CAR_Public/070418.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 18, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 76

                            Headlines


AQUILA INC: Hedge Funds Sue Over $1.7B Sale to Great Plains
AWB LTD: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over U.N. "Oil-for-Food" Fraud
AWB LTD: Shareholders' $25M Lawsuit Gets IMF's Financial Support
BIOVAIL CORP: Continues to Face Investors' Lawsuit in Canada
BIOVAIL CORP: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissal of Tiazac Lawsuits

BIOVAIL CORP: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BIOVAIL CORP: Reaches $8.2M Settlement in Suits Over Adalat CC
BMO NESBITT: Plaintiff Amends Suit Over Currency Conversion Fees
BROOKSTONE INC: Seeks Approval of Ala. Consumer Suit Settlement
DANA CORP: Files Motion to Dismiss, Stay Ohio Shareholder Suits

DDI CORP: Seeks Approval of Calif. Securities Suit Settlement
DHL EXPRESS: ABX Subsidiary Faces RICO Act Violations Lawsuit
FIRST AMERICAN: Consumers Sue in Ida. Over Home Refinancing Fees
FMF CAPITAL: Courts Approve $24.7M Securities Suit Settlement
FMF CAPITAL: $1.1B Mich. Suit Junked After Canadian Settlement

GENERAL MOTORS: Court Mulls Claims Faced in Delphi ERISA Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Hughes Electronics Split-Off Case Remains Stayed
GENERAL MOTORS: Mich. Court Mulls Class Status for ERISA Lawsuit
GENERAL MOTORS: Savings Plan Members File Suit in N.Y. Court
GREENLEAF: Recalls Lemon Bars Due to Undeclared Milk Content

HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Choco Clusters with Undeclared Nuts
JK HARRIS: Settles Suit Over "Offer In Compromise" for $6M
LEXISNEXIS: Sued in Calif. for Failing to Protect Client Info
LITHIA MOTORS: Settlement of Suit Over "Illegal" Fee Challenged
MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Ponsor Accepts Proposal for "Stuck" Kids

MCLEODUSA INC: Still Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Unsolicited Faces
MCNEIL-PPC: Recalls Mouth Wash with Inadequate Preservative
MCNEIL-PPC: Faces Calif. Suit Over 'Cool Blue' Listerine
MENU FOODS: Recalls Pet Food Made with ChemNutra Wheat Gluten
MICROSOFT CORP: Ia. Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set Today

MOTOROLA INC: Settles Telsim-Related Securities Suit for $190M
NESTLE PURINA: Recalls Mighty Dog Products Made by Menu Foods
NVIDIA CORP: Plaintiffs Want GPU Antitrust Suits Consolidated
OWENS CORNING: Del. District Court Okays MiraVista Suit Deal
PARMALAT SPA: N.Y. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement

PEOPLE'S CHOICE: Former Workers in Calif. Sue Bankrupt Employer
SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Settles Del. Suit Over Micro Linear Deal
SIX FLAGS: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Labor-Related Litigation
SKECHERS USA: April 18 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Appeal
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Fla. Consumer Suit

SUNSHINE MILLS: Recalls Dog Biscuits Containing Wheat Gluten
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Securities Suit Plaintiff Seeks to Modify Stay
WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Suit by Third-Party Payors for $7.5M


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Online Teleconferences
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SOUTHERN FARM: Baker & Hostetler Files Securities Fraud Suit

          
                            *********


AQUILA INC: Hedge Funds Sue Over $1.7B Sale to Great Plains
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pirate Capital LLC filed a class action in the Court of Chancery
of the state of Delaware in and for New Castle County against
the Board of Directors of Aquila, Inc.

Pirate Capital serves as the investment advisor to four event-
driven hedge funds, named plaintiffs in the suit:

     -- Jolly Roger Fund LP,
     -- Jolly Roger Offshore Fund Ltd.,
     -- Jolly Roger Activist Fund LP, and
     -- Jolly Roger Activist Fund Ltd.

Pirate Capital alleges breaches of fiduciary duties related to
the process and structure of the proposed transaction with Great
Plains Energy, Inc. as well as conflicts of interest.

Aquila began in 1940 as Missouri Public Service.  However,
Aquila got caught up in the Enron bankruptcy that triggered
increased credit requirements for the company and led to the
collapse of Aquila's energy-trading business, contributing to
$2.9 billion in losses in the following four years.

Three Aquila employees pled guilty in August 2006 to federal
charges that they submitted false natural gas trade reports to
industry publications between 1999-2005.

Defendant Richard C. Green, a director of Aquila since 1982,
caused Aquila to sell $3.6 billion in assets since 2002 to raise
cash to pay debt.

In connection with its restructuring efforts, Aquila undertook a
strategic review in the beginning of 2006, with the assistance
of Blackstone Group and Lehman Bros., advisors to the Aquila
Board of Directors and Evercore Partners Inc., advisor to
Aquila's outside directors.

Following this strategic review, the Board determined that a
"targeted" auction process be undertaken, and instructed that
their financial advisors contact nine parties consisting of
seven strategic buyers and two financial buyers.

Ultimately, in August 2006, Aquila received five preliminary
bids, ranging from $4.15 to $5 per share.  Following due
diligence, only Great Plains submitted a final bid.

Great Plains requested that Aquila enter into an exclusivity
agreement in order to finalize the terms of any possible deal.
Thus, from November 2006 until Feb. 7, 2007, Aquila and Great
Plains had such an exclusivity arrangement.

On Feb. 7, 2007, Aquila announced it had entered into a
definitive agreement with Great Plains pursuant to which Great
Plains will acquire all the outstanding shares of the company
for $1.80 in cash plus 0.0856 Great Plains share for each share
of Aquila common stock.

Prior to Great Plains' acquisition of Aquila, Black Hills Corp.
will acquire certain utilities from Aquila in Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska and Iowa for $940 million.  The transaction is
conditioned upon the Black Hills acquisition.

The transaction is valued at approximately $1.7 billion, or
$4.54 per share, based on Great Plains's closing stock price on
Feb. 6, 2007.  Great Plains is also assuming approximately $1
billion of Aquila's debt.

The price in the transaction does not represent a premium for
Aquila stockholders and is a discount to Aquila's Feb. 6, 2007
closing price of $4.67 per share.

After the transaction was announced, Aquila management announced
that it anticipated substantial EBITDA growth through 2012,
indicating that the transaction price undervalues Aquila.

According to Pirate's presentation relating to the transaction,
Great Plains "negotiated a sweetheart deal for control of
Aquila."

Pirate has asserted its adamant opposition to the deal with
Great Plains since the deal was announced on Feb. 7, 2007, and
instead recommends that Aquila accept only the transaction with
Black Hills Corp. and continue to operate as a stand-alone
company.

According to Pirate's presentation, Aquila "will be an
investment grade, Missouri electric utility play with EBITDA
growth rates in excess of 20.0% per year compared to the current
junk-rated disparate mix of assets providing barely 10.0%
annualized growth."

Pirate values the company at $5.00-5.50 per share.

                        The Class Action

The class action raises these questions:

    (i) whether the defendants have fulfilled, and are capable
        of fulfilling, their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and
        the other members of the class, including their duties
        of entire fairness, fair dealing, loyalty, due care,
        and candor;

   (ii) whether the defendants have disclosed all material
        facts in connection with the challenged transaction;
        and

  (iii) whether plaintiffs and the other members of the class
        would be irreparably damaged if the defendants are not
        enjoined from the conduct described herein.

Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

     -- declaring this to be a proper class action and naming
        plaintiffs as class representatives;

     -- granting preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
        against the consummation of the transaction as described
        in the complaint;

     -- in the event the transaction is consummated, rescinding
        the transaction and awarding rescissory damages;

     -- ordering defendants to fully disclose all material
        information regarding the transaction;

     -- ordering defendants to pay to plaintiffs and to other
        members of the class all damages suffered and to be
        suffered by them as the result of the acts and
        transactions alleged in the complaint;

     -- awarding plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of the
        action including allowances for plaintiff's reasonable
        attorneys' and experts' fees; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as may be just
        and proper.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d5e

The suit is "Jolly Roger Fund et al. v. Aquila, Inc. et al.,"
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and
for New Castle County.

Representing plaintiffs is Norman M. Monhait of Rosenthal,
Monhait & Goddess, P.A., 919 Market Street, Suite 1401
Citizens Bank Center, P.O. Box 1070, Wilmington, DE 19899-1070,
Phone: (302) 656-4433.


AWB LTD: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over U.N. "Oil-for-Food" Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC filed a
class action on behalf of American wheat farmers in the U.S.
District Court in New York City against:

     -- AWB Ltd., the private entity charged with exporting
        Australian wheat to foreign markets; and

     -- AWB (U.S.A.) Ltd., a U.S. subsidiary.

From 1999 until 2003, AWB allegedly paid bribes and kickbacks to
the Saddam Hussein regime in exchange for exclusive contracts
for wheat sales under the U.N.'s "Oil for Food Program" and to
keep its competition -- American-grown wheat -- out of the Iraqi
market.

As a result, American farmers were stuck with an oversupply of
wheat during that period which depressed the prices at which
they could sell their wheat.

The complaint focuses on farmers who produced hard red winter
wheat (HRW) during the relevant period.  HRW wheat accounts for
about 40 percent of total U.S. production and is grown by more
than 100,000 farmers primarily in the Great Plains, including
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, South
Dakota and Montana.

The lawsuit invokes the federal antitrust and civil Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to force AWB and its
U.S. subsidiary to compensate American farmers for the damages
they suffered.  Damages to American farmers could be well over
$100 million.

The lawsuit is based largely on the findings of two independent
investigations into AWB's conduct during the Oil for Food
Program.

The U.N. completed an 18-month investigation in October of 2005,
finding that AWB was the single largest source of kickbacks in
one of the largest financial scandals in modern history -- the
manipulation of the $60 billion Oil for Food Program.

The findings of the U.N. investigation were verified and further
detailed by an Australian government investigation completed in
November of 2006.

According to Benjamin Brown, a partner at Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC (Washington, D.C.) who is representing the
plaintiff farmers, "Wheat is a commodity market where price
effects are globally-related.  AWB knew that, by paying these
bribes, it would profit at the direct expense of American
farmers -- its only real competition in the Iraqi market.  
Unfortunately, AWB achieved its monopoly in the Iraqi market not
through fair competition, but by deceiving the United Nations
into unwittingly funding Hussein's corrupt regime.  There has
been a great deal of talk on Capitol Hill, and in the wheat
farming community, about the damage inflicted on U.S. farmers by
AWB's conduct.  [The] filing is the first concrete step toward
recovery."

For more information, contact Deborah Schwartz of Media
Relations, Inc. for Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC,
Phone: 301-897-8838, Mobile: 240-355-8838, E-mail:
dschwartz@mediarelationsinc.com.


AWB LTD: Shareholders' $25M Lawsuit Gets IMF's Financial Support
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's largest litigation funder IMF (Australia) Ltd. will
fund the litigation for AWB Ltd. shareholders who are eligible
to participate in the $25 million lawsuit against the wheat
exporter over its part in the Iraqi kickbacks scandal, the
Australian Financial News reports.

IMF, which supports legal claims over $2 million, said the
funding will be available for investors who purchased B Class
shares in AWB Ltd in the almost four years between March 11,
2002, and Jan. 13, 2006, and held the shares until Jan. 14,
2006.

Class Action Reporter reported on April 16, 2007 that the law
firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman has been instructed to commence
proceedings against AWB on behalf of shareholders.

According to AWB, it had received a letter from the law firm
saying Maurice Blackburn Cashman is prepared, prior to filing
these proceedings, to enter into discussions with AWB to agree
on claims resolution process.

Ben Slade, managing principal of the Maurice Blackburn Cashman's
New South Wales branch, said the firm was acting for an
unspecified number of institutional and retail investors in AWB
who claim they lost money because AWB failed to inform the
market of its activities in Iraq.

Shareholders allege AWB breached its continuous disclosure
obligations under Australian Securities Exchange regulations and
the Corporations Act.

Mr. Slade said it was alleged AWB had failed to continuously
disclose to the marketplace material facts that could reasonably
be expected to affect the company's share price.

He said it was claimed that AWB should have revealed it was
involved in taking steps that caused Australia to be in breach
of United Nations sanctions under the oil-for-food program and
by one means or another was getting money from a U.N. account to
make payments to Iraq in breach of the program.

It is also claimed that the alleged breaches by AWB impact its
share market price and that as a result, the shareholders who
bought AWB shares over a near four-year period suffered losses.

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

Ben Slade, Jason Geisker or Juliana Tang, all of Maurice
Blackburn Cashman, Phone: (02) 9261 1488.


BIOVAIL CORP: Continues to Face Investors' Lawsuit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Biovail Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class action
filed in Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging that the
drugmaker made a "series of false and materially misleading
statements" about its business and financial position between
Feb. 7, 2003, and March 3, 2004.

On Sept. 21, 2005, the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry
Pension Plan (CCWIPP) commenced a securities class action in
Canada against Biovail and several of its officers.

The action is purportedly prosecuted on behalf of all
individuals other than the defendants who purchased Biovail's
common stock between Feb. 7, 2003 and March 2, 2004.  

In a statement of claim, CCWIPP said it sustained losses of
about CAD$481,000 from a series of stock purchases during the
13-month period because it relied on statements made by the
company and four executives (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27,
2005).  

Though none of the allegations have been proven in court, the
suit named former chairman and chief executive officer Eugene
Melnyk, senior vice-president Brian Crombie, and vice-presidents
John Miszuk and Ken Howling as defendants.

In its statement of claims, the pension plan revealed that it
purchased a total of 231,000 shares of Biovail in six
transactions on the Toronto Stock Exchange in August and October
of 2003 at prices ranging from CAD$55.09 in August to CAD$33.93
in October.  It also sold 5,200 shares at $31.42 a share in
October 2003.  

Additionally, the plan said in its statement of claim that
Biovail's stock price in 2003 and early 2004 depended on two
drugs: hypertensive Cardizem LA, which was launched on April 2,
2003, and antidepressant Wellbutrin XL, which was launched in
the third quarter of 2003.

Generally, the claim seeks damages in excess of CAD$100,000,000
for misrepresentation and breaches of Section 134 of the
Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, and Sections 36 and 52 of
the Competition Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-34, as well as class wide
punitive and exemplary damages.

The claim essentially relies on the same facts and allegations
as those cited in the complaint.  The claim was served on the
company and named officers on Sept. 29, 2005.

Plaintiffs have not taken any steps to certify the action as a
class proceeding or otherwise to move it forward, according to
the company's March 21 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  
The defendants intend to resist class certification and file a
defense only following a decision on class certification.

Biovail Corp. on the Net: http://www.biovail.com/.


BIOVAIL CORP: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissal of Tiazac Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court has yet to rule on a consolidated appeal over
the dismissal of several antitrust cases against Biovail Corp.
over its Tiazac drug, according to the company's March 21 Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Several class action or representative action complaints in
multiple jurisdictions have been filed against the company in
which plaintiffs are alleging that the company has improperly
impeded the approval of a generic form of Tiazac.

Those actions filed in federal courts have been transferred to,
and in some cases consolidated or coordinated in, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The company believes that the complaints are without merit and
that the company's actions were in accordance with its rights as
contained in the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and the law.

Moreover, the company's position is that it is not responsible
for the Andrx Group inability to receive timely final marketing
approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its
generic Tiazac considering that the Andrx product did not
receive FDA approval for a lengthy period following the removal
of all legal or regulatory impediments by the company.

The court granted the company's motion for summary judgment
seeking to dismiss several of those actions, which the federal
plaintiffs have appealed.  

The court has also granted the company's motion for summary
judgment in a further case filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia after Biovail's motion for summary
judgment in the other federal actions had been fully briefed,
and which has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.

This appeal, as well as the other appeals filed by plaintiffs to
the original lawsuits dismissed by the District Court, has been
consolidated by the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals has also set a briefing schedule for the
consolidated appeals with briefing to begin this year at the end
of March and conclude by the end of May.

The company has brought the court's decision on Biovail's motion
for summary judgment to the attention of the Superior Court of
the State of California for Los Angeles County, the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Diego and the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda,
where several state court actions are pending.

The Superior Court for the County of San Diego directed that
certain discovery concerning Andrx's regulatory problems that
was already produced to the federal plaintiffs be made available
to the plaintiffs in that case.

The company complied with the court's direction and then moved
to dismiss the amended complaint in the case.  The court granted
the company's motion and dismissed the complaint with leave for
the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which they did.

The company then moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
court also granted that motion and dismissed the complaint with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs moved the court to reconsider its decision, which
the court denied.  They have taken an appeal from that decision.

The actions in the other California courts are stayed pending
the final disposition of the cases pending in the District of
Columbia.

Biovail Corp. on the Net: http://www.biovail.com/.


BIOVAIL CORP: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated securities fraud class
action against Biovail Corp. that is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according
to the company's March 21 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

In late 2003 and early 2004, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York naming Biovail and certain
officers and directors as defendants.

On or about June 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, alleging among other matters, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The company responded to the complaint by filing a motion to
dismiss, which the court denied.  Thereafter, the company filed
its answer denying the allegations in the complaint.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second
amended class action complaint under seal.  The second amended
complaint alleges, among other matters, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

More specifically, the second amended complaint alleges that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements that
inflated the price of the company's stock between Feb. 7, 2003
and March 2, 2004.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all persons,
other than the defendants and their affiliates, who purchased
the company's stock during that period.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The company has opposed that motion.

On Oct. 16, 2006, the company filed its answer denying the
allegations in the second amended complaint.  Discovery in this
case is ongoing, and the action is now proceeding on its merits
through normal legal process.

The suit is "In Re: Biovail Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 03-CV-8917," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Richard Owen.

Plaintiff firms named in case are:

     (1) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York,
         NY), 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York,
         NY, 10019, Phone: 212-554-1400, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-
         mail: blbg@blbglaw.com; and

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com.


BIOVAIL CORP: Reaches $8.2M Settlement in Suits Over Adalat CC
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative $8,200,000 settlement has been reached in actions
pending against Biovail Corp., and two other defendants, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with regards to
the blood pressure drug, Adalat CC, according to the company's
March 21 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Several class action and individual action complaints in
multiple jurisdictions have been commenced jointly against the
company, Elan Corp. PLC, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
relating to an agreement between the company and Elan for the
licensing of Adalat CC products from Elan.

These actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia.  

The agreement in question has since been dissolved as a result
of a consent decree with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.  

The company believes these suits are without merit because,
among other reasons, it is the company's position that any delay
in the marketing or out-licensing of the company's Adalat CC
product was due to manufacturing difficulties the company
encountered and not because of any improper activity on its
part.

The company filed a motion for the summary dismissal of these
actions.  The court has denied the company's motion to dismiss
the damage claims brought on behalf of a purported class of so-
called "direct purchasers", generally consisting of distributors
and large chain drug stores, but dismissed the claims of a class
of consumers and "indirect purchasers".

The remainder of the federal action is proceeding on the merits
through the normal legal process.  

The consumer and "indirect purchasers" claims were refiled in
the Superior Court of the State of California.

All court dates in the California action were taken off calendar
as the parties have reached agreement for a settlement subject
to completion of the necessary documentation and approval of the
court.

In general, the settlement calls for the certification of a
settlement class consisting of all indirect purchases of 30 mg.
or 60 mg. Adalat CC from Oct. 1, 1999 to the present.  

The total payment to be made by all the defendants is
$8,200,000, which the defendants have agreed to pay in three
equal shares.  The company's one-third share is $2,733,000.

Biovail Corp. on the Net: http://www.biovail.com/.


BMO NESBITT: Plaintiff Amends Suit Over Currency Conversion Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported Canadian class action against BMO Nesbitt Burns
Inc., BMO Trust Co., and BMO Bank of Montreal over foreign-
exchange conversion practices was amended so as to add two
additional plaintiffs and one more defendant, The Toronto Star
reports.

James Richard MacDonald filed the suit in August 2006.  He seeks
for the return of thousands of dollars that he says have been
whisked out of his registered retirement accounts in
unauthorized fee-heavy foreign exchange charges by BMO Nesbitt.

Mr. MacDonald hopes that the legal action actions he is leading
will be certified as a class action on behalf of the brokerage's
Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) and other registered-
account clients against his former employer.

The suit is specifically challenging the foreign-exchange
conversion practices, which Mr. MacDonald, represented by
Margaret Waddell of Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, says
should have ended five years ago.

In his statement of claim, Mr. MacDonald alleges that defendants
have "breached their fiduciary and/or contractual obligations"
to the class by "effecting unauthorized foreign exchange
transactions and/or by charging undisclosed fees on all foreign-
exchange transactions."

The statement of claim, originally filed with the Ontario
Superior Court in 2006, was amended on March 6, to add Lynn and
John Zoppas and Tamas Varga as lead plaintiffs in the class, and
to add BMO's Investorline to the list of defendants.

Mr. MacDonald's statement of claim seeks punitive damages of
CAD$10 million for "the high-handed, arrogant and oppressive
manner with which the defendants have administered the trust
accounts, in knowing breach of trust, breach of contract and
breach of their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and the
class."

For more details, contact Margaret Waddell of Paliare Roland
Rosenberg Rothstein, 250 University Avenue, Suite 501, Toronto,
Ontario, M5H 3E5, Phone: 416.646.4300, Fax: 416.646.4301, E-
mail: marg.waddell@paliareroland.com, Web site:
http://www.paliareroland.com.


BROOKSTONE INC: Seeks Approval of Ala. Consumer Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brookstone Inc. is seeking approval of a proposed settlement in
a purported class action filed against it in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Alabama over certain air
purifiers it sold.

On June 23, 2005, the company was served with a lawsuit that was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama on behalf of all consumers who purchased a certain air
purifier from the company.  The suit alleges, among other
things, that such products fail to perform the purposes for
which they are advertised and sold.  It seeks unspecified
damages.  

After the plaintiff's motion for class certification and the
company's opposition to the motion were filed with the court,
the parties engaged in settlement negotiations with the
assistance of a professional mediator.

On Oct. 18, 2006, the parties agreed to settle the plaintiff's
claims, and on Dec. 12, 2006 the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement.

An April 5 final fairness hearing was set, but no update is yet
available to date.

The suit is "Matthews v. Brookstone Co., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00369-WS-C," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama under Judge William H. Steele with referral
to Judge William E. Cassady.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Enrique Jose Gimenez of Lightfoot, Franklin & White,      
         400 North 20th Street, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone:  
         205-581-0700, E-mail: hgimenez@lfwlaw.com; and

     (2) Benjamen T. Rowe of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas  
         & O'Neal, P.O. Box 2906, Mobile, AL 36652, Phone: (251)  
         415-7302, Fax: 2514157350, E-mail: btr@cabaniss.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) James Bruce Carlson of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., 2311  
         Highland Avenue South, P.O. Box 55727, Birmingham, AL  
         35255-5727, Phone: (205) 930-5450, Fax: (205) 930-5335,  
         E-mail: jcarlson@sirote.com; and

    (ii) W. Michael Atchison of Starnes & Atchison, LLP, P.O.  
         Box 598512, Birmingham, AL 35259, Phone: (205) 868-
         6000, E-mail: wma@starneslaw.com.


DANA CORP: Files Motion to Dismiss, Stay Ohio Shareholder Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corp. is seeking the dismissal or stay of shareholder
litigations filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

In its 2006 Annual Report, Dana Corp. relates that certain of
its former and current officers are parties to certain
shareholder litigations:

   (a) a consolidated securities class action entitled Howard
       Frank v. Michael J. Burns and Robert C. Richter pending
       in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
       Ohio naming Michael Burns, Dana Corp.'s current chief
       executive officer and Robert Richter, Dana's former chief
       executive, as defendants.

   (b) a shareholder derivative action entitled Roberta Casden
       v.  Michael J. Burns, et al. pending in the Ohio District
       Court.

   (c) a shareholder derivative suit entitled Steven Staehr v.
       Michael Burns, et al. remains pending in the Ohio
       District Court, which is currently stayed.

The defendants have moved to dismiss or stay the class action
claims in the Shareholder Litigations and a hearing was held on
Jan. 30, 2007, Michael L. DeBacker, Dana's vice president,
general counsel and secretary, discloses.  The Ohio District
Court, however, has not yet ruled on the motions to dismiss.

Dana cannot at this time predict the outcome of the Shareholder
Litigations or estimate the company's potential exposure, Mr.
DeBacker says.  While Dana has insurance coverage with respect
to shareholder actions and does not currently believe that any
liabilities that may result from the proceedings are reasonably
likely to have a material adverse effect on its liquidity,
financial condition or results of operations, there can be no
assurance that any uninsured loss would not be material.

(Dana Corp. Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 37; Bankruptcy
Creditors'Service, Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


DDI CORP: Seeks Approval of Calif. Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
DDi Corp. is seeking court approval of a $4.4 million settlement
of a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

In late 2003, a number of putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against certain of the company's former officers and directors
on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws between December 2000
and April 2002 in connection with various public offerings of
securities.

In December 2003, these actions were consolidated into a single
action, "In re DDI Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 03-
7063 MMM (SHx)."

In late 2006, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to
settle the federal class action.  On Nov. 22, 2006, the court
entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement.

The terms of the settlement require the defendants to pay $4.4
million in full settlement of the claims asserted on behalf of
the class.

A March 12 fairness hearing was set, but no update is yet
available to date.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Andrew L. Zivitz and Kay E. Sickles of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA  
         19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706, E-mail:
         info@sbclasslaw.com; and

     (2) DDi Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City
         Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6465,
         Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-888-292-1828, Web
         site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com.


DHL EXPRESS: ABX Subsidiary Faces RICO Act Violations Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
DHL Express and its subsidiary ABX Air, Inc. are facing
complaints of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
violations in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- ABX Air, Inc.;
     -- DHL Holdings (USA), Inc.;
     -- Joe C. Hete, president and chief executive of ABX;
     -- Gene Rhodes, vice-president for human resources of ABX;
     -- Douglas Steele, human resources manager for ABX;
     -- Garcia Labor Co. of Ohio Inc., temporary labor provider;
     -- Garcia Labor Co. Inc. of Tenn., temporary labor
        provider;
     -- Maximino Garcia, president and owner of Garcia Labor;
     -- Gina Luciano, director of human resources of Garcia
        Labor;
     -- Dominga McCarroll, vice-president of Garcia Labor;

The complaint alleges ABX conspired to employ more than 1,000
undocumented immigrants in a scheme.  This scheme was executed
between approximately December 1999 and January 2005 and has
directly and proximately caused the wages paid to named
plaintiff and the class to be substantially depressed, i.e.,
below the level of wages ABX and DHL would have paid its lawful
workers if they had not engaged in the scheme to hire
unauthorized aliens.

Lead plaintiff ABX employee, Ronnie Hager claims ABX conspired
with co-defendant Garcia Labor Co., of Morristown, Tenn., to
recruit illegal workers and depress U.S. citizens' wages.

Plaintiff files the suit as a purported class action, on behalf
of himself and all hourly employees of ABX and DHL at their
Wilmington, Ohio facility, authorized for employment in the U.S.
from December 1999 to the present, to recover damages and other
appropriate relief from the defendants for violations of the
RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961 et al.

The class claims top officers of all the corporations knowingly
hired illegal workers to sort freight at Wilmington.  They claim
the conspiracy lasted from December 1999 until January 2005, and
that Garcia provided rental housing in Wilmington for the
illegal workers it provided.

Further, they claim ABX kept hundreds of illegal workers on
staff after the Social Security Administration told it twice
that the workers were using fraudulent documents.

Several corporate officers have been sentenced to prison after
the Transportation Security Agency found that virtually all the
400 workers provided by Garcia were illegal, the complaint
states.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (a) whether ABX has engaged in an illegal immigrant hiring
         scheme;

     (b) whether DHL has engaged in an illegal immigrant hiring
         scheme;

     (c) whether Garcia Labor Co. of Ohio, Inc. and Garcia Labor
         Co., Inc., have engaged in an illegal immigration
         hiring scheme;

     (d) whether the individual defendants have conspired to
         perpetuate the illegal immigrant hiring scheme;

     (e) whether ABX and the individual defendants have engaged
         in this scheme to depress the lawful employees' wages;

     (f) whether DHL and the individual defendants have engaged
         in this scheme to depress the lawful employees' wages;

     (g) whether Garcia Labor and the individual defendants have
         engaged in this scheme to depress the lawful employees'
         wages;

     (h) whether the illegal hiring scheme has caused the class
         members' wages to be depressed;

     (i) whether the illegal immigrant hiring scheme violates
         RICO and the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
         Section 1324; and

     (j) whether ABX, DHL and Garcia Labor should be enjoined
         from conducting further racketeering activity and
         whether the individual defendants should be bared from
         further association with ABX and DHL.

Plaintiff prays that the court enter a judgment:

     -- awarding damages in an amount equal to three times the
        damage caused the putative class by defendants'
        racketeering activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1964(c);

     -- awarding pre- and post-trial interest;

     -- awarding reasonable attorney fees and court costs
        incurred in the prosecution of this action, including
        all expert witness fees and other litigation expenses;

     -- declaring this action to be a class action properly
        maintained pursuant to Civ. R. 23 and certifying the
        named plaintiff as class representative and his counsel
        as class counsel; and

     -- awarding any other relief to which plaintiff may be
        entitled in law or equity that the court considers to be
        appropriate under the circumstances.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d49

The suit is "Hager v. ABX Air, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00317-JDH-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge John D. Holschuh with
referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.

Representing plaintiffs are Douglas Carter Knisley of Knisely
Wilhelm & Knisely - 2, 1395 Dublin Road, Columbus, OH 43215-
1046, Phone: 614-486-9503, Email: doug@knisleylaw.com; and John
T. Murray of Murray & Murray, 111 E Shoreline Drive, PO Box 19,
Sandusky, OH 44871-0019, Phone: 419-624-3000, Fax: 419 624 0707,
E-mail: jotm@murrayandmurray.com.


FIRST AMERICAN: Consumers Sue in Ida. Over Home Refinancing Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
First American Title Insurance Co. is facing a lawsuit seeking
class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho over alleged excessive fees it charges on home
refinancings, the Idaho Statesman reports.

Filed on behalf of Nampa resident Deborah Lewis and Quinn
Woodard of New Mexico, the suit alleges First American Title has
been charging consumers higher fees on home refinancings than
allowed by Idaho law.

Plaintiffs allege that California-based First American Title has
"reaped enormous financial windfalls" by skirting the law and
charging consumers as much as 25 percent more than state law
allows for title insurance on the refinance of a home.

The suit is "Lewis v. First American Title Co., Case No. 1:06-
cv-00478-EJL-LMB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho under Judge Edward J. Lodge with referral to
Judge Larry M. Boyle.

Representing plaintiffs are Carl Prosser Burke and Benjamin
Andrew Schwartzman both of Greener Banducci Shoemaker P.A., 50
West Bannock Street, Suite 900, Boise, ID 83702, Phone: (208)
219-2600, Fax: (208) 219-2601, E-mail: cpburke@greenerlaw.com or
bschwartzman@greenerlaw.com; and Paul M. Weiss of Freed & Weiss
LLC, 111 West Washington St Ste 1331, Suite 1331, Chicago, IL
60602, Phone: 312 220 0000, E-mail: paul@freedweiss.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Elizabeth A Ferrick, Douglas W. King and Charles A.
         Newman, all of Bryan Cave LLP, 211 N Broadway, #3600 St
         Louis, MO 63102, Phone: (314) 259-2150 or 314-259-2599,
         Fax: 314-552-8599, E-mail:
         elizabeth.ferrick@bryancave.com or dking@bryancave.com
         or canewman@bryancave.com;

     (2) James M. Weiss of Bryan Cave LLP, One Metropolitan
         Square, St Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-259-2773, E-
         mail: james.weiss@bryancave.com; and

     (3) Stephen C. Hardesty and Eugene A. Ritti, both of Hawley
         Troxell Ennis & Hawley, PO Box 1617, Boise, ID 83701,
         Phone: (208) 344-6000, Fax: 1-208-344-6505, E-mail:
         sch@hteh.com or ear@hteh.com.


FMF CAPITAL: Courts Approve $24.7M Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
FMF Capital Group Ltd. announces that the courts have approved
pending settlement agreements relating to class actions filed
against the company in Ontario and Quebec.

In February 2006, shareholders of FMF Capital Group filed a
purported class action in Ontario, Canada against FMF Capital
Group Ltd., FMF Holdings, LLC, FMF Capital, LLC, certain of the
company's officers and directors, the underwriters of the
company's initial public offering, the company's auditors and
certain other named individuals (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 07,
2006).

The suit alleges, among other things, prospectus
misrepresentations, breaches of the Competition Act and
negligent misrepresentation.  The company believes that the
claims alleged in the statement of claim are without merit.

In November, the law firm of Siskinds LLP announced that the FMF
Capital Group securities class actions have been settled for
more than $24.7 million (CAN$28 million) (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 30, 2006).

Under the settlement agreement, US$21 million will be paid by  
FMF's insurers and by Michigan Fidelity Acceptance Corp., a
privately-held affiliate of FMF.  Neither FMF Capital Group Ltd.
nor its directors will pay any part of the settlement amount.

The balance of the settlement proceeds (CAN$4.55 million) will
be paid by FMF's auditors and by the underwriters of FMF's March
2005 initial public offering, led by BMO Nesbitt Burns, Inc.

The company has the right to terminate the settlement if a
certain percentage of unitholders opt-out of the settlement
agreement.

Headquartered in Southfield, Michigan, FMF Capital Group Ltd.
(TSX:FMF.UN) -- http://www.fmfcapital.com-- is a residential  
mortgage lending company that originates and funds primarily
nonconforming or "nonprime" mortgage loans in the U.S. and sells
those mortgage loans to institutional loan purchasers within an
average of 39 days of funding.

For FMF Class Action details, case background and timing
information, contact Dimitri Lascaris of Siskinds LLP, Phone:
(519) 660-7844.


FMF CAPITAL: $1.1B Mich. Suit Junked After Canadian Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the Canadian courts' approval of a $24.7
million (CAN$28 million) settlement agreement relating to class
actions filed against FMF Capital Group Ltd. in Ontario and
Quebec, the class action filed in Michigan has been dismissed.

In 2005, a class action seeking up to $1.1 billion in damages
was filed in Oakland County Circuit Court in Michigan against
FMF Capital Group (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 03, 2006).

The suit alleges fraud by the three top executives of FMF
Capital, a company registered in Canada, but is operating in
Southfield Michigan, which lost nearly 95 percent of its share
price since it went public on the Toronto Stock Exchange on
March 24, 2006.

The lawsuit also names three related U.S. firms based in  
Southfield:

     -- FMF Holdings L.L.C.,
     -- FMF Capital L.L.C., and
     -- Michigan Fidelity Acceptance Corp.

as well as five Canadian underwriters, Harris Nesbitt Corp., a
subsidiary of the Bank of Montreal based in Bingham Farms and
the Chicago-based accounting firm BDO Seidman L.L.P.  

The suit contends that those involved in the initial public
offering should have realized that the company didn't have
sufficient reserves to buy back non-performing loans from its
institutional buyers and understated the risk to investors.

Headquartered in Southfield, Michigan, FMF Capital Group Ltd.
(TSX:FMF.UN) -- http://www.fmfcapital.com-- is a residential  
mortgage lending company that originates and funds primarily
nonconforming or "nonprime" mortgage loans in the U.S. and sells
those mortgage loans to institutional loan purchasers within an
average of 39 days of funding.

For FMF Class Action details, case background and timing
information, contact Dimitri Lascaris of Siskinds LLP, Phone:
(519) 660-7844.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Mulls Claims Faced in Delphi ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
No determination has yet been made that a class action can be
maintained against General Motors Investment Management Corp.
(GMIMCo), a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Corp.,
which is named defendant in "In Re: Delphi ERISA Litigation,
Case No. 2:05-cv-70882-GER-SDP."

Initially, numerous defendants were named in several purported
class actions alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act  with respect to the Delphi company stock
plans for salaried and hourly employees.  

On Sept. 13, 2005, the cases were consolidated under the case
caption, "In re Delphi ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 05-CV-
70882" and were transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan
for coordinated pretrial proceedings with other Delphi
shareholder lawsuits in which GMIMCo is not named as a
defendant.

On March 3, 2006, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the court
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint alleging
that from May 28, 1999 to Nov. 1, 2005, GMIMCo, a named
fiduciary of the Delphi plans, breached its fiduciary duties to
plan participants by:

     -- allowing them to invest in the Delphi Common Stock Fund
        when it was imprudent to do so;
    
     -- failing to monitor State Street Bank and Trust, the
        entity appointed by GMIMCo to serve as investment
        manager for the Delphi Common Stock Fund; and

     -- knowingly participating in, enabling, or failing to
        remedy breaches of fiduciary duty by other defendants.

No determination has been made that a class action can be
maintained against GMIMCo and there have been no decisions on
the merits of the claims.

GMIMCo filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on April 4, 2006.  No determination has been made that
a class action can be maintained against GMIMCo, and there have
been no decisions on the merits of the claims, according to the
company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Delphi ERISA Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-
70882-GER-SDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen with referral
to Judge Steven D. Pepe.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jeffrey T. Meyers of Morgan & Meyers, 3200 Greenfield
         Road, Suite 260, Dearborn, MI 48120-1802, Phone: 313-
         961-0130; and

     (2) Lynn L. Sarko of Keller Rohrback, 1201 Third Avenue,
         Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, E-
         mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael P. Cooney of Dykema Gossett, (Detroit), 400
         Renaissance Center, Detroit, MI 48243-1668, Phone: 313-
         568-6800, Fax: 313-568-6701, E-mail:
         mcooney@dykema.com; and

    (ii) Timothy A. Duffy, Robert J. Kopecky and Jonathan E.
         Moore of Kirkland & Ellis, 200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite
         6000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2000, Fax: 312-
         861-2200 and 312-861-2084, E-mail: tduffy@kirkland.com
         and jmoore@kirkland.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Hughes Electronics Split-Off Case Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action over Hughes Electronics Corp.'s split-
off from General Motors Corp. remains stayed in Superior Court
in Los Angeles, California.

The proposed transaction involves the split-off of Hughes from
General Motors, wherein Hughes will become a separate and
independent company, followed by a series of transactions where
News Corp., through its majority-held subsidiary, Fox
Entertainment Group, will acquire a 34% interest in Hughes.

On April 11 and 15, 2003, two purported class actions,
"Matcovsky, et al., v. Hughes Electronics Corp., et al.," and
"Brody v. Hughes Electronics Corp., et al.," were filed in
Superior Court in Los Angeles, California, against Hughes
Electronics, General Motors, and the directors of Hughes both
companies.

These cases were consolidated in state court in Los Angeles, and
plaintiffs in both cases have filed consolidated complaints.

The cases, which seek unspecified damages, alleged that the
transactions involving News Corp.'s acquisition of a 34%
interest in Hughes provided benefits to General Motors not
available to all holders of the former class of GM Class H
common stock, in violation of fiduciary duties.

The Superior Court has dismissed all claims against directors
without any connection to California for lack of personal
jurisdiction and stayed the consolidated case pending a ruling
on the motion to dismiss a similar complaint filed in Delaware
Chancery Court.   

In March 2006, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal
of the Delaware complaint, according to the company's March 15
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Mich. Court Mulls Class Status for ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has
yet to grant class-action status to the case, "In re General
Motors Corp. ERISA Litigation."

In May 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan consolidated three related purported class actions
brought under Employee Retirement Income Security Act against
General Motors and other named defendants who are alleged to be
fiduciaries of the General Motors stock purchase programs and
personal savings plans for salaried and hourly employees, under
the case caption, "In re General Motors Corp. ERISA Litigation."

In June 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint against General Motors, the Investment Funds Committee
of the General Motors board, its individual members, General
Motors's chairman and chief executive officer, members of
General Motors's Employee Benefits Committee during the putative
class period, General Motors's wholly owned subsidiary General
Motors Investment Management Corp., and State Street Bank.

The complaint alleged that the General Motors defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by, among
other things, investing their assets, or offering them the
option of investing, in General Motors stock on the ground that
it was not a prudent investment.

Plaintiffs purported to bring these claims on behalf of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the plans
from March 18, 1999 to the present, and sought to recover losses
allegedly suffered by the plans.

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

On July 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
class action complaint, which principally added allegations
about General Motors' restated earnings and reclassification of
cash flows, but which did not name any additional defendants or
assert any new claims.

On Aug. 24, 2006, the General Motors defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  No determination has been
made that the case may be maintained as a class action,
according to the company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Savings Plan Members File Suit in N.Y. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to grant class-action status to the case, "Young, et al.
v. General Motors Investment Management Corp., et al."

On March 8, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
General Motors Investment Management Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of General Motors Corp.

Four plaintiffs who are alleged to be participants in the
General Motors Savings-Stock Purchase Program for Salaried
Employees and the General Motors Personal Savings Plan for
Hourly-Rate Employees filed the case.

The suit purports to bring claims on behalf of all participants
in these two plans as well as participants in the General Motors
Income Security Plan for Hourly-Rate Employees and the Saturn
Individual Savings Plan for Represented Members against GMIMCo
and State Street Bank.

The complaint alleges that GMIMCo and State Street breached
their fiduciary duties to plan participants by allowing
participants to invest in five different funds that held
primarily the equity of a single company: the EDS Fund, the
DIRECTV Fund, the News Corp. Fund, the Raytheon Fund, and the
Delphi Fund, all of which plaintiffs allege were imprudent
investments because of their inherent risk and poor performance
relative to more prudent investment alternatives.

The complaint also alleges that GMIMCo breached its fiduciary
duties to plan participants by allowing participants to invest
in mutual funds offered by FMR Corp. under the Fidelity brand
name.

Plaintiffs allege that by investing in these funds, participants
paid excessive fees and costs that they would not have incurred
had they invested in more prudent investment alternatives.

The complaint seeks a declaration that defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties, an order requiring defendants to
compensate the plans for their losses resulting from their
breaches of fiduciary duties, the removal of defendants as
fiduciaries, an injunction against further breaches of fiduciary
duties, other unspecified equitable and monetary relief, and
attorneys fees and costs.  

No determination has been made that the case may be maintained
as a class action, according to the company's March 15 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Young et al. v. General Motors Investment
Management Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01994-BSJ," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Barbara S. Jones.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

      (1) J. Brian McTigue and Gregory Y. Porter of McTigue &
          Porter, LLP, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 350,
          Washington, DC 20015, Phone: (202) 364-6900; and

      (3) David Steven Preminger of Rosen Preminger & Bloom,
          LLP, 708 Third Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY 10017,
          Phone: 212-422-1001, Fax: 212-363-4436 E-mail:
          dpreminger@rpblawny.com.


GREENLEAF: Recalls Lemon Bars Due to Undeclared Milk Content
------------------------------------------------------------
Greenleaf of Port Townsend, Washington is recalling 16 - Lemon
Bars, because they may contain undeclared milk as an ingredient.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

Lemon Bars were distributed solely to one retail store in Port
Townsend, Washington for sale to consumers.  Product is not
packaged and therefore not coded.  The Lemon Bars are sold
individually at the retail store's counter.

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

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the milk
containing product (butter) did not declare milk on its
ingredient list.  Subsequent investigation indicates the problem
was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's production
processes.

Consumers who have purchased Green Leaf Lemon Bars are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Green Leaf at 360-379-0989.


HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Choco Clusters with Undeclared Nuts
----------------------------------------------------------
Harry & David Operations Corp., of Medford, Oregon, is recalling
approximately 65 - 6 oz. boxes of Dark Chocolate Clusters The
Ultimate Walnut Cherry Caramel Indulgence because they may
contain undeclared peanuts and cashews.

People who have an allergy to peanut or cashew products run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

Harry & David is recalling all Dark Chocolate Clusters The
Ultimate Walnut Cherry Caramel Indulgence boxes with a "Best
Before" date of 071123.  These products are: 6 oz. paperboard
boxes with a folded over top.  The boxes are green and cream
striped.  The "Best Before" date is printed in black ink and
located below the Nutrition Facts panel on the back of the box.

These products were distributed throughout the U.S. through
Harry and David Stores since March 15, 2007.  Sales of this
product have ceased.

There have been no injuries reported to date.  Anyone concerned
about a potential illness associated with this product should
contact a physician immediately.

The recall was initiated after it was determined that the
product contained peanuts and cashews.  Investigation into the
cause is ongoing.

Consumers are requested to return product to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions about the
recalled product may phone the Customer Service division at 800-
345-5655, 24 hours a day.


JK HARRIS: Settles Suit Over "Offer In Compromise" for $6M
----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Perry M. Buckner III of the Court of Common Pleas
of Charleston County, South Carolina will hold a fairness
hearing on June 25, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for the settlement of a
class action filed against JK Harris & Co., LLC, JK Harris
Advisors, LLC, JK Harris, Inc., and/or Professional Fee
Financing Associates, LLC.

The hearing will be at the Court of Common Pleas for Charleston
County, 100 Broad Street, Charleston, South Carolina, 29401.

The class consists of persons who signed a contract with JK
Harris & Co., LLC, JK Harris Advisors, LLC, JK Harris, Inc.,
and/or Professional Fee Financing Associates, LLC for tax
resolution services that included the preparation and
negotiation of an Offer In Compromise prior to March 31, 2005.

Claim Forms submission deadline is July 31, 2007.  Deadline to
opt out is June 1, 2007.  Objections are due May 25, 2007.

The defendants are accused of improperly charging for, failing
to perform, and/or negligently performing the contracted
services related to negotiating, preparing and/or filing Offers
in Compromise for submission to the Internal Revenue Service
and/or state tax agencies.

JK Harris denies that it violated any laws, did anything wrong,
or that anyone was harmed by its conduct.  JK Harris
nevertheless has agreed to settle the Action solely to avoid the
burden, expense, risk and uncertainty of continuing the various
lawsuits.

JK Harris and the plaintiffs in the Action have reached
agreement on a settlement of the claims in the action including
claims that had been pending in South Carolina, California,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York.

JK Harris has agreed to create a Settlement Fund of $6,000,000
and to pay the costs of notice to settle this case.  JK Harris
will make payments into the Settlement Fund on this schedule:

     -- $500,000 to be paid within 30 days after final approval
        of the settlement;

     -- from April 2008 to November 2008, JK Harris will deposit
        $70,000 into the Settlement Fund on a monthly basis on
        the 5th of each month (or the next business day); and

     -- beginning December 2008, JK Harris will deposit $150,000
        on a monthly basis on the 5th of each month (or the next
        business day) until the remaining balance of the
        Settlement Fund has been fully paid.

This Fund will be used to make payments to Class Members after
deductions are made for the costs of administering the
Settlement, attorneys' fees and expenses, and service awards to
the class representatives.

JK Harris has also agreed to make a number of changes to its
advertising and business practices.

The Settlement on the Net: http://www.oicsettlement.com.

The Coordinating Class Counsel is Mario A. Pacella at Strom Law
Firm, LLC, 2110 Beltline Boulevard, Suite A, Columbia, SC 29204.

The defendants' counsel is L. Greg Horton at Buist Moore Smythe
Mcgee, PA, P.O. Box 999, Charleston, SC 29402.

JK Harris Settlement Administrator: P.O. Box 1877, Faribault MN
55021-7132.


LEXISNEXIS: Sued in Calif. for Failing to Protect Client Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc., is facing a
consolidated class action alleging violations of Fair Credit
Reporting Act and similar state consumer protection legislation.

Initially, a putative class action was filed against LexisNexis,
captioned, "Syran v. LexisNexis Group et al."  This putative
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that LexisNexis violated the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act and similar state consumer protection
legislation by failing to maintain reasonable procedures to
protect consumer credit information from unauthorized access by
third parties.

A second action, "Witriol v. LexisNexis Group et al.," was filed
in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California and based on the same set of facts, has
been consolidated with the "Syran" action.  

Plaintiffs seek unspecified punitive and statutory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief, according to
the Reed Elsevier PLC's March 22 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

Reed Elsevier PLC on the Net: http://www.reed-elsevier.com/.


LITHIA MOTORS: Settlement of Suit Over "Illegal" Fee Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff attorneys representing 50 or more buyers of cars
manufactured by Lithia Motors Inc. are trying to block a
settlement of a class action pending in Alaska Superior Court,
Anchorage Daily News (Alaska) reports.

In 2006, state Department of Law attorneys accused nine Lithia
dealerships in Alaska of illegally charging fees to prepare
documents for buyers and failing to disclose accident and repair
information on trade-in cars.

Under a proposed settlement, Lithia will refund $200 to people
who bought vehicles from Alaska Lithia dealerships on or after
Oct. 1, 2002 if they paid a "document preparation" fee in
addition to paying a vehicle's listed price.

The settlement also requires Lithia to develop a claims process
for customers to seek compensation for damage Lithia failed to
disclose about trade-in vehicles it sold.

However, plaintiffs' attorneys claim that the settlement is
unfair.  They want the company to identify customers who paid
the illegal fees, provide them refunds and pay the state
$500,000 in civil penalties -- a fine that could be the highest
ever dealt to an auto dealership in Alaska, according to the
Department of Law.

Representing Lithia car buyers is Anchorage attorney Mike
Flanigan.


MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Ponsor Accepts Proposal for "Stuck" Kids
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael Ponsor of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts
has accepted the state's plan to improve services to mentally
ill children from poor families, Stephen Smith of The Boston
Globe reports.

The ruling came in a suit "Rosie D. v. Romney," that was filed
by Northampton-based Center for Public Representation in 2001.  
The plaintiff is asking home-care option for thousands of
children with extreme functional disabilities who participate in
Medicaid.  The group said that most of the roughly 15,000
children under Medicaid receive adequate services only when
placed in psychiatric hospitals, but they often become just
"stuck kids" there.  Thus, it is asking for homecare option.

The proposal that Judge Ponsor accepted entitles children to
extensive services where they live.  That means there will be
specialists to help manage their care and crisis teams available
during severe bouts of mental illness, according to the report.  
And instead of having the care of a child overseen by a number
of sometimes-conflicting specialists, each child will be
assigned to a single case manager, the report added.

In January, Judge Ponsor found that the state has failed to
identify children with mental health needs, notify their
families, connect their evaluations with a service plan,
coordinate their care, and provide home- and community-based
services.  He ordered that several thousand Medicaid-eligible
children in Massachusetts who are now in institutions should be
released and provided with home-based treatment services.  He
ordered the parties to carve out a program to do this.

It is estimated that 15,000 Massachusetts children whose care is
paid for by the government could be affected by the March
decision, at a cost to the state of up to $459 million,
according to Judge Ponsor's ruling.

The suit is "Rosie D., et al. v. Romney, et al., Case No. 3:01-
cv-30199-MAP," filed in U.S. District of Massachusetts under  
Judge Michael A. Ponsor with referral to Judge Kenneth P.  
Neiman.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) James C. Burling of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and  
         Dorr, LLP, 60 State St., Boston, MA 02115, Phone: 617-
         526-6416, Fax: 526-5000, E-mail:  
         james.burling@wilmerhale.com; and  

     (2) Cathy E. Costanzo and Steven J. Schwartz of Center for  
         Public Representation, 22 Green Street, Northampton, MA  
         01060, Phone: 413-586-6024, Fax: 413-586-5711, E-mail:  
         ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org and sschwartz@cpr-ma.org.     

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Daniel J. Hammond and Deirdre Roney of Attorney  
         General's Office, One Ashburton Place, Room 2019,  
         Boston, MA 02108-1698, Phone: 617-727-2200, Fax: 617-
         727-5785, E-mail: dan.hammond@ago.state.ma.us and  
         deirdre.roney@ago.state.ma.us; and  

    (ii) Adam Simms of Deutsch Williams, 99 Summer St., Boston,  
         MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-2300, Fax: 617-951-2323, E-
         mail: ASimms@dwboston.com.  


MCLEODUSA INC: Still Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Unsolicited Faces
--------------------------------------------------------------
McLeodUSA, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action
filed in Illinois over unsolicited faxes, according to the
company's March 22 Form S-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The company was been sued in two actions brought in May 2003 in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, consolidated as,
"Telecommunications Network Design, Inc. v. McLeodUSA, No. 03 CH
8477," and certified as a class action, for allegedly sending
unsolicited faxes in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(3).

McLeodUSA, Inc. on the Net: http://www.mcleodusa.com/.


MCNEIL-PPC: Recalls Mouth Wash with Inadequate Preservative
-----------------------------------------------------------
McNEIL-PPC, Inc. of Morris Plains, New Jersey and Fort
Washington, Pennsylvania, are voluntarily conducting a
nationwide consumer recall of all lots of the GLACIER MINT and
BUBBLE BLAST flavors of LISTERINE AGENT COOL BLUE Plaque-
Detecting Rinse after the company determined that the
preservative system is not adequate against certain
microorganisms.

The company has been in full communication with the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration regarding this issue and the decision to
implement a voluntary recall.

The company is recalling all bottles of AGENT COOL BLUE Plaque-
Detecting Rinse, an estimated 4 million, from both retailers and
consumers.

The company conducted a thorough assessment and concluded that
the risk of illness in healthy individuals following use of this
product is very low.

However, there could be a significant health risk to individuals
with weakened or suppressed immune systems.  To date, there have
been no consumer adverse health events reported that are related
to this issue.

The recall affects all existing bottles of AGENT COOL BLUE
Plaque-Detecting Rinse.

Introduced in 2006, AGENT COOL BLUE Plaque-Detecting Rinse tints
plaque blue for better brushing.  Consumers can readily
distinguish this product by the cartoon character on the front
of the bottle.  Only AGENT COOL BLUE Plaque-Detecting Rinse
products are affected by this action.  No other LISTERINE
branded products are affected and they remain safe and effective
for use as directed.

"We have voluntarily initiated this recall of AGENT COOL BLUET
Plaque-Detecting Rinse because our primary concern is that
consumers have complete confidence in the safety and
effectiveness of our products," said Paul Sturman, President,
Consumer Healthcare North America, McNEIL-PPC, Inc.  "This
voluntary action is in keeping with our longstanding policy of
providing timely and effective consumer information about all
our products."

AGENT COOL BLUE Plaque-Detecting Rinse has been sold to
consumers through supermarkets, drug stores, mass merchants and
other retail outlets, and is sold to dental professionals'
offices nationwide.

The company is contacting dental professionals and retailers
directly as part of their recall notification process.

Consumers are advised to discontinue use and properly discard
the product.

Consumers may obtain a full refund through calling the company's
toll free consumer line 1-888-222-0249 and mailing in the back
label, including the UPC code.  Additional information can be
found at the product Web site: http://www.agentcoolblue.com.


MCNEIL-PPC: Faces Calif. Suit Over 'Cool Blue' Listerine
--------------------------------------------------------
McNeil-PPC, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California claiming
it's "Listerine Agent Cool Blue," targeted for use by children,
can injure consumers, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

McNeil, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, which acquired the
product when it bought Pfizer in December 2006, recalled on
April 11 all 4 million bottles of the plaque detector.

The recall resulted from McNeil's determination that the
product's "preservative system" was inadequae to protect against
certain microorganisms, and that the product posed "a
significant health risk to individuals with weakened or
suppressed immune systems."

Plaintiffs contend that the design, testing, manufacture,
assembly and development of the product by McNeil was negligent
and/or defective, and that McNeil did not take adequate
precautions to ensure the safety of the product.

Plaintiff Terri Ortiz brings this action on behalf of herself
and all other consumers who purchased defendant's product and
then gave it to their children, who then used it for its
intended and foreseeable purposes.

Plaintiffs claim they are "concerned" that their child may have
been injured, though the complaint does not state that the kid
was injured.

Questions being raised are:

     (a) whether defendant's practices in connection with the
         design, testing, manufacture, assembly, development and
         sale of the product were deceptive or unfair in any
         respect, thereby violating California's Unfair
         Competition Laws, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200
         et seq;

     (b) whether defendant fraudulently concealed the risks
         associated with its design, testing, manufacture,
         assembly, development and sale of the product;

     (c) whether defendant breached implied warranties in its
         sale of the product, thereby causing harm to class
         members;

     (d) whether defendant's practices in connection with the
         design, testing, manufacture, assembly, development and
         sale of the product unjustly enriched defendant at the
         expense of, and to the detriment of, class members;

     (e) whether defendant breached express warranties in its
         sale of the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiffs
         and class members;

     (f) whether defendant was negligent in its manufacture,
         production and distribution of the product, thereby
         causing harm to class members;

     (g) whether defendant's product was defective, thereby
         causing harm to class members; and

     (h) whether defendant's product conduct as set forth in the
         complaint injured consumers and if so, the extent of
         the injury.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and for members of the general public as private
attorneys general under California Business and Professions Code
Section 17204, prays for relief, jointly and severally, pursuant
to each use of action as set forth in the complaint as follows:

     -- for an order certifying that the action may maintained
        as a class action for the Parental class and the Minor
        class;

     -- for an award of equitable relief pursuant as follows:

        (a) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage, use
            or employ any unfair and/or deceptive business acts
            or practices related to the design, testing,
            manufacture, assembly and development of the product
            for the purpose of selling its product in such
            manner as set forth in detail in the complaint;

        (b) restoring all monies that may have been acquired by
            defendant as a result of such unfair and/or
            deceptive act or practices;

        (c) reimbursing plaintiffs and class members for all
            medical costs incurred as the result of the use of
            product; and

        (d) establishing a medical monitoring program for the
            minor class that used the product.

     -- for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to, inter alia,
        Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5;

     -- for actual damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial for the second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh
        causes of action;

     -- for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial for the second and sixth causes of action;

     -- for an award of costs and any other award the court
        might deem appropriate; and

     -- for pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
        awarded.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d47

The suit is "Ortiz-Flores et al. v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., Case No.
3:07-cv-00678-BEN-NLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California under Judge Roger T. Benitez
with referral to Judge Nita L. Stormes.

Representing plaintiffs is Harold M. Hewell of Hewell Law Firm,
12396 World Trade Center Drive, Suite 318, San Diego, CA 92128,
Phone: (619) 235-6854, Fax: (619) 235-9122, E-mail:
hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com.


MENU FOODS: Recalls Pet Food Made with ChemNutra Wheat Gluten
-------------------------------------------------------------
Menu Foods Inc. undertook an accounting of all recalled wheat
gluten supplied by ChemNutra Inc. to Menu Foods in the U.S.
after a report from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the
presence of melamine in cans of cuts and gravy pet food produced
in Menu Foods's Canadian production facility.

As the result of that review, Menu Foods has identified a single
interplant transfer of the ChemNutra supplied wheat gluten,
shipped from Menu Foods' plant in Emporia, Kansas, to its plant
in Streetsville, Ontario.

This wheat gluten was subsequently used in the production of pet
food in December 2006 and January 2007, which is being recalled
by Menu Foods.

The new varieties in the U.S. and Canada have been added to the
recall list.

A complete list of recalled products, including the new items
can be reviewed at http://www.menufoods.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Ia. Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set Today
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Microsoft Corp. and those who filed a
multimillion-dollar antitrust lawsuit against the company in
Polk County District Court are scheduled to discuss settlement
of the case April 18, The Associated Press reports.

The class action against Microsoft was filed attorney Roxanne
Conlin of Des Moines on behalf of Iowans who purchased Microsoft
software between 1994 and 2006.  In it, plaintiffs generally
claim that Microsoft harmed class members by:

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;      

      -- denying class members free choice in software products      
         and the benefits of software innovation; and      

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security      
         breaches.      

Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.

Plaintiffs claim Microsoft violated Iowa's antitrust laws by
monopolizing and unreasonably restraining trade in the markets
for Intel-compatible:

     (i) personal computer operating system software, and

    (ii) applications software, including word processing,
         spreadsheet and office-suite software.  

They also allege that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive
conduct in new and specialized purported software markets for
server operating systems.

In February, Microsoft Corp. agreed to settle the suit (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2007).

Microsoft also agreed to pay half of any unclaimed proceeds to
the Iowa Department of Education, to be used for bridging the
digital and technical divide in Iowa schools through the
purchase of computer hardware and software, according to a
statement by Rich Wallis, associate general counsel for
Microsoft.

Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg said the date
for the court hearing at which the settlement terms are to be
presented was moved up because of a conflict on the original
April 20 hearing date (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2007).

A settlement likely means individuals and companies in Iowa who
bought certain Microsoft products between 1994 and 2006 will be
eligible for cash or vouchers, according to the report.

The amount that can be claimed will depend on which product and
how many copies were purchased during the 12-year period.

Attorneys have not said whether the settlement will be for cash
or if consumers who bought Microsoft computers or software
during the class period will be given vouchers for new computer
equipment, which has been the case in other settled cases.

Iowa Software Suit on the Net: http://www.iowasoftwaresuit.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., 319 Seventh Street,      
         Suite 600, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, Phone: 515-283-1111,
         Fax: (515) 282-0477, E-mail:
         rconlin@roxanneconlinlaw.com, Web site:
         http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com;and                

     (2) Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP, 500
         Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN      
         55415, Phone: 800-899-5291, Fax: 612-336-9100, E-mail:      
         mfeinber@zelle.com, Website: http://www.zelle.com.
    
Representing Microsoft is David B. Tulchin of Sullivan &
Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004-2498,
Phone: +1-212-558-3749, Fax: +1-212-558-3588, E-mail:
tulchind@sullcrom.com.


MOTOROLA INC: Settles Telsim-Related Securities Suit for $190M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc. settled for $190 million a securities class
action related to vendor financing transactions with Telsim
Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S.

The settlement payment will be taken as a charge in the
company's recently completed first quarter results, partially
offset by estimated insurance recoveries of $75 million.

On Dec. 24, 2002, a purported class action, "Barry Family LP v.
Carl F. Koenemann," was filed against the former chief financial
officer of Motorola in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5.

In 2003, the case was consolidated with a number of related
cases as, "In re Motorola Securities Litigation" in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  

The plaintiffs allege that the price of Motorola's stock was
artificially inflated by a failure to disclose vendor financing
to Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri, in connection with
the sale of telecommunications equipment by Motorola as well as
other related aspects of Motorola's dealings with Telsim.

On Aug. 25, 2004, the Illinois District Court issued its
decision on Motorola's motion to dismiss, granting the motion in
part and denying it in part.  The court dismissed without
prejudice the fraud claims against the individual defendants and
denied the motion to dismiss as to Motorola.

The plaintiffs chose not to file an amended complaint;
therefore, the fraud claims against the individual defendants
are dismissed.  The court, however, declined to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims that the individual defendants were
"controlling persons of Motorola."

During 2005, the court certified the case as a class action.  

The suit is "In Re: Motorola Securities Litigation, Case No. 03
C 00287," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Robert C. Finkel, James A. Harrod and Lester Levy of  
         Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022,  
         Phone: (212) 759-4600 and (877) 370-7703, Fax: (212)  
         486-2093 and (877) 370-7704; and  

     (2) Bruce D. Greenberg of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, &  
         Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ  
         07102, Phone: (973) 623-3000.   

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Timothy F. Haley, Ian H. Morrison and Camille Annette  
         Olson of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 55 East Monroe Street,  
         Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603-4205, Phone: (312) 346-
         8000, E-mail: thaley@seyfarth.com,  
         imorrison@seyfarth.com and colson@seyfarth.com; and  

    (ii) Emily M. Pasquinelli of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth  
         Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: (202)  
         942-5000.


NESTLE PURINA: Recalls Mighty Dog Products Made by Menu Foods
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Purina PetCare Co. announces that as a precautionary
measure, it is voluntarily withdrawing its 5.3 ounce Mighty Dog
brand pouch products that were produced by Menu Foods, Inc. from
Dec. 3, 2006 through March 14, 2007.

This withdrawal is in response to the recall initiated earlier
by Menu Foods, a contract manufacturer that does limited
business with Purina as well as with other pet food
manufacturers.

Only Mighty Dog 5.3 ounce pouch products are being withdrawn by
Nestle Purina, including those pouches contained in multi-packs.  
Importantly, no Mighty Dog canned products, or any other Purina
products are affected by Menu's recall.

While Purina has no indication of any product quality or safety
issues specifically related to Mighty Dog pouch products, Purina
is taking this proactive action out of an abundance of caution
in response to the Menu Foods recall.

The Mighty Dog pouch products and pouches in multi-pack cartons
have code dates of 6337 through 7073, followed by the plant code
1798.  This information should be checked on the bottom or back
panel of the individual pouches.

Specifically, if the code following the "Use By" date begins
with four numbers from 6337 to 7073 followed by the plant code
1798, then the pouch is included in this voluntary withdrawal.

Purina regrets any inconvenience and apologizes for any concern
caused by this product withdrawal.  The company will continue to
take any and all actions necessary to ensure the quality and
safety of the company's products.

Consumers who have the indicated Mighty Dog 5.3 ounce pouch
products are advised to discontinue feeding them to their dogs
and can receive the full replacement value of the withdrawn
products by calling 1-800-551-7392.


NVIDIA CORP: Plaintiffs Want GPU Antitrust Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain plaintiffs in antitrust class actions related to the
pricing of graphics processing units and cards by Nvidia Corp.
are seeking consolidation of all similar cases, according to the
company's March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 28.

As of March 14, 2007, 42 civil complaints have been filed
against the company.  The majority are pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, a number
are pending in the Central District of California, and other
cases are pending in several other federal courts.

Although the complaints differ, they generally purport to assert
federal and state antitrust claims based on alleged price
fixing, market allocation, and other alleged anti-competitive
agreements between the company and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
or as a result of its acquisition of ATI Technologies, Inc.

Many of the cases also assert a variety of state law unfair
competition or consumer protection claims on the same
allegations and some cases assert unjust enrichment or other
common law claims.

The complaints are putative class actions alleging classes of
direct and/or indirect purchasers of graphic processing units
and cards.

The plaintiffs in a few of the Northern District of California
actions have filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation asking that all pending and subsequent
cases be consolidated in one court for all pre-trial discovery
and motion practice.

Nvidia Corp. on the Net: http://www.nvidia.com/.


OWENS CORNING: Del. District Court Okays MiraVista Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the District of Delaware affirms a Final
Approval Order for the settlement of claims asserted against
Molded Fiberglass Companies and Molded Fiberglass
Companies/West.

After reviewing the final order of U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith
K. Fitzgerald of the District of Delaware in the "Owens Corning
Chapter 11 Case No. 00-3837 (JKF): MiraVista Settlement," dated
Jan. 23, 2007, approving the MiraVista Claims Settlement on a
final basis, and the Bankruptcy Court's recommendation for the
District Court to affirm the order, the District Court finds
that:

   (a) the terms of the settlement agreement are fair,
       reasonable and adequate with respect to members of the
       Settlement Class who possess potential claims against
       Molded Fiberglass Companies or Molded Fiberglass
       Companies/West; and

   (b) the notice of the settlement provided to members of the
       Settlement Class meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the
       Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is the best means of
       notice and constitutes sufficient notice to members of
       the Class.

Accordingly, the District Court affirms the Final Approval Order
in its entirety.

MiraVista is a composite roofing product made from fiberglass,  
resin and inorganic fillers.  It was manufactured by Owens
Corning, Inc., Molded Fiberglass Companies and Molded Fiberglass
Companies/West between 1996 and 2002.

Lawsuits over MiraVista claim that the product is defective and  
causes damage for which property owners should be paid.

The first lawsuit was filed by a group of homeowners through the  
submission of "Proofs of Claim" in the Bankruptcy Court where  
Owens Corning filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition on Oct. 5,  
2000.  The Proofs of Claim were submitted on behalf of a class  
of people who purchased MiraVista before Owens Corning's Chapter  
11 Bankruptcy petition was filed.  

The second lawsuit was filed as a class action on behalf of  
purchasers of MiraVista by the same homeowners and others in  
state court in California against Owens Corning and two other  
companies that manufactured MiraVista, Molded Fiberglass  
Companies and Molded Fiberglass Companies/West.  

That suit was moved from the California Court to the Bankruptcy
Court, and is named, "Sherry McIlhargie, et al., plaintiffs v.  
Molded Fiber Glass Co., et al., defendants, Adversary Proceeding  
No. 05-50058."

The settlement class is defined as anyone who owns or used to  
own a home or other building on which a MiraVista roof is or was  
installed.  Also included are property owners who have replaced  
MiraVista.  

The court declared that there are two groups, or "subclasses,"  
in the class.  Members of the "Pre-Petition Subclass" include  
those purchased MiraVista roof before Oct. 5, 2000.  Members of  
the "Post-Petition Subclass" include those purchased MiraVista  
roof on or after Oct. 5, 2000.

For more details, call 1-800-947-4460 or visit:  
http://www.miravistaclassaction.com.  

(Adversary Proceeding -- Stratton, et al. v. Debtors; Owens  
Corning Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 153; Bankruptcy Creditors'  
Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


PARMALAT SPA: N.Y. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------   
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has preliminarily approved a securities class action against
Parmalat S.p.A.

To settle the securities litigation commenced by Hermes Focus
Asset Management Europe Limited, Cattolica Partecipazioni,
S.p.A., Capital & Finance Asset Management, Societe Moderne des
Terrassements Parisiens and Solotrat, against Banca Nazionale
del Lavoro S.p.A., Credit Suisse Group, Credit Suisse, Credit
Suisse International, and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe)
Limited, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York finds, on a preliminary basis, that the requirements of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the U.S. Constitution, the
Rules of the Court, and any other applicable law have been met
as to the Settlement Class, in that:

   (a) the identities of the Settlement Class members are likely
       to be ascertainable from records kept by Parmalat and its
       agents, or by the Settling Defendants or other
       defendants, and the Settlement Class members are so
       numerous that their joinder before the District Court
       would be impracticable;

   (b) the Lead Plaintiffs have alleged numerous questions of
       fact and law common to the Settlement Class;

   (c) the Lead Plaintiffs' claims in the Action are typical of
       the claims of the proposed Settlement Class;

   (d) the Lead Plaintiffs, along with Hermes European Focus
       Fund I, Hermes European Focus Fund II, Hermes European
       Focus Fund III, Laura J. Sturaitis, Arch Angelus
       Sturaitis and Margery Louise Kronengold will fairly and
       adequately protect the interest of the proposed class;
       and

   (e) questions of law or fact common to members of the
       Settlement Class predominate over any questions affecting
       its individual members, and that a class action
       resolution as proposed in a stipulation would be superior
       to other available methods for a fair and efficient
       adjudication of the Action.

Judge Kaplan preliminary certifies all persons and entities who
purchased Parmalat securities through and including Jan. 5,
1999, to Dec. 18, 2003 -- the Settlement Class -- for settlement
purposes under Civil Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) in the Action.

The Settlement Class excludes, among others, Parmalat, the
Settling Defendants and all other defendants, the officers and
directors during the Class Period, and any entity in which any
of the Defendants have a controlling interest.

Judge Kaplan appointed Hilsoft Notifications and Poorman Douglas
Corp. as notice and claims administrators to supervise and
administer the notice procedure and processing of claims.

The District Court will convene a hearing on the Settlement on
July 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m.

        Judge Kaplan Reconsiders BofA, et al.'s Arguments

Judge Kaplan grants the request of Bank of America Corp.;
Bank of America, N.A.; Banc of America Securities Limited,
Citigroup Inc.; Citibank N.A., Eureka Securitisation Plc;
Deloitte & Touche LLP; Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; James E.
Copeland; Grant Thornton International; and Grant Thornton LLP
to reconsider his preliminary approval of the Settlement and the
Class Certification Order.

The Non-Settling Defendants asserted that no settlement class
should be certified because the Rule 23 requirements have not
been satisfied.  They also argued that no settlement class may
include foreign purchasers because the District Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over their claims.

The Non-Settling Defendants would rather not allow what they
perceive to be "a camel's nose get under the tent in the form of
even a provisional certification of a settlement class against
other defendants," Judge Kaplan says.

However, Judge Kaplan notes that it is "not a good enough reason
to upset this apple cart at this stage of the proceedings."

Judge Kaplan adds that "[t]here is time enough to take account
of all relevant considerations when the settlement ultimately is
presented for approval.  That seems a far more appropriate time
at which to consider also whether even a settlement class should
be certified -- a question that would be academic if indeed the
proposed settlement would not be approved for some other
reason."

Moreover, Judge Kaplan notes that he has substantial doubts as
to whether the Non-Settling Defendants have any standing to
object to certification of a of a settlement class, or to the
proposed settlement.  He states that the matter may await the
fairness hearing.

                   Dismissal Requests Granted

Judge Kaplan grants the Motions to Dismiss filed by defendants
(i) Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Deloitte & Touche S.p.A., Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu Auditores Independentes (Brazil), and,
theoretically, any other Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu member firm
that participated in an audit of Parmalat, and (ii) Grant
Thornton International, Grant Thornton S.p.A., and all other
Grant Thornton International member firms that participated in
Parmalat audits.

In a separate ruling, Judge Kaplan grants DTT's request to
preclude Dr. Stefania Chiaruttini's testimony to the extent that
plaintiffs in all cases are precluded from offering the report.

Judge Kaplan cites four factors suggesting the unreliability of
Dr. Chiaruttini's report:

   (a) Even assuming that Dr. Chiaruttini is a public official,
       her role in the case is not that of a disinterested
       public servant, but as a paid advocate whose findings and
       views were created for litigation purposes.

   (b) Dr. Chiaruttini did not hear both sides of the story,
       causing her findings and conclusions unreliable.

   (c) Even if Dr. Chiaruttini conducted a factual
       investigation, the scope and quality of the investigation
       should also be considered.

   (d) Dr. Chiaruttini's refusal to sign the protective order is
       pertinent to determine her report's reliability.

             Parties Settle Claims Against Deloitte

In a stipulation subsequently approved by the District Court,
Dr. Enrico Bondi, as Extraordinary Commissioner of Parmalat
Finanziaria S.p.A., Parmalat S.p.A., and other affiliated
entities in Extraordinary Administration under the laws of
Italy; Deloitte & Touche S.p.A., Dianthus S.p.A., Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu, Deloitte & Touche LLP, and Deloitte & Touche
USA LLP; and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Auditores Independentes
agreed that the claims of Dr. Bondi and Parmalat against
Deloitte are dismissed, with prejudice and without costs.

              District Court Drops Some BoA Claims

Judge Kaplan dismisses two of Bank of America's counterclaims to
Dr. Bondi's lawsuit.

Judge Kaplan also dismisses a counterclaim filed by Parmalat
Netherlands, B.V., and all other counterclaims asserted by,
among others, Parmalat Finance Corp. B.V., Parmalat Capital
Netherlands B.V., Dairies Holding International B.V., Parmalat
Soparfi S.A., Olex S.A., Eurolat S.p.A., and Lactis S.p.A.

      Grant Thornton Allowed to File Third-Party Complaint

In a stipulated order, Dr. Bondi and Grant Thornton LLP agreed
that the preliminary injunction previously entered under Section
304 of the Bankruptcy Code will be modified to allow Grant
Thornton to file a third-party complaint against Parmalat S.p.A.
and Dr. Bondi in the Securities Fraud Action, for contribution
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4.

To the extent any judgment is recovered through the Third-Party
Complaint, Grant Thornton - U.S. will seek to enforce judgment
only in Italy and only to the extent it exceeds any amount Grant
Thornton might owe Parmalat.

Grant Thornton and Dr. Bondi agreed that the Stipulated Order is
appropriate because the reasoning in the District Court's
decision modifying the Section 304 Injunction as to Grant
Thornton International is equally applicable to Grant Thornton -
U.S.

Grant Thornton - U.S. did not previously seek to assert a claim
because its request in the Securities Fraud Action was only
recently denied.  In In re Grant Thornton Int'l. v. Parmalat
Finanziaria S.p.A., 320 B.R. 46 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), the District
Court held that motions to modify the Injunction to assert
claims against Parmalat only become ripe "if and to the extent
the plaintiffs survive motions to dismiss."

The parties further agreed that the preservation of Parmalat's
right to appeal the Stipulated Order is appropriate in light of
Parmalat's pending appeal of the District Court's Feb. 16,
2007 order, In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., No. 07-06825 (2d Cir.).

(Parmalat Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 87; Bankruptcy
Creditors'Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000).


PEOPLE'S CHOICE: Former Workers in Calif. Sue Bankrupt Employer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former People's Choice employees John P. Salvador, Douglas
McClary and Melinda McZiel, who were terminated by mass layoffs
or plant closings at the Debtors' facility in Irvine,
California, commenced a class action against the company for
damages arising from violations under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 2101, et seq.,
and its California counterpart California Labor Code Sections
1400, et seq.

The former employees were allegedly discharged on March 19, 2007
and thereafter by the company without cause on their part and
are "affected employees" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section
2101(a)(5).

Peter A. Davidson, Moldo Davidson Fraioli Seror & Sestanovich
LLP, in Los Angeles, California, asserts that the company
violated the WARN Act by failing to give the Former Employees at
least 60 days' advance notice of termination.  As a consequence,
Mr. Davidson asserts, the plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees are entitled under the WARN Act to recover
from the Debtors 60 days' wages and ERISA benefits, none of
which has been paid.

Since the former employees seek back-pay attributable to a
period of time after the filing of the company's bankruptcy
petitions and which arose as the result of its violation of a
federal law, the claims are entitled to Administrative Priority
status pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Mr. Davidson tells the Court that the company never gave the
former employees the statutorily required 60 days' notice of the
mass layoff or termination in violation of the WARN Act.

As a result of defendants' violation of the WARN Act, the former
employees and the other members of the class have been damaged
in amounts equal to the sum of:

   (a) their respective lost wages, salaries, commissions,
       bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay,
       401(k) contributions for 60 days;

   (b) the health and medical insurance and other fringe
       benefits they would have received or had the benefit of
       receiving, for a period of 60 days after the dates of
       their respective terminations; and

   (c) medical expenses incurred during such period by the class
       members that would have been covered and paid under the
       then applicable employee benefit plans had that coverage
       continued for that period.

(People's Choice Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 5; Bankruptcy
Creditors'Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000).


SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Settles Del. Suit Over Micro Linear Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. has settled a class action filed
against it in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in
New Castle County in relation to its plan to acquire Micro
Linear Corp.

On Aug. 30, 2006, a complaint, "Yevgeniy Pinis v. Timothy R.
Richardson, et al., No. 2381-N," was filed against the company,
Micro Linear, Metric Acquisition Corp. and Micro Linear's board
of directors in connection with the company's proposed
acquisition of Micro Linear.

The complaint was amended on Sept. 12, 2006.  The amended
complaint alleges, among other things, that:

     -- the Micro Linear board of directors violated its
        fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Micro Linear by
        approving the merger of Metric Acquisition Corp. with
        and into Micro Linear; and

     -- the consideration paid to the stockholders of Micro
        Linear in the merger was unfair and inadequate and that
        the proxy statement/prospectus that forms a part of the
        company's registration statement on Form S-4 (as amended
        and filed on Sept. 13, 2006) was deficient in a number
        of respects.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the company and Micro Linear from consummating the
merger, rights of rescission against the merger and the terms of
the merger agreement, damages incurred by the class, and
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the company and Micro Linear agreed in
principle with the plaintiff to a settlement of this lawsuit.  

The agreement in principle as to the proposed settlement
contemplates that counsel for the plaintiff will request a
reasonable award of fees and expenses from the court in
connection with the lawsuit.   The amount of any fee award
ultimately granted is within the court's discretion and cannot
be determined at this time.

Further to the proposed settlement, the parties agreed to
provide the stockholders of Micro Linear with certain additional
disclosures.  

The settlement is subject to the approval of the Delaware Court
of Chancery and provides for a broad release of claims by the
stockholder class.  

Prior to the time at which the settlement will be submitted to
the Delaware Court of Chancery for final approval, the parties
will provide additional information to class members in a notice
of settlement, including further information about the release
of claims.

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

Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. on the Net: http://www.sirenza.com/.


SIX FLAGS: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Labor-Related Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a purported class action alleging
labor-related violations by Six Flags, Inc. in 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 Nov. 7, 2005, certain plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf
of a purported class of current and former employees against the
company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.

In the complaint, plaintiffs allege 10 causes of action for,
among others, unpaid wages and related penalties, and violations
of California law governing employee meal and rest breaks with
respect to Six Flags Magic Mountain, Six Flags Hurricane Harbor
Los Angeles, Six Flags Discovery Kingdom (formerly Six Flags
Marine World), Waterworld USA/Concord and Waterworld
USA/Sacramento.

On April 5, 2006, the company moved for summary judgment with
respect to some of the plaintiffs' purported claims and to
dismiss all claims against those parks and individuals who were
improperly named in the complaint.  

Since that time, the plaintiffs have amended their complaint to
include several additional purported class members.  Discovery
is proceeding with respect to the company's summary judgment
motion and the class certification issue.  

Six Flags, Inc. on the Net: http://www.sixflags.com/.


SKECHERS USA: April 18 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------  
An April 18 hearing is set for plaintiffs' appeal against a
dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against Skechers USA, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors.

On March 25, 2003, a shareholder securities class action
complaint captioned "Harvey Solomon v. Skechers USA, Inc. et
al., Case No. 03-2094 DDP," was filed against the company and
certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  

On April 2, 2003, a shareholder securities class action
complaint captioned "Charles Zimmer v. Skechers USA, Inc. et
al., CASE NO. 03-2296 PA," was filed.  

On April 15, 2003, a shareholder securities class action
complaint captioned "Martin H. Siegel v. Skechers USA, Inc. et
al., Case No. 03-2645 RMT," was filed.  

On May 6, 2003, a shareholder securities class action complaint
captioned, "Adam D. Saphier v. Skechers USA, Inc. et al., Case
No. 03-3011 FMC," was served on the company and certain of its
officers and directors.

On May 9, 2003, a shareholders securities class action complaint
captioned "Larry L. Erickson v. Skechers USA, Inc. et al., Case
No. 03-3101 SJO," was filed.

Each of these class action complaints alleged violations of the
federal securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased
publicly traded securities of the company between April 3, 2002
and Dec. 9, 2002.  

In July 2003, the court in these federal securities class
actions, all pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, ordered the cases consolidated and a
consolidated complaint to be filed and served.

On Sept. 25, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
entitled "In re Skechers USA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV-03-2094-PA."

The complaint names as defendants the company and certain
officers and directors and alleges violations of the federal
securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of
persons who purchased publicly traded securities of the company
between April 3, 2002 and Dec. 9, 2002.  

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and injunctive and equitable relief.

The company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its
entirety.  On May 10, 2004, the court granted the motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiffs to amend the complaint.  

On Aug. 9, 2004, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
complaint for violations of the federal securities laws.  The
allegations and relief sought were virtually identical to the
original consolidated complaint.  

The company has moved to dismiss the first amended consolidated
complaint and the motion was set for hearing on Dec. 6, 2004.  
On March 21, 2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss the
first amended consolidated complaint with leave for plaintiffs
to amend one final time.

On April 7, 2005, plaintiffs elected to stand on the first
amended consolidated complaint and requested entry of judgment
so that an appeal from the court's ruling could be taken.

On April 26, 2005, the court entered judgment in favor of
Skechers and the individual defendants, and on May 3, 2005,
plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 9th Circuit.
All briefing by the parties has been completed, and a hearing
date has been scheduled for April 18.  Discovery has not
commenced in the underlying action.

The suit is "In Re: Skechers USA, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03-CV-2094," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Percy Anderson.

Plaintiff firms named in complaint are:

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

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 206-749-5544, Fax: 206-749-9978, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Los Angeles,
         CA), 355 S Grand Ave - Ste 4170, Los Angeles, CA,
         90071-3172, Phone: 213-617-9007; and

     (4) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Fla. Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal by
Sonic Automotive, Inc. with regards to the decision by the
Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida to grant class-
action status to the case, "Galura, et al. v. Sonic Automotive,
Inc."

In this action, originally filed on Dec. 30, 2002, the
plaintiffs allege that the company and its Florida dealerships
sold an antitheft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of
any customer of any of the company's Florida dealerships who
purchased the antitheft protection product since Dec. 30, 1998.  

Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of this class of customers.

In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the requested class of customers, but the court
has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in this
lawsuit.

The company subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's
class certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals.

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

Sonic Automotive, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.sonicautomotive.com.


SUNSHINE MILLS: Recalls Dog Biscuits Containing Wheat Gluten
------------------------------------------------------------
Sunshine Mills, Inc., a branded and private-label pet food
manufacturer based in Red Bay, Alabama, is voluntarily recalling
a portion of its branded dog biscuits made at its Red Bay,
Alabama biscuit plant during part of March 2007.

These brands include:

     -- Nurture Chicken & Rice,
     -- Nurture Lamb & Rice,
     -- Pet Life Large,
     -- Pet Life Extra Large,
     -- Pet Life Large Variety,
     -- Pet Life Large Peanut Butter,
     -- Lassie Lamb and Rice, and
     -- Pet Life People Pleasers Dog Treats

Private label biscuits for six of Sunshine's customers were also
affected.

The company is taking this voluntary action of recalling the dog
biscuits listed below after learning from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration that wheat gluten supplied to Sunshine from a
specific manufacturing facility in China contained melamine.

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

The recalled dog biscuits are marketed nationwide by many pet
food retailers including the mass channel, traditional grocery,
and pet specialty stores.

No dog illnesses or deaths have been reported to date in
connection with these dog biscuits.  The recalled dog biscuits
contain one percent or less by weight of wheat gluten.

Sunshine's other biscuit brands and products that include small
and medium sized biscuits were not affected.  It is also
important to note that dry dog and cat food and soft and chewy
treats for dogs or cats manufactured by Sunshine are not
affected and not included in this recall.

A complete list of affected biscuit brands, sizes, and codes is
available at: http://www.sunshinemills.com.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop feeding their dog the
dog biscuits with the specified date codes and consult with a
veterinarian if they have any health concerns with their dog.

Sunshine's products are 100% guaranteed.  Consumers may receive
the full replacement value of the recalled dog biscuits by
returning them to the place of purchase or consumers may contact
Sunshine's customer service number at (800) 705-2111 for further
information about the recall and for other instructions on
obtaining a product refund.


TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Securities Suit Plaintiff Seeks to Modify Stay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brand Group asks Judge Gropper to modify the automatic stay
so it may serve a document preservation subpoena on Tower
Automotive, Inc. (Debtor), and certain affiliated entities.

The Brand Group is the lead plaintiff in a securities fraud
class action entitled In re Tower Automotive Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-01926 (RWS), pending before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Securities Litigation was filed on behalf of all persons who
acquired Tower's securities between Aug. 14, 2000, and Feb. 1,
2005, inclusive, and alleges violations by certain current and
former officers and directors of Tower of federal securities
laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Tower is not a defendant in the Securities Litigation.  The case
is proceeding against the Non-Debtor Defendants.

Service of the Preservation Subpoena on the Debtors is necessary
to ensure the proper and secure maintenance of documents in the
Debtors' possession or control, until the time Brand Group is
permitted to serve a subpoena duces tecum on the Debtors or the
documents are otherwise made available, Michael S. Etkin, Esq.,
at Lowenstein Sandler PC, explains.

The defendants in the Securities Litigation have sought
dismissal of the Action.  The adversary parties currently await
the District Court's decision.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, absent relief from the District Court, Brand Group is
enjoined from seeking discovery in the Securities Litigation
until a decision is rendered on the Motion to Dismiss.  As a
result of the PSLRA Stay, Brand Group is barred from serving
requests for discovery on the Non-Debtor Defendants or subpoenas
on non-parties.

To prevent destruction of documents, the statute requires that
the parties to a securities action preserve all relevant
documents in their possession during the pendency of the PSLRA
Stay, Mr. Etkin contends.

"Maintaining and preserving the documents is essential to
assuring [Brand Group's] ability to prosecute the Securities
Litigation," Mr. Etkin says.

(Tower Automotive Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 57; Bankruptcy
Creditors'Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000).


WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Suit by Third-Party Payors for $7.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Ltd. reached tentative settlements to conclude
antitrust lawsuits brought by 34 states and the District of
Columbia and indirect purchasers, including the third- party
payor class action plaintiffs and the personal use consumer
class action plaintiffs, against certain of its subsidiaries
over agreements regarding the drug Ovcon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On March 2, the court dismissed without prejudice the company's
motion to dismiss the third-party-payor plaintiffs' complaint
and ordered the company's motion to dismiss to be automatically
reinstated on April 20, if the case is not resolved by that
date, according to the company's March 23 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 10, 2007).

On April 16, Warner Chilcott announced it has reached tentative
settlements, under which all claims will be dismissed and the
litigations will be terminated in exchange for cash payments
and/or product donations amounting to approximately $7.5 million
in the aggregate.

The settlements remain subject to negotiation of definitive
documentation and necessary approvals by the parties and the
Court.

These settlements do not include the related pending actions
brought by certain individual and class action direct purchaser
plaintiffs.

Warner Chilcott continues to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

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


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

April 18-19, 2007
D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

April 18-19, 2007
HEALTHCARE COMPLEX LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

April 19, 2007
PROPOSED FEDERAL LOBBYING AND ETHICS REFORM: WHICH CHANGES WILL
AFFECT YOU?
ALI-ABA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

April 1-30, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 1-30, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 1-30, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 1-30, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 1-30, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 1-30, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 1-30, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


SOUTHERN FARM: Baker & Hostetler Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Baker & Hostetler LLP announces that a class action has been
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on behalf of all shareholders of Plaintiffs'
Shareholders Corporation (PSC) who owned shares in PSC on or
after the dissemination of a Proxy Statement on Sept. 29, 2004
and through Oct. 15, 2004, the date of a Special Meeting of
Stockholders of PSC at which PSC approved the sale of a
debenture to Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co., and the
date that the sale of the debenture was completed.

The suit is filed on behalf of PSC stock-owners on or after the
dissemination of the Proxy Statement on Sept. 29, 2004 and on or
before Oct. 15, 2004.

The class consists of all of the shareholders of PSC who sold
their shares in PSC as a result of Southern Life's alleged
fraudulent and unlawful omissions and misrepresentations of
material facts in connection with SOUTHERN LIFE's purchase of a
security held by PSC and referred to as a "debenture."

The action alleges that Southern Life violated federal
securities laws under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule
10b-5 by omitting material facts and misrepresenting material
facts in connection with Southern Life's purchase of the
debenture from PSC and resulting in the sale of the class
members' shares in PSC.

The action also asserts claims of common law fraud under Florida
law associated with the same omissions of material fact and
misrepresentations of material fact.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 16,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Robert W. Thielhelm, Jr., Esq. of
Baker & Hostetler LLP, 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300, Post
Office Box 112, Orlando, FL 32802, Phone: 407-649-4072.


                            *********


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  * * *