because filings in the
trial court were conditionally under seal.  Wal-Mart moved to
permanently seal documents.

Div. Four denied Wal-Mart's motion finding that it has waived
its right to have the documents sealed because, by the time it
brought its motion, it had already publicly filed the documents
in the Court of Appeal.

The case is "Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc."  Plaintiffs in
the class action allege that they were not provided meal and
rest breaks in accordance with California law, and seek monetary
damages and injunctive relief.  A jury trial on the plaintiffs'
claims for monetary damages concluded on Dec. 22, 2005.  The
jury returned a verdict of approximately $57 million in
statutory penalties and $115 million in punitive damages.  

Following a bench trial in June 2006, the judge entered an order
allowing some, but not all, of the injunctive relief sought by
the plaintiffs.  On Dec. 27, 2006, the judge entered an order
awarding the plaintiffs an additional amount of approximately
$26 million in costs and attorneys' fees.  The company filed a
notice of appeal on Jan. 31.


ZIX CORP: Discovery Begins in Tex. Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has begun in a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas against Zix Corp., and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.

Beginning in early September 2004, several purported shareholder
class actions were filed against the company in Texas federal
court.

The purported class actions seek unspecified monetary damages on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between Oct.
30, 2003 and May 4, 2004.

The suits alleged that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act during this time
period.  These class actions were later consolidated into one
case.

The defendants are Zix Corp., Dennis F. Heathcote, Daniel S.
Nutkis, John A. Ryan, Ronald A. Woessner, and Steve M. York.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuits
pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and also pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  The court denied the motion in September
2006.  

The consolidated class action is proceeding in due course, and
is in the early phase of the discovery process, according to the
company's March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Brody, et al. v. Zix Corp., et al., Case No. 3:04-
cv-01931," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102 Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185;

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

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

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego) 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;  

     (5) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com;  

     (6) Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, 3232 McKinney Avenue,
         Suite 700, Dallas, TX, 75204 Phone: 214.744.3000, Fax:
         214.744.3015, E-mail: info@provostumphrey.com;  

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

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

     (9) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC Phone:
         877.891.9880, E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com; and

    (10) Wolf Popper, LLP 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022-
         6689, Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093, E-mail:
         IRRep@wolfpopper.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHECKFREE CORP: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Lawsuit in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood Harley Harnes filed a lawsuit seeking class-action
status in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
CheckFree Corp. during the period April 4, 2006 through Aug. 1,
2006, inclusive.

The defendants are CheckFree, Peter J. Kight, who at all
relevant times was Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of the company, and David Mangum, who at all relevant
times was Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of the company.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
misled investors by issuing false and misleading statements
about CheckFree's operations and financial condition and as a
result, the price of CheckFree securities was artificially
inflated during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on April 4, 2006, an analyst
indicated that CheckFree projected a 25% annual transaction
growth for the foreseeable future, which led to an 8% increase
in the price of CheckFree stock by the end of that day.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants continued to make false
and misleading statements about CheckFree's Electronic Commerce
and Payment Services businesses in press releases, analyst
reports and conference calls. The truth began to emerge in an
Aug. 1, 2006, conference call when CheckFree admitted that its
financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, were
lower than previously expected.

After the market learned of the disappointing results, shares of
CheckFree plunged $5.93, or 13%, the next day on a volume of
17.3 million shares, the highest daily volume in the more than
10 years that the company has been publicly traded.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 11,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Atlanta Mary Kathryn King, Esq. of
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, Phone: 1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-
3900, E-mail: kking@chitwoodlaw.com, Website:
http://www.chitwoodlaw.com


WORLDSPACE INC: Zwerling Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
common stock of World Space, Inc. issued in connection with, or
traceable to, the initial public offering of World Space shares
(the IPO).

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made
materially false and misleading representations in the company's
Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the sale of World Space common
stock in the IPO.

Further, the Complaint alleges that the offering price was
inflated because Defendants failed to disclose that subscribers
who had purchased a three-month, pre-paid subscription to World
Space pursuant to a promotional offer, but who declined to
continue or to pay for a subscription following the end of the
promotional period, were not timely removed from the company's
publicly stated subscriber count. Defendants continued to
include these expired subscriptions in the company's subscriber
count for an additional ninety days following the expiration of
the initial three-month promotional period.

On March 16, 2006, however, World Space revealed that
subscribers were not immediately removed from its subscription
count when a customer failed to renew its subscription.

This news caused WorldSpace's common stock to decline
substantially the next day, March 17, 2006, by $2.63 per share,
a more than 22% drop from the previous day's closing price of
$11.52 per share.

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

For more information, contact Stephanie Kirwan, Esq. or Donald
Lanier, both of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, Phone: +1-
800-721-3900 or +1-800-721-3900, E-mail: skirwan@zsz.com or
dlanier@zsz.com, Website: http://www.zsz.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  * * *