CAR_Public/070420.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 20, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 78

                            Headlines


AXA EQUITABLE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Market Timing Suit
AXA EQUITABLE: Still Faces FLSA Violations Suits in Calif., Pa.
CARDINAL GLENNON: Ill. Suit Over Alleged Exorbitant Fees Junked
COAST FINANCIAL: Investor Files Third Securities Suit in Fla.
DRUG COS: Ark. Counties Seek Costs of Fighting Drug Addiction

ENERGY CLUB: Recalls Nut Mix Containing Undeclared Sulfites
EQUITABLE LIFE: Challenges Plaintiff's Motion in ERISA Lawsuit
FEMA: Sued Over Rental Assistance Program for Hurricane Victims
HEWLETT PACKARD: Assumes Oversight of Mercury-Related Litigation
HEWLETT PACKARD: Ill. Court Allows Appeal in P4 Processor Case

HEWLETT PACKARD: N.Y. Court Mulls Appeal in "Digwamaje" Lawsuit
HEWLETT PACKARD: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Intel P4 Processor
HEWLETT PACKARD: Remaining Claim in Ida. ERISA Case Dismissed
HEWLETT PACKARD: Still Faces Litigations Over "Smart Chips"
JEN-ON HERBAL: Recalls Dietary Supplement Posing Health Risks

LAKESIDE FARM: Former Employees Sue for "Wrongful" Terminations
MCCORMICK DISTILLING: Recalls Gel Candles in Martini Glasses
MICHIGAN: Lawsuit Over Foster Care System to Go to Trial in 2008
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Deletion of E-mails
MENU FOODS: Expands Recall of Pet Food Containing Wheat Gluten

NETOPIA INC: Calif. Securities Suit Deal Gets Initial Approval
NEW YORK: $10,000 Fine Sought for "Illegal" Panhandler Summons
NORWAY: Group Plans Suit Over Alleged Sri Lanka Terrorism Link
ORACLE CORP: Hearing Regarding Electronic Discovery Set May 1
PARK WEST: Faces Suit for Using "Phantom Bidders" in Auctions

PENNSYLVANIA: Agrees to Provide Safer Road Access to Disabled
PENNSYLVANIA: BASD Continues to Face Race Discrimination Lawsuit
PLAYERS INC: Seeks Transfer, Dismissal of Calif. Retirees' Suit
RADIOSHACK CORP: Accused of Bias for Using Credit Info in Hiring
RHODE ISLAND: Sued Over Shutdown Mandate Under Cost Saving Plan

RIO TINTO: Oceanic Islanders Win Anew in Calif. Ecocide Suit
ROYAL DUTCH: Reaches $352M Settlement with Non-U.S. Shareholders
SIERRA WIRELESS: Consolidated Securities Suits in N.Y. Junked
SOUTHEAST ASIAN: Recalls Fish Products Containing Undeclared Egg
THOMAS WEISEL: Motion to Dismiss Suit Against Friedman's Junked

UAL CORP: High Court Refuses to Review Dismissal of ESOP Suit
UAL CORP: Settles Lawsuits Over Air Cargo/Passenger Surcharges
UNITED STATES: D.C. Court Dismisses "Contreras" Racial Bias Suit
XM SATELLITE: Suit Over Commercial-free Music Channels Advances


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Converium's A&E Reserves Remain at $49.2M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chem. Continues to Indemnify Kraton
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met-Pro Corp. Has 37 Pending Actions in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Electric Incurs $200M Charge in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Remand Motion in Brewster Lawsuit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Units Reach Agreement with Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Law Stresses Hiring of Accredited Co.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Widow Wins $5.55M Settlement in Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitter Sues Rhodes, BTR Fatati for GBP200T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CARES Reinstates Suit v. Marco Island City

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Law Firm Seeks Changes in Payout Law
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Resident Sues 47 Firms in Injury Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Says Asbestos in Pa. Site Poses No Risk
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Woman Sues MoD for Exposure from Blast
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow to Claim GBP150T for Husband's Death

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Survey to be Conducted at Arkansas Hospital
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Tenants to Vacate Cottages for Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Remands Georgia-Pacific Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Motion in Favor of Flowserve Corp
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial Date in Ohio Action v. Chase Moved

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal Govt. Begins Ill. Hospital Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe on Amsterdam Bldg. Scam to Cover City
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dutch Police Arrests 4 Workers for Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Up to 13,000 U.K. Schools Have Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Blaze Aftermath Poses Exposure Risks

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Karmanos Finds Breakthrough in Treatment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rando Suit in La. Ends in $3.2M Verdict
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Records 114 Pending Suits in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nebraskan Sues 107 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Guesnard Case

ASBESTOS ALERT: American Asbestos Pleads Guilty to OSHA Breaches


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CUTERA INC: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Kaplan Fox Files Calif. Securities Suit
TOLL BROTHERS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in Pa.
WORLDSPACE INC: Schiffrin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


AXA EQUITABLE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Market Timing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland of the purported class
action, "Matthew Wiggenhorn V. Equitable Life Assurance Society
of the U.S.," which names AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co.
(formerly Equitable Life) as one of the defendants.

In April 2004, a purported nationwide class action was filed in
the Circuit Court for Madison County, Illinois entitled,
"Matthew Wiggenhorn V. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the
U.S."

The lawsuit alleges that AXA Equitable uses stale prices for the
foreign securities within the investment divisions of its
variable insurance products.

The complaint further alleges that AXA Equitable's use of stale
pricing diluted the returns of the purported class.  The
complaint also alleges that AXA Equitable breached its fiduciary
duty to the class by allowing market timing in general within
AXA Equitable's variable insurance products, thereby diluting
the returns of the class.

In June 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland, where other market-timing related litigation is
pending.  

In that same time period, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  
In July 2005, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  

In June 2006, AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint was granted.  Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in
June 2006, 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 "Wiggenhorn v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of
the U.S. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01674-JFM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge J.
Frederick Motz.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew Steven Friedman,
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, 2901 N
         Central Ave Ste 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone:
         16027765903, Fax: 16022741199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
         or afriedman@bffb.com;

     (2) Eugene Yevgeny Barash, Stephen Tillery and George A.
         Zelcs, Korein Tillery, 701 Market St Ste 300, St.
         Louis, MO 63108, Phone: 13142414844, Fax: 13142413525,
         E-mail: ebarash@koreintillery.com or
         gzelcs@koreintillery.com;

     (3) Timothy G. Blood, William J. Doyle, John J. Stoia, Jr.,
         Milberg Weiss, 401 B St Ste 1700, San Diego, CA 92101-
         3311, Phone: 16192311058, Fax: 16192317423

     (4) Amelia F Burroughs of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman and Robbins LLP, 401 B St Ste 1600, San Diego,
         CA 92101, Phone: 16192311058, Fax: 16192317423, E-mail:
         ameliab@lerachlaw.com; and

     (5) Robert L. King, Swedlow and King, 701 Market St Ste
         350, St. Louis, MO 63101, Phone: 13146214002, Fax:
         13146212586, E-mail: king@swedlowking.com.

Representing the company is Margaret J. Schneider of Mayer Brown
Rowe and Maw, 71 S Wacker Dr, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
13127820600, Fax: 13127017711, E-mail:
mschneider@mayerbrownrowe.com.


AXA EQUITABLE: Still Faces FLSA Violations Suits in Calif., Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. remains a defendant in two
purported class actions filed in California and Pennsylvania,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 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.

Beginning with the first action commenced in July 2006, there
are two putative class actions pending in federal court:

     -- "Meola v. AXA Advisors, et al.," in the U.S. District
        Court for the Northern District of California; and

     -- "Bolea V. Axa Advisors, LLC, et al., in U.S. District
        Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,

against AXA Equitable, alleging certain wage and hour
violations.

Each of the cases seek substantially the same relief under
essentially the same theories of recovery (i.e., violation of
the FLSA for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime and
violation of similar provisions under state labor laws in the
respective states).

Plaintiffs in "Meola" and "Bolea" seek certification of
nationwide collection action under the FLSA, and certification
of statewide class actions under the respective California and
Pennsylvania state labor laws covering all "securities brokers"
from 2002 to 2006.

In addition, plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution
of all wages improperly withheld or deducted, punitive damages,
penalties, and attorneys' fees.  In January 2007, AXA Equitable
filed an answer in "Meola."

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. on the Net:
http://www.axa-equitable.com/.


CARDINAL GLENNON: Ill. Suit Over Alleged Exorbitant Fees Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack dismissed a class
action accusing Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital, in St.
Louis of charging unreasonable rates for patients who lack
insurance, the St. Clair Record reports.

In 2004, Lanny H. Darr II of Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr
filed a purported class action against Cardinal Glennon on
behalf of Jacqueline Johnson individually and as the mother of
Anna and Michelle Johnson.  Plaintiffs claim that the hospital
imposed higher charges on patients without insurance.

Mrs. Johnson, an Illinois resident, met an auto accident in 2003
that injured her children.  Mr. Darr negotiated a personal
injury payout for the accident and obtained a settlement.  But,
she did not pay the hospital, which in turn asserted a lien
against her settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2006).

Judge Stack already dismissed the class action, but allowed Mr.
Darr to amend it.  Mr. Darr filed an amended complaint removing
all references to a lien in July and proposed to certify Mrs.
Johnson as representative of all Cardinal Glennon patients who
lacked insurance or other third-party benefits and received
unreasonable bills.  It stated that Cardinal Glennon charged
$82,542.30 for their treatment.

Mr. Darr then asked Judge Stack to impose a trust upon all
monies Cardinal Glennon received as a result of unlawful and
unjust conduct.  

At a Nov. 29 hearing, he stayed the class action pending
adjudication of a lien on the settlement of an auto accident
involving the plaintiff in the class action.

In a Dec. 18, 2006 motion, he sked the Madison County Circuit
Court in Illinois to declare a lien of Cardinal Glennon
Children's Hospital null and void so he could proceed with a
class action claim against the hospital (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 31, 2007).

In January, attorney Edward S. Bott Jr. of St. Louis notified
Mr. Darr and Judge Stack that Cardinal Glennon would not try to
collect Ms. Johnson's bill and declared the case moot and moved
for its dismissal.

In February, Mr. Darr argued that Ms. Johnson could still lead a
class action and wrote that she still sought attorney's fees,
monetary damages, injunctive relief and class certification.

In an April 11 order, Judge Stack wrote that Mr. Darr's
plaintiff, Jacqueline Johnson, failed to state a cause of action
against Cardinal Glennon.

The judge's order granted Cardinal Glennon's motion, but did not
adopt Mr. Bott's argument of mootness.

He wrote that he dismissed the case "for failure to state a
cause of action under the circumstances."

The judge gave Mr. Darr 30 days to find a different plaintiff to
amend the complaint.

Lanny H. Darr II is with Kelly & Darr, L.T.D., Suite 415, 307
Henry Street, Alton, IL 62002-6326, Phone: (618) 465-2311, Fax:
(618) 465-2318, Web site: http://sbkdlaw.com/.

Defendant's attorney, Edward S. Bott Jr., is with Greensfelder,
Hemker & Gale, P.C., 10 South Broadway, Ste. 2000, St. Louis, MO
63102, Phone: (314) 241-9090, Fax: (314) 241-8624.


COAST FINANCIAL: Investor Files Third Securities Suit in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boca Raton attorney Maya Saxena, on behalf of Coast Financial
Holdings Inc. investor Daniel Altenburg, filed the third class
action against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Bradenton Herald reports.

The suit alleges company officials withheld information that
caused investors to lose large sums of money.  It specifically
claims that investors in Coast Financial Holdings (NASDAQ: CFHI)
should have been made aware that Coast Bank had committed to
$110 million in loans to 482 homebuyers whose houses were being
built by a single developer, St. Petersburg-based Construction
Compliance Inc. (CCI).

The suit mirrors two other suits filed within the past month on
behalf of investors who claim Coast Financial Holdings officials
should have informed investors of the loan problems sooner.

Coast claimed to have significantly increased its residential
loan portfolio, but failed to disclose the build up and
concentration of loans for residential construction projects
that would be undertaken by CCI.

Coast lent millions to individuals to build residential homes,
and much of this construction was undertaken by a single
company, CCI. This increased the risk of loan default by
borrowers and the devaluation of Coast's collateral.

Coast failed to disclose that risk in any of its public filings
and failed to properly reserve for loan losses on its financial
statements.  Coast and its officers were well aware of the build
up of construction contracts with CCI, the complaint alleges.

On Jan. 19, 2007, Coast announced that it would likely suffer an
impairment to its loan portfolio because CCI was going out of
business and would not complete many of its construction
projects (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2007).

Coast's stock price fell approximately 50%.  Later, Coast
disclosed it would add $14 million in loan loss reserves to deal
with the CCI problem.

The suit is "Altenburg v. Coast Financial Holdings Inc. et al.,
Case No. 8:07-cv-00642-RAL-TGW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Richard A.
Lazzara, with referral to Judge Thomas G. Wilson.

Representing plaintiffs are Maya S. Saxena and Joseph E. White,
III, both of Saxena White P.A., 2424 North Federal Highway,
Suite 257, Boca Raton, FL 33431-7781, Phone: (561) 394-3399,
Fax: (561) 394-3382, E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com or
jwhite@saxenawhite.com.


DRUG COS: Ark. Counties Seek Costs of Fighting Drug Addiction
-------------------------------------------------------------
Independence County has filed a class action against two
pharmaceutical companies and some distributors of ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine in circuit court on March 21, reports say.

The suit seeks to recover damages that counties have incurred
while combating methamphetamine use and addiction.  It follows
the pattern established by the tobacco lawsuits that culminated
in the multi-state tobacco settlement of 1998.

On April 9, the Sharp County Quorum Court voted in favor of
joining the suit, according to Batesville (Arkansas) Daily
Guard.

The suit accused the companies of failing to cooperate with
efforts by the Drug Enforcement Administration for controls on
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine since 1986.  It said loopholes in
the law protected the defendants and kept ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine available for illegal methamphetamine use.

The suit says the makers are aware that their products are used
to manufacture methamphetamine and they have the technology to
create the medicine they sell in a form in which it would be
impossible or virtually impossible to extract ingredients for
methamphetamine production.  Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are
allegedly the only ingredients that makers of the illegal drug
methamphetamine cannot make on their own but must obtain from
over the counter drugs.

A report by E. Alan Long of Carroll County News said the suit
names:
     -- Pfizer Inc.,
     -- PDK Labs Inc.,
     -- Warner Lambert,
     -- Johnson and Johnson,
     -- Perrigo Co.,
     -- American Novelties, and Cliff McQuay, Cliff McQuay Jr.,
     -- Ellen McQuay of Cliff McQuay Sales Co., and
     -- 10 John Does

The suit alleges unjust enrichment on the part of the
defendants; deceptive and unconscionable trade practices;
common-law nuisance; and violation of Arkansas code, by selling
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in the state while knowing that it
would be used to make methamphetamine.

Independence County Judge Bill Hicks said that counties, other
than Carroll, expressing interest in joining in the action
include Jackson, Fulton, White, Woodruff, Lawrence, Garland and
Prescott.


ENERGY CLUB: Recalls Nut Mix Containing Undeclared Sulfites
-----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Club, Inc., of Pacoima, California is recalling their
Healthy California Mix, packaged in 4 ounce (UPC#01952) and 7
ounce (UPC#21952) pillow bags with header labels, and Raisin Nut
Mix, packaged in 3 ounce (UPC#00964) and 7.25 ounce (UPC#01964)
pillow bags with header labels, sold primarily through various
convenience stores nationwide, due to the presence of undeclared
sulfites.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to sulfites run
the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction
(anaphylaxis) if they ingest 10 mg. or more of sulfites per
serving.

These items may contain sulfur dioxide, a food preservative used
in many brands of dried fruit products.

A recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of the Healthy
California Mix, which did not declare sulfites on the label.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
issue.  This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S
Food and Drug Administration.

Consumers who have purchased any of these packaged treats should
return them to the place of purchase.  Energy Club, Inc. has
added the statement "Contains Sulfur Dioxide" to its ingredient
list on its Healthy California Mix, packaged in 4 ounce and 7
ounce bags, and its Raisin Nut Mix, packaged in 3 ounce and 7.25
ounce bags.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-688-
6887.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Challenges Plaintiff's Motion in ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U.S., now known as
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., is opposing plaintiff's motion
in the putative class action "Stefanie Hirt, et al. v. The
Equitable Retirement Plan For Employees, Managers And Agents, et
al."

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in August 2001 against The Equitable
Retirement Plan for Employees, Managers and Agents and The
Officers Committee on Benefit Plans of Equitable Life, as Plan
Administrator.

It was brought by five participants in the Retirement Plan and
purports to be on behalf of "all Plan participants, whether
active or retired, their beneficiaries and estates, whose
accrued benefits or pension benefits are based on the Plan's
Cash Balance Formula".

The complaint challenged the change, effective Jan. 1, 1989 in
the pension benefit formula from a final average pay formula to
a cash balance formula.

Plaintiffs alleged that the change to the cash balance formula
violated Employee Retirement Income Security Act by reducing the
rate of accruals based on age, failed to comply with ERISA's
notice requirements and improperly applied the formula to
retroactively reduce accrued benefits.

The relief sought includes a declaration that the cash balance
plan violated ERISA, an order enjoining the enforcement of the
cash balance formula, reformation and damages.

In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a
class of "all Plan participants, whether active or retired,
their beneficiaries and estates, whose accrued benefits or
pension benefits are based on the Plan's Cash Balance Formula."

Also in April 2002, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss with prejudice
their claim that the change to the cash balance formula violated
ERISA by improperly applying the formula to retroactively reduce
accrued benefits.  That claim was dismissed.

In March 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint elaborating
on the remaining claims in the original complaint and adding
additional class and individual claims alleging that the
adoption and announcement of the cash balance formula and the
subsequent announcement of changes in the application of the
cash balance formula failed to comply with ERISA.

By order dated May 2003, the court, as requested by the parties,
certified the case as a class action, including a sub-class of
all current and former Plan participants, whether active,
inactive or retired, their beneficiaries or estates, who were
subject to a 1991 change in application of the cash balance
formula.

In September 2006, the district court granted summary judgment
in favor of the defendants.  The court ruled that:

      -- the cash balance provisions of the Equitable Plan do
         not violate the age discrimination provisions of ERISA;
      
      -- while the notice of plan changes provided to
         participants in 1990 was not adequate, the notice of
         plan changes provided to participants in 1992 satisfied
         the ERISA notice requirements regarding delivery and
         content; and

      -- the claims of the named plaintiffs are barred by
         statute of limitations.

The court found that other individual class members were not
precluded from asserting claims for additional benefit accruals
from January 1991 through January 1993 to the extent that such
individuals could show that the statute of limitations did not
bar their claims.

In October 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  
Defendants have cross-appealed, 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 "Stefanie Hirt, et al. v. The Equitable Retirement
Plan For Employees, Managers And Agents, et al., Case No. 1:01-
cv-07920-AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Edgar Pauk of Law Offices of
Edgar Pauk, Esq, 144 East 44th Street, Suite 600 New York, NY
10017 Phone: (212) 983-4000 Fax: 212 808-9808 E-mail:
pauk@tiac.net.  

Representing the defendant is Wilber H. Boies, Nancy G. Ross,
Terri L. Ross, McDermott, Will & Emery, 227 W. Monroe Street,
Suite # 4700 Chicago, IL 60606-5096 E-mail: tross@mwe.com.   


FEMA: Sued Over Rental Assistance Program for Hurricane Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steptoe & Johnson
LLP, and a coalition of public interest organizations filed a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana against the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and other federal officials on behalf of a
group of low-income individuals displaced from their homes by
Hurricane Katrina.

The lawsuit alleges plaintiffs were terminated from FEMA's
rental assistance program before being provided an opportunity
to appeal the termination, in violation of their right to due
process under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
placing them at risk of homelessness and increased poverty.

"Since these horrible storms nearly two years ago, FEMA's system
of administering assistance has proven to be flawed time and
time again, denying those most in need of vital aid," said Steve
Ronfeldt of the Public Interest Law Project, who represents the
plaintiffs along with lawyers from the National Center For Law
And Economic Justice, the National Law Center on Homelessness &
Poverty, Texas Appleseed, the Mississippi Center for Justice,
the Legal Clinic at the Loyola University New Orleans College of
Law, Steptoe & Johnson LLP and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

Mr. Ronfeldt said, "Our goal in bringing this lawsuit is to
compel FEMA to comply with the requirements of the Constitution
by providing individuals displaced by Hurricanes Katrina or
Rita, as well as victims of future disasters, with clear
notification of the reasons why they are denied continued
housing assistance and a fair opportunity to challenge FEMA's
decisions before they lose the assistance that is so critical to
their ability to pay for housing."

More specifically, the lawsuit contends that FEMA operates an
unresponsive system of administrative review and issues
termination notices that are confusing and contain little more
than undecipherable acronyms, and that FEMA has failed to
publish standards setting forth the eligibility requirements.

"FEMA is charged with providing assistance to people in their
greatest moment of need, but it has failed many of the neediest
by cloaking its decision-making in bureaucratic double-speak and
cutting off vital housing assistance before recipients have a
fair opportunity to be heard," according to Adam Strochak of
Weil Gotshal.

Mr. Strochak adds, "For those whose existence is almost entirely
dependent on this organization and the assistance it provides
until their homes and lives are rebuilt, this is unacceptable."

Also challenged in the suit are FEMA's practices regarding
recovery of alleged overpayments to aid recipients.  The lawsuit
alleges FEMA violates the Constitution by failing to provide aid
recipients with clear notice of the reasons why it is seeking
repayment of assistance and by terminating or withholding
continued rental assistance before recipients are given an
opportunity to dispute FEMA's demands for repayment.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Steven S. Cherensky, Esq. or Adam P. Strochak, Esq. of
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Phone: 650-802-3000 or 202-
         682-7000, E-mail: steven.cherensky@weil.com and
         adam.strochak@weil.com;

     (2) Steve Ronfeldt, Esq. of The Public Interest Law
         Project, Phone: 510-891-9794 x127 or 510-402-8491, E-
         mail: sronfeldt@pilpca.org;

     (3) Marc Cohan, Esq. of National Center for Law and
         Economic Justice, Phone: 212-633-6967, E-mail:
         cohan@nclej.org; and

     (4) Bradley Black, Esq. or Davida Finger, Esq. of Loyola
         University New Orleans College of Law, Phone: 504-861-
         5787 or 504-861-5596, E-mail: beblack@loyno.edu or
         dfinger@loyno.edu.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Assumes Oversight of Mercury-Related Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Co. assumed oversight of a purported class
action that it inherited as a result of its acquisition of
Mercury Interactive Corp., according to Hewlett Packard's March
9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan. 31, 2007.

In November 2006, Hewlett Packard completed its acquisition of
Mercury Interactive.  Upon completion of the acquisition,
Hewlett Packard assumed oversight for all litigation and
regulatory matters pending or subsequently commenced against
Mercury.

Prior to the announcement of the acquisition, and beginning on
or about Aug. 19, 2005, four securities class actions were filed
against Mercury Interactive and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of purchasers of Mercury's stock from
October 2003 to November 2005:

The original actions were:

      -- "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v.
         Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. C05-3395";

      -- "Johnson v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-
         3864";

      -- "Munao v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-
         4031"; and

      -- "Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v.
         Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-5157."

These class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California as, "In re Mercury
Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation."

The consolidated complaint filed on Sept. 8, 2006 alleges that
the defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding Mercury's business and operations in violation of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  

The suit is "In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C05-3395," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel
with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs is Arthur L. Shingler, III of Scott
+ Scott, LLC, 600 B. Street, Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: 619-233-4565, Fax: 619-233-0508, E-mail: ashingler@scott-
scott.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Nicole Acton Jones of Heller Ehrman, LLP, 333 Bush
         Street, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-772-6032,
         Fax: 415-772-6268, E-mail:
         nicole.jones@hellerehrman.com;

     (2) Kirk Andrew Dublin of Jones Day, 555 California Street,
         26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104-1500, Phone: 415-
         626-3939, Fax: 415-875-5700, E-mail:
         kdublin@jonesday.com;

     (3) Jeffrey S. Facter of Shearman & Sterling, LLP, 525
         Market Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105,
         Phone: 415-616-1100, Fax: 415-616-1199, E-mail:
         jfacter@shearman.com.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Ill. Court Allows Appeal in P4 Processor Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court allowed Intel Corp. to appeal a
District Appellate Court's ruling regarding the certification of
the suits:

     -- "Barbara's Sales, et al. v. Intel Corp., Hewlett-
        Packard Co., et al.," and

     -- "Neubauer, et al. v. Compaq Computer Corp."

The cases are separate lawsuits filed on June 3, 2002 in the
Circuit Court, 3rd Judicial District, Madison County, Illinois.

The suit alleges that Hewlett Packard Co. and Compaq, along with
Intel, misled the public by suppressing and concealing the
alleged material fact that systems that use the Intel Pentium 4
processor are less powerful and slower than systems using the
Intel Pentium III processor and processors made by a competitor
of Intel.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys'
fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class.  The
trial court in the HP action certified an Illinois class as to
Intel but denied a nationwide class.  Both parties appealed the
trial court's decision.  

On July 25, 2006, the 5th District Appellate Court ruled that
the trial court erred in applying Illinois law in deciding to
certify the Illinois class and to deny certification of the
nationwide class and directed the trial court to reconsider
those decisions applying California law instead.

On Aug. 28, 2006, Intel appealed the 5th District's decision to
the Illinois Supreme Court, and the Illinois Supreme Court
granted Intel's petition for appeal on Nov. 29, 2006.  

Proceedings against HP have been stayed pending resolution of
the parties' appeal of this decision.  The class-action
certification against Compaq has been stayed pending resolution
of the parties' appeal in the HP action.

Hewlett Packard reported no development in these cases in its
March 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan. 31,
2007.

Hewlett Packard Co. on the Net: http://www.hp.com/.


HEWLETT PACKARD: N.Y. Court Mulls Appeal in "Digwamaje" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal  
regarding the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of New York of the purported class action,
"Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et al.," which names Hewlett Packard  
Co. and numerous other multinational corporations as
defendants.  

The case was filed on Sept. 27, 2002 in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of current and
former South African citizens and their survivors who suffered
violence and oppression under the apartheid regime.  

The lawsuit alleges that HP and other companies helped  
perpetuate, profited from, and otherwise aided and abetted the  
apartheid regime during the period from 1948-1994 by selling  
products and services to agencies of the South African  
government.  

Claims are based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture  
Victims Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt  
Organizations Act and state law.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the
creation of a historic commission, compensatory damages in
excess of $200 billion, punitive damages in excess of $200  
billion, costs and attorneys' fees.  

On Nov. 29, 2004, the court dismissed with prejudice the  
plaintiffs' complaint.  In May 2005, the plaintiffs filed an  
amended notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the  
Second Circuit.

On Jan. 24, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
argument on the plaintiffs' appeal but has not yet issued a
decision.

Hewlett Packard reported no development in the matter in its
March 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan. 31,
2007.

The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corp., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kweku J. Hanson, 487 Main Street, Harford, CT 06106,
         Phone: (860) 728-5454, Fax: (860) 548-9660;

     (2) Medi Moira Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House
         1685, Extension 12, Republic of South Africa; and

     (3) Paul M. Ngobeni, 914 Main Street, Suite 206, East
         Hartford, CT 06108, Phone: (860) 289-3155 and (508)
         620-4798.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Kristin M. Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, 500
         Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047, Phone: (973)
         549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, Web site:
         http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/;and  

    (ii) Kristin Michele Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP,
         140 Broadway, 39th Flr., New York, NY 10005, Phone:
         (973) 549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, E-mail:
         kristin.heine@dbr.com.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Intel P4 Processor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Co. remains a defendant in the purported class
action "Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett Packard Co."
which is with regards to the performance of Intel Corp.'s
Pentium 4 processor.

Generally, the suit alleges that the company along with Intel,
misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged
material fact that systems that use the Pentium 4 processor are
less powerful and slower than systems using the Pentium III
processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel.

The company was joined to the lawsuit on June 14, 2004.  It was
initially filed in state court in Alameda County, California,
based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois
cases.

The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a
nationwide class.  

The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in
Santa Clara County, California, according to Hewlett Packard's
March 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan. 31,
2007.

Hewlett Packard Co. on the Net: http://www.hp.com/.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Remaining Claim in Ida. ERISA Case Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The sole remaining claim in the purported class action, "Miller,
et al. v. Hewlett Packard Co.," which was pending U.S. District
Court for the District of Idaho has been voluntarily dismissed.

The lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2005 on behalf of a putative
class of persons who were employed by third-party temporary
service agencies and who performed work at Hewlett Packard
facilities in the U.S.

The plaintiffs claimed that they were incorrectly classified as
contractors or contingent workers and, as a result, were
wrongfully denied employee benefits covered by the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and benefits not covered
by ERISA.

The plaintiffs also claimed they were denied participation in
Hewlett Packard's Share Ownership Plan, service award program,
adoption assistance program, credit union, dependent care
reimbursement program, educational assistance program, time off
programs, flexible work arrangements, and the 401(k) plan.

On May 22, 2005, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act claim.

Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, an injunction, retroactive
and prospective benefits and compensation, unspecified damages
and enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

Hewlett Packard successfully moved to dismiss the ERISA and WARN
claims on June 23, 2005, and the court dismissed those claims on
Dec. 15, 2005.

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the sole remaining claim,
for breach of contract, on Jan. 4, 2007, according to the
company's March 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Jan. 31, 2007.

Hewlett Packard Co. on the Net: http://www.hp.com/.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Still Faces Litigations Over "Smart Chips"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Co. continues to face several purported class
actions over "smart chips" in certain of its inkjet printing
products.

"Feder v. HP," formerly "Tyler v. HP" is a lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
June 16, 2005.  It asserts breach of express and implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act and deceptive advertising and unfair business
practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that HP employed a "smart
chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register
ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable
through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.

Plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.

On Sept. 6, 2005, a lawsuit "Ciolino v. HP" was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  
The allegations in the Ciolino case are substantively identical
to those in Feder, and the two cases have been formally
consolidated in a single proceeding in the District Court for
the Northern District of California as "In Re: HP Inkjet Printer
Litigation."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, damages
(including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.  

                       Dismissed Lawsuit

Plaintiffs have dismissed these related lawsuits filed in
California state court without prejudice:

      -- "Tyler v. HP" (filed in Santa Clara County on Feb. 17,
         2005),

      -- "Obi v. HP" (filed in Los Angeles County on Feb. 17,
         2005), and

      -- "Weingart v. HP" (filed in Los Angeles County on March
         18, 2005)

In addition, two related lawsuits filed in federal court have
been dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs.  The suits
are:

      -- "Grabell v. HP" (filed in the District of New Jersey on
         March 18, 2005), and

      -- "Just v. HP" (filed in the Eastern District of New York
         on April 20, 2005)

                      Canadian Litigation    

Substantially similar allegations have been made against HP and
its subsidiary, Hewlett Packard (Canada) Co., in four Canadian
class actions:

      -- one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006;
      -- two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006,
         respectively; and
      -- one commenced in Ontario in June 2006.

The suits are all seeking class certification, restitution,
declaratory relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory,
compensatory and punitive damages.

Hewlett Packard reported no development in these cases in its
March 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan. 31,
2007.

The consolidated federal suit is "In re: HP Inkjet Printer
Litigation, Case No. 5:05-cv-03580-JF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs is Bruce Lee Simon of Cotchett Pitre
& Simon, San Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road,
Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010, Phone: 650.697.6000, Fax:
650.692.3606, E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Sally J. Berens of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, 1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, U.S.A.,
Phone: 650-849-5300, Fax: 650-849-5333, E-mail:
sberens@gibsondunn.com.


JEN-ON HERBAL: Recalls Dietary Supplement Posing Health Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jen-On Herbal Science International, Inc. at 205 Russell St.,
City of Industry, California, is conducting a voluntary
nationwide recall of the company's supplement product sold under
the name H S Joy of Love.

Jen-On Herbal Science International, Inc. is conducting this
recall after being informed by representatives of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration that lab analysis by FDA of H S Joy of
Love samples found the product contains Piperadino Vardenafil,
an analog of Vardenafil, an FDA-approved drug used as treatment
for male Erectile Dysfunction (ED).

Piperadino Vardenafil is close in structure to Vardenafil and is
expected to possess a similar pharmacological and adverse event
profile.  This poses a threat to consumers because the analogue
may interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs
(such as nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to
dangerous levels.

Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol,
or heart disease often take nitrates.  ED is a common problem in
men with these conditions, and consumers may seek these types of
products to enhance sexual performance.

H S Joy of Love is sold nationwide.  The H S Joy of Love product
is sold as a 12-capsule blister pack packaged in a retail box.

Consumers who have H S Joy of Love in their possession should
stop using it immediately.  In the event of any adverse side
effects due to its consumption, consumers should contact a
physician right away.

The company advises that any unused portion be returned to Jen-
On Herbal Science International, Inc. for a full purchase price
refund by calling (626) 333-9998 for instructions on the return
and refund process.

No illnesses have been reported to the company to date in
connection with this product.

Jen-On Herbal Science International, Inc. apologizes for any
inconvenience and expresses its concerns for the health of
consumers by conducting a voluntary recall action.

Jen-On Herbal Science International, Inc. promises to ensure
quality and integrity of all its products and the company is
working closely with the FDA in the recall process.


LAKESIDE FARM: Former Employees Sue for "Wrongful" Terminations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lakeside Farm Industries Ltd., which does business as Lakeside
Packers, and is located in Brooks, Alberta Canada, is facing an
Alberta-wide class action filed by former employees, according
to AM770CHQR.

The former workers claim they were wrongfully fired between
April 2004 and April 2006 for bringing up human rights
violations, such as discrimination, racism and violence.  They
also claim the company harassed workers, didn't investigate
claims of harassment and failed to provide a safe working
environment.  They seek compensation for being illegally
terminated.

Lakeside Farm is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods Inc.  
On the Net: http://www.lakesidepackers.com/.


MCCORMICK DISTILLING: Recalls Gel Candles in Martini Glasses
------------------------------------------------------------
McCormick Distilling Co., doing business as Tequila Rose
Distilling Co., of Weston, Missouri, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
60,000 Tequila Rose strawberry cream candle sets.

The company said the martini glass containing the gel candle can
break while the candle is burning, posing fire and burn hazards
to consumers.

The firm has received three reports of glasses breaking while
the candle was burning.  No fires or injuries have been
reported.

The recalled gel candles came in the Tequila Rose Strawberry
Cream set, a Valentine's Day gift set.  The candle has pink gel
and is contained in a martini glass.  The words "Tequila Rose"
and "Made in China" are printed on the glass.  The gift set also
includes a 750 milliliters bottle of Tequila Rose Strawberry
Cream liqueur.

These recalled Tequila Rose strawberry cream candle sets were
manufactured in China and are being sold at licensed alcohol
beverage retail stores nationwide from January 2007 through
March 2007 for about $20.

Pictures of recalled Tequila Rose strawberry cream candle sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07161a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07161b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the gel candle
and contact the firm for instructions on how to get a free
replacement candle.

For additional information, call Tequila Rose Distilling at
(800) 567-7303 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit http://www.tequilarose.com.


MICHIGAN: Lawsuit Over Foster Care System to Go to Trial in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy Edmunds of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan has allowed a lawsuit to reform
Michigan's foster care system to go to trial next year, the
Detroit Free Press reports.

Judge Edmunds denied the state's request to dismiss the class
action filed by Children's Rights, a New York-based advocacy
group.  She scheduled a trial for June 3, 2008.

Earlier, the advocacy group broke-off settlement talks designed
to resolve the case.  Consequently, the state argued to have the
lawsuit, which alleges the foster care system suffers from a
gross shortage in resources and services for foster children,
dismissed (Class Action Reporter, Apr 13, 2007).

In its motion to dismiss, the state contended that if the
children listed as complainants in the lawsuit have problems
with how the state is managing their care, they should bring
that to the attention of juvenile court judges overseeing their
cases.

The state also argued that the federal court should not
interfere with ongoing proceedings in Michigan's juvenile
courts.

But in her 17-page opinion, Judge Edmunds said the state was
mistaken on several points and that "the injunctive relief
plaintiff children seek here is directed to Michigan's executive
branch, not its courts."

"This ruling means that Michigan's children will have their
long-overdue day in court," said Susan Lambiase, associate
director of Children's Rights.

                          Case Background

The suit, "D.B. et al. v. Granholm et al.," was filed on Aug. 8,
2006 by the Children's Rights.  It was brought on behalf of six
foster children identified by first names or last initial only.
But it is expected to affect nearly 19,000 foster children in
the state.

In February, Judge Edmunds granted class-action status to the
case, after reviewing written briefs and verbal arguments from
lawyers for the advocacy group and the state Attorney General's
Office.

Generally, the suit seeks to force the state Department of Human
Services to adequately provide for the safety, well-being, and
permanency of foster children.

In seeking for class certification, Children's Rights argued
that Michigan's foster care system is accused of routinely
violating the constitutional rights of foster children by
denying them adequate services such as finding permanent
adoptive homes.

In arguing against class certification, Assistant Attorney
General William Morris stated that the Children's Rights had not
provided evidence that such problems afflict thousands of other
children in the foster care system and that.  He adds that in
any event, the children have lawyers assigned to them and
juvenile court judges can address the issues plaintiffs are
raising.

The suit is "D. B. et al. v. Granholm et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
13548-NGE-DAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Nancy G. Edmunds with referral
to Judge Donald A. Scheer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Susan Lambiase, Children's Rights, 330 Seventh Avenue,
         New York, NY 10001, US, Phone: 212-683-2210; and

     (2) Richard J. Landau of Dykema Gossett (Ann Arbor), 2723
         S. State Street, Suite 400, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6188,
         Phone: 734-214-7669, E-mail: rlandau@dykema.com.

Representing the defendants is William R. Morris of Michigan
Department of Attorney General, P.O. Box 30758, Lansing, MI
48909, Phone: 517-373-7700, E-mail: morriswr@michigan.gov.


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Deletion of E-mails
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. faces a purported federal class action
that accuses it of abusing the Sept. 11 tragedy on the World
Trade Center by falsely claiming the attacks had destroyed e-
mail messages needed as evidence in arbitration claims before
the National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York
Stock Exchange.

The suit, "Ibarzabal et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on March 16, 2007.  Plaintiffs in the case are Joe
Ibarzabal and Jens Christian Sorensen, both of whom maintained a
brokerage account with the company.

In connection with separate arbitration proceedings that the
plaintiffs commenced against the company, Morgan Stanley through
counsel, allegedly, falsely represented to Messrs. Ibarzabal and
Sorensen that it's e-mails pre-dating October 2001 were
destroyed in the collapse of WTC.

According to the complaint, after the company's e-mail servers
in New York City were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001 in the
collapse of the WTC, where Morgan Stanley maintained one of
sites offices, defendants restored millions of e-mails by using
back-up tapes.

Despite the restoration of these e-mails, the complaint alleges
that the company routinely failed to provide pre-October 2001 e-
mails in numerous customer arbitration proceedings and in
response to regulatory inquiries, falsely claiming that its pre-
October 2001 e-mails had been destroyed.

In addition to failing to produce those e-mails, and falsely
stating that they were destroyed in the events of Sept. 11,
2001, the complaint alleges that Morgan Stanley later destroyed
many of the same e-mails that it had recovered from its backup
tapes.  It was also alleged that the back-tapes were recycled,
thus overwriting and permanently erasing their contents.

The suit states that the deletions occurred despite the fact
that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had ordered
Morgan Stanley to cease all overwriting or recycling of email
backup tapes in January 2001 and had issued a 'Wells' notice to
Morgan Stanley concerning its electronic document retention
practices in 2002.

The uniform misrepresentation violated New York General Business
Law Section 349, which prohibits deceptive acts or practices in
the conduct of any business, trade or commerce, the suit states.  

Defendant's conduct also constituted a breach of company's
account agreements with its customers and constituted common law
fraud, it added.

The suit request that the court enter judgment granting the
following relief:

      -- enjoining defendants from engaging in unlawful and
         deceptive trade practices;

      -- awarding damages in an amount to be determined at
         trial, in a sum equal to plaintiffs' actual damages, or
         fifty dollars, whichever is greater, for each separate
         violation of deceptive trade practices and false
         advertising laws;

      -- ordering defendant to disgorge profits gained through
         its unlawful conduct;

      -- ordering defendant to make restitution to plaintiffs
         including payments of sums equal to the filing fees,
         and forum fees paid by class members in connection with
         arbitration proceedings against Morgan Stanley;     

      -- awarding punitive damages in connection with plaintiffs
         common law fraud claim, in an amount sufficient to
         punish defendant and to deter future conduct;

      -- awarding reasonable attorneys' fees, together with
         costs, and disbursements; and

      -- granting such other legal or equitable relief,
         including costs and attorneys' fees, as the court deems
         just and equitable.  

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1d82

The suit is "Ibarzabal et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., Case
No. 7:07-cv-02273-SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Stephen C. Robinson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven A. Buchwalter of Law Offices of Steven A.
         Buchwalter, 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 560, Encino, CA
         91436, Phone: (818) 501-8987;

     (2) Louis F. Burke of Louis F. Burke, P.C., 460 Park
         Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)
         682-1700;

     (3) Kirk G. Smith of Sheperd Smith & Edwards LLP, 1010
         Lamar Street, Suite 900, Houston, TX 77002, Phone:
         (713) 227-2400; and

     (4) Christopher J. Gray of Law Office of Christopher J.
         Gray, P.C., 460 Park Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY
         10022, Phone: (212) 838-3221, E-mail:
         gray@cjgraylaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Richard A. Rosen of Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (NY), 1285 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-373-3305, Fax: 212-373-
2359, E-mail: rrosen@paulweiss.com.


MENU FOODS: Expands Recall of Pet Food Containing Wheat Gluten
--------------------------------------------------------------
Menu Foods, Inc. has previously recalled wet cat and dog food
produced with adulterated wheat gluten supplied by ChemNutra
Inc.

Over the past several days, Menu Foods continued a detailed
analysis of production records at its Emporia, Kansas, plant as
part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ongoing
investigation of this adulterated wheat gluten.

As a result of this work, Menu Foods advises the public of:

     -- one additional item has been added to the recall list;
        and

     -- two additional production dates of eight varieties of
        pet food have been added to the recall list.

These eight varieties of pet food had previously been withdrawn
from the market and should already be off the retailer shelves.

An updated list of the recalled products, including this
addition, is available at the Menu Foods website:
http://www.menufoods.com.


NETOPIA INC: Calif. Securities Suit Deal Gets Initial Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has granted preliminary approval to a $11,250,000 settlement of
the class action "In re Netopia, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-3364."

On Dec. 3, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order consolidating previously
filed class actions as "In re Netopia, Inc. Securities
Litigation," and appointing lead plaintiffs and plaintiffs'
counsel.

On June 29, 2005, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint.  On June 19, 2006, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class of shareholders who
purchased company stock between Nov. 6, 2003 and Aug. 16, 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, based on allegations that during the class
period, the company made false and misleading statements or
failed to disclose material facts, and that the market price of
the company's common stock was artificially inflated as a result
of such alleged conduct.

In December 2006, the company reached a proposed settlement in
principle of this litigation contingent upon a number of
factors, including the closing of the acquisition by Motorola
and the entering into of a binding agreement regarding the
settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2006).

A hearing will be held on June 8, 2007 at 9 a.m., before the
Honorable Ronald M. Whyte.

Deadline to file objections and exclusions is May 25, 2007.  
Deadline to file claims is Oct. 6, 2007.

The suit is "In re Netopia, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-3364," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael David Braun of Braun Law Group, P.C., 12400  
         Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90025,  
         Phone: 310-442-7755, Fax: (310) 442-7756, E-mail:
         service@braunlawgroup.com; and

     (2) Patrick J. Coughlin of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller  
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San  
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-
         4534, E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Sara B. Brody of Heller Ehrman, 333 Bush Street, San  
         Francisco, CA 94104-2878, Phone: 415/772-6000, Fax:
         (415) 772-6268, E-mail: sara.brody@hellerehrman.com;  
         and

    (ii) Richard Marmaro of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom  
         LLP, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400, Los Angeles,  
         CA 90071-3144, Phone: 213-687-5000, Fax: 213-687-5600,  
         E-mail: rmarmaro@skadden.com.


NEW YORK: $10,000 Fine Sought for "Illegal" Panhandler Summons
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin said in March she would
consider a proposal to hold the city in contempt of court for
failing to follow repeated court orders barring it from
ticketing panhandlers, the New York Times reports.

Federal court decisions in 1992 and 2005 found that a provision
of state law permitting the arrest of beggars violates the First
Amendment guarantee of free speech.  The court barred the law's
enforcement.  

The City Council passed a new, more specific law aimed at
"aggressive panhandling" after the 1992 ruling.  But lawyers for
the panhandlers have repeatedly reported to Judge Scheindlin
that New York City police continued to issue summonses under
such law.

Judge Scheindlin said records showed that as recently as
January, improper summonses were issued at a rate of 4.6 a week.  
More than 700 summonses had been issued since the law was
declared unconstitutional.

In June 2005, a class action was brought on behalf of anyone
arrested on charges resulting from the unconstitutional law and
Judge Scheindlin had ordered the city to stop enforcing it.  
Lawyers handling the class action now said they plan to ask for
a $10,000 fine against the city for each improper summons,
according to the report.

Judge Scheindlin set an April deadline to consider requests to
hold the city in contempt.

The suit originally filed by Eddie Wise is "Wise et al. v. Kelly
et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-05442-SAS-THK."  It is pending in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin with referral to Theodore H. Katz.  

Representing new plaintiff Michael Brown is Matthew D.
Brinckerhoff at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, 75
Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Flr., New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-
763-5000, Fax: 212-763-5001, E-mail: mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com.

Representing city of New York is Rachel Amy Seligman at New York
City Law Department, 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007,
Phone: (212) 788-0784, Fax: (212) 788-9776, E-mail:
rseligma@law.nyc.gov.


NORWAY: Group Plans Suit Over Alleged Sri Lanka Terrorism Link
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norwegians Against Terrorism (NAT) is collecting evidence for a
future class action to be filed against Oslo for its alleged
funding of Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE),
Daily News reports.

The plan emerged in a NAT report, The International Fight
Against LTTE, dated Jan. 14, 2007.  NAT will this year probe Sri
Lanka's Norwegian-funded aid projects to uncover LTTE links.

The list of Norwegian-funded local organizations and individuals
cited in the NAT report, include the so-called Peace Secretariat
of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the LTTE front -Tamil
Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO) - several non-government
organizations, a leading Opposition politician and a Sinhala
journalist.

Payment records from the Norwegian Foreign Affairs and the Oslo
Municipality reportedly reveal that the Norwegian government has
assisted both reputed institutions as well as anti-national
organizations to cover up its real motives.

According to the report, the TRO received $2.3 million while the
LTTE peace secretariat received $900,000 in 2005.  The report
said the payments to Sri Lanka had been deleted from the
unrestricted payment list of the Norwegian Government agency
Norad, but it quoted sources in Norad as saying that payments to
the LTTE was not only continuing but increasing.


ORACLE CORP: Hearing Regarding Electronic Discovery Set May 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
A May 1, 2007 hearing is set in a consolidated securities fraud
suit pending against Oracle Corp. before U.S. District Judge
Martin Jenkins in San Francisco, it emerged in a report by The
National Law Journal.

The issue before Judge Jenkins centers on a British author's
audio files of interviews with Oracle chief executive Larry
Ellison for "Softwar: An Intimate Portrait of Larry Ellison and
Oracle" that now seem to be missing.  

In a deposition held in March, British author Matthew Symonds,
who was not a party to the case, asserted a Fifth Amendment
right not to testify about allegedly destroyed audio files of
his interviews with Mr. Ellison.

Mr. Symonds made two statements about how the files were
destroyed.  His third statement was redacted from court papers
under a sealing order.

Attorney Mark Solomon of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP in San Diego challenged Mr. Symonds' right to claim
a Fifth Amendment privilege as a non-American living outside the
U.S.  He also wanted to force Mr. Symonds to discuss whether
Oracle had a role in any evidence destruction.

In a sworn statement filed on March 30, Mr. Symonds denied
receiving from Mr. Ellison any document for the book.  

Judge Jenkins is to decide whether Mr. Ellison can be compelled
to testify, or be allowed Fifth Amendment right not to discuss
what happened to the files, according to The National Law
Journal.

The suit raises the issue of whether a party to a suit has an
obligation to alert nonparties to save evidence, Robert
Brownstone, an intellectual property attorney in Mountain View,
Calif.-based Fenwick & West's San Francisco office told The
National Law Journal.

According to the report, for third parties, new amendments to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on electronic discovery
that took effect on Dec. 1, 2006, do not have as strict a
standard.   Electronic data is subject to discovery only if they
are relevant and not too burdensome to produce.

The securities fraud suit accuses Oracle, Mr. Ellison and other
top executives of falsifying software sales to mislead investors
during the 2000 to 2001 period of the dot-com bubble burst.

It accuses Mr. Ellison of selling $900 million of his own stock
before bad news hit the market.

The digital recordings in the center of the suit were made
during the very period of class claims.

The suit is "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
01-CV-0988," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

The class period id Dec. 14, 2000 to March 1, 2001.

Plaintiff Firms Named in Complaint are:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San
         Francisco) 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, Fax:
         support@milberg.com.


PARK WEST: Faces Suit for Using "Phantom Bidders" in Auctions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Park West Gallery of Michigan, a company that auctions art works
aboard cruise ships, is facing a class action in New Jersey that
alleges that Park West auctioneers sometimes use "phantom
bidders" to drive up prices, it emerged in a report by The
Arizona Republic.

The civil complaint claims art buyer Alan Beegal detected the
practice on a voyage five years ago.

The lawsuit alleges that the practice continued at subsequent
auctions, making some 250,000 to 1 million people potentially
eligible as plaintiffs, according to Ross Begelman, attorney for
the plaintiffs.

Park West attorney Robert Burlington said the class-action
certification by the court is under appeal.


PENNSYLVANIA: Agrees to Provide Safer Road Access to Disabled
-------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Erie has tentatively settled a lawsuit brought by
disabled advocacy group accusing the Department of
Transportation of failing to meet federal accessibility
standards for disabled people, Associated Press reports.

Local advocacy group Voices for Independence filed the class
action in Erie federal court early in 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, March 31, 2006).  It alleged the department failed to
provide ramps for wheelchair users in Erie and Meadville.  It
claimed the department misused millions of taxes in making
sidewalks and intersection renovations that failed the 1990
Americans with Disabilities Act.  It asked the judge to require
the transportation department to make intersections and
sidewalks useable and safe.   

The settlement gives the city until 2016 to finish installing
ramps, spending $600,000 a year to do so.


PENNSYLVANIA: BASD Continues to Face Race Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bethlehem Area School District (BASD) in Pennsylvania
remains a defendant in a purported racial discrimination class
action over its system of electing school board members at BASD.

Two Hispanic women, Olga Negron and Ramonita Garcia, filed the
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania back in February 2006.

The women are claiming that the district's at-large board seats
discriminate against Hispanics by diluting their voting
strength.  This system allegedly violates the Voting Rights Act
of 1965.  

The suit follows a month after school directors appointed a
white director in favor of two Hispanic candidates.  Under the
at-large system, school directors represent the entire district,
not a region of it (Class Action Reporter, March 1, 2006).  

The suit alleges that the school district's "at-large method of
electing board members effectively forecloses Hispanic voters
from electing a candidate of their choice to the board..."  

It seeks a system that divides "the district into single-member
regions, including at least one region in which Hispanics
constitute a majority or near-majority of the region's eligible
voters."

The suit is "Negron et al. v. Bethlehem Area School District, et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00666-LDD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Legrome D. Davis.   

Representing the plaintiff is Peter D. Winebrake of Trujillo
Rodriquez & Richards, 226 W. Rittenhouse Sq., The Penthouse,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-731-9004, E-mail:
peter@trrlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Ellis H. Katz of Sweet Stevens
Tucker & Katz, LLP, 331 Butler Ave., P.O. Box 5069, New Britain,
PA 18901, Phone: 215-345-9111, Fax: 215-348-1147, E-mail:
ekatz@sweetstevens.com.


PLAYERS INC: Seeks Transfer, Dismissal of Calif. Retirees' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Players, Inc., the licensing arm of the National Football League
Players Association, is asking the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to dismiss a purported class
action accusing it of inadequately representing 3,500 retired
players, The Associated Press reports.

Bernard Paul Parrish and Herbert Anthony Adderley filed the suit
on Feb. 14, 2007.  Walter Roberts, III, was later added as the
third plaintiff in the case.

In general, the suit alleged that the defendant has done little
to secure licensing deals with clothing manufacturers, video
game makers and other venues.

The suit seeks class-action status to represent the 3,500
retired players, which it says may be owed "tens of millions of
dollars."

According to the suit, $7 million was given to 358 retired
players in 2005, signifying that a small percentage of players
have been compensated.

In seeking for the suit's dismissal, Players, Inc., explains
that its motion was based on what it called "the frivolous
nature of the suit."

Sanctions were also sought against the law firm that filed the
lawsuit, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, claiming that the firm is
"apparently taking the lead in establishing a commercial entity
called 'Retired Professional Football Players for Justice, which
will compete directly with Players Inc. for the licensing of
former NFL players' names and images, and thus has interests
that are directly adverse to the purported class they seek to
represent.'"

In addition, Players, Inc. also asked that the litigation be
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to a federal court in Virginia or the
District of Columbia, where the union and Players Inc. are
based.

The suit is "Parrish et al. v. National Football League Players
Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00943-WHA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
William H. Alsup.

Representing the plaintiffs is Noel Scott Cohen of Manatt Phelps
& Phillips, LLP, 1001 Pate Mill Rd., Building 2, Palo Alto, CA
94304-1006, Phone: 650-812-1300, Fax: 650-213-0260, E-mail:
ncohen@manatt.com.

Representing the defendants are Jeffrey L. Kessler of Dewey
Ballantine, LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10019-6092, Phone: 212-259-8000, Fax: 212-559-6333, E-mail:
jkessler@deweyballantine.com.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Accused of Bias for Using Credit Info in Hiring
----------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corp. is facing allegations that it discriminated
against minorities by using credit information in make hiring
decisions, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The allegations are contained in a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.  The suit claims RadioShack uses credit information
to determine whether to hire applicants for various job
positions.

It further claims, the method by which RadioShack is using
credit information to screen applicants for employment
discriminates against minorities in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. SS 2000e.

Allegedly, while RadioShack's practice of using credit
information to make hiring decisions may appear facially
neutral, in actuality, the practice falls more harshly on
African-Americans/Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos than others,
resulting in those minority groups being denied employment more
frequently than non-minorities.

Cecil Ellis, an African-American Memphis, Tennessee resident
whose employment application at RadioShack was denied based upon
credit information RadioShack reviewed, brought the case as a
class action pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and/or (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all minorities
who applied for employment with RadioShack and whose application
was denied based upon credit information, in violation of 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e.

Questions being raised are:

     (a) whether RadioShack's policies and practices of using
         credit in making employment decisions have a
         discriminatory impact on racial minorities;

     (b) whether RadioShack's policies and practices have a
         legitimate actuarial basis;

     (c) whether RadioShack's policies and practices could be
         justified on the grounds of business necessity;

     (d) whether there are less discriminatory alternatives
         available to RadioShack; and,

     (e) whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
         restitution, injunctive relief, or other equitable
         relief or remedies against RadioShack.

Plaintiff requests relief as follows:

     -- an order certifying the Class pursuant to the provisions
        of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, appointing
        Plaintiff as a representative of the Class, and
        Appointing the law firms representing Plaintiff as
        counsel for the Class;

     -- restitution of all the rights, privileges, benefits and
        income that Plaintiff and the Class Members would have
        received but for RadioShack's discriminatory practices;

     -- declaratory, injunctive and/or other equitable relief as
        may be appropriate to stop RadioShack's practices, as
        described in the complaint, which are in violation of
        Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
        Section 2000, et seq.

     -- other appropriate remedies;

     -- for payment of costs of suit herein;

     -- prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the prevailing
        legal rate;

     -- attorneys' fees; and

     -- such other and further relief as the Court may deem
        proper.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d7f

The suit is "Ellis v. Radio Shack Corporation, Case No. 2:07-cv-
02257-SHM-dkv," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee under Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. with
referral to Judge Diane K. Vescovo.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Christa L. Collins of James, Hoyer, Newcomer and
         Smiljanich, One Urban Centre, Suite 550, 4830 West
         Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100,
         Fax: 813-286-4174;

     (2) Wendy J Harrison of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint
         P.C., 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1100, Phoenix, AZ
         85012, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-274-1199, E-mail:
         wharrison@bffb.com;

     (3) B. J. Wade of Glassman Edwards Wade & Wyatt, P.C., 26
         N. Second Street, Memphis, TN 38103, Phone: 901-527-
         4673, Fax: 901-521-0940, E-mail: bwade@gewwlaw.com; and

     (4) Martin W. Zummach of Sparkman Zummach, P.C., P.O. Box
         266, Southaven, MS 38671-0266, Phone: 662-349-6900, E-
         mail: martin@sparkman-zummach.com.


RHODE ISLAND: Sued Over Shutdown Mandate Under Cost Saving Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The largest state employees union filed a class action against
an order by Gov. Donald Carcieri to shut down state government
offices for one day every month between March and June, The (RI)
Providence Journal reports.

Council 94 of the American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees filed the suit on behalf of about one-third
of the state's 15,000-plus employees.  It accused the Carcieri
administration of multiple contract violations, including a
violation of an explicit ban against lockouts.

The governor signed an executive order in February that all
employees except state police, corrections officers and health
workers will be ordered to stay home from work without pay on
March 30, April 6, May 25 and June 8, at an estimated savings of
$9.6 million.  The state will also require three furlough days
in the 2008 fiscal year, for an estimated savings of $7.7
million.

The shutdown is part of the government's effort to save costs as
it faces a $105 million budget shortfall in the current fiscal
year.


RIO TINTO: Oceanic Islanders Win Anew in Calif. Ecocide Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals again rejected arguments brought by
mining giant Rio Tinto (Rio Tinto plc. and Rio Tinto Ltd.) in a
massive human rights claim brought by South Pacific islanders
claiming Rio conspired with the government of Papua New Guinea
to savagely quell civil resistance over an environmentally
devastating mining operation, actions that led to the deaths of
thousands.

The case, originally filed in 2000 in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, seeks to represent Bougainville island residents who
were exposed to toxins resulting from mine operations, lost
property due to environmental contamination, as well as those
injured or killed during the conflict which began in 1989 and
raged until 1999.

Under the Alien Tort Claims Act, foreign nationals can bring
suit in the U.S. against companies that violate international
law.  Rio Tinto is the parent company of subsidiary U.S. Borax
Inc., headquartered in Los Angeles.

The case also alleges that Rio Tinto violated international law,
including prohibitions against destruction of the right to life
and health, and prohibitions against racial discrimination and
war crimes.  The same court issued a similar decision in 2006,
but reheard the case at the request of Rio Tinto.

According to Steve W. Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, the firm representing the plaintiffs, this
decision again affirms the court's belief that the case should
be heard in U.S. courts.

"We thought the court's original decision was clear, cogent and
thoughtful, and had hoped that it would help us give our clients
their day in court, something our clients have been fighting to
reach for years," said Mr. Berman.  "Now that the court has
rejected Rio's arguments for a second time in a similarly
unambiguous way, we hope this case can move forward."

On April 16, the court also ruled that war crimes, crimes
against humanity and racial discrimination are such universally
recognized norms that they can be heard under the Alien Tort
Claims Act.

In the most recent ruling, the court again dismissed concerns
voiced by the U.S. State Department that the case would hamper
ongoing peace negotiations in the region, and could hobble the
State Department's ability to conduct foreign policy.

According to Mr. Berman, he hopes the ruling will finally give
his plaintiffs the ability to seek redress for loss of life and
injuries from the war, and to pursue claims that will force Rio
Tinto to clean up the island from the massive environmental
destruction caused by the mining operations.

"So far, Rio Tinto has exploited every possible tactic to delay
this case," Mr. Berman noted.  "If its past actions are any
indication, we expect that its attorneys will file another set
of appeals."

The court sided with the plaintiffs in a two-to-one majority, as
it did in its 2006 decision.

          Environmental Events Leading to the Lawsuit

The Panguna copper mine and the political events that erupted
since the mine was established are at the core of the case.
Bougainville Island, located northeast of Australia, is part of
the Independent State of Papua New Guinea.

Between 1969 and 1972, the Australian Colonial Administration
leased land on the island to Bougainville Copper Limited, a
mining subsidiary of Rio Tinto.  The suit claims that landowners
unsuccessfully resisted intrusion onto their land, and many
Bougainvilleans were forced to relocate or flee the island.  
Three principal villages were relocated.

According to the suit, Rio Tinto then destroyed entire villages,
razed the rain forest, sluiced off a hillside and established
the world's largest open-cut mine, spanning two kilometers wide
and half a kilometer deep.  The mine excavated 300,000 tons of
ore and water every day during its operation between 1972 and
1988.

The Panguna mine, located on the Island of Bougainville just off
Papua New Guinea, was once the world's largest copper mine
during the 1980s.

The suit alleges that Rio Tinto improperly dumped waste rock and
tailings, emitting chemical and air pollutants without regard
for the villagers.  Those tailings destroyed local fish stock, a
major food source for the islanders.

The Bougainville people -- especially children -- began dying
more frequently from upper respiratory infections, asthma and
tuberculosis, the suit states.

According to the complaint, in 1990, villagers started an
uprising which closed the mine, and in response, Rio Tinto and
the Papua New Guinea government brought troops in to reopen the
mine.

The complaint alleges that Rio Tinto provided transport for
these troops and played a role in instituting a military
blockade of the island that lasted for almost 10 years, created
to coerce the Bougainville people into surrendering so that the
mine could be reopened.

The blockade prevented medicine, clothing and other essential
items from reaching the people of Bougainville, closing
hospitals and other vital services.

According to the Red Cross, the blockade killed more than 2,000
children in its first two years of operation.  By the time the
war ended in 1999, 10 percent of the population of Bougainville,
approximately 15,000 civilians, were killed.

A copy of the court ruling is available for free at:
         
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d8c

Hagens Berman on the Net: http://www.hbsslaw.com/.


ROYAL DUTCH: Reaches $352M Settlement with Non-U.S. Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
A landmark $352 million settlement was achieved by European
investors with Royal Dutch Shell plc (NYSE: RDS.A, RDS.B; LN:
RDSA, RDSB; EN: RDSA, RDSB) relating to Shell's 2004 restatement
of reserves.  The European settlement of securities fraud claims
on a class-wide basis, the first of its kind, seeks to resolve
claims exclusively on behalf of European and other non-U.S.
investors.

Shell means the two former parent companies, i.e. The Shell
Transport and Trading Co., Ltd., (formerly: The "Shell"
Transport and Trading Co., plc) and Shell Petroleum N.V. (the
successor company to Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.).

Uncertainty over whether jurisdiction for non-U.S. investors
existed in a 2004 class action filed in New Jersey prompted a
significant number of prominent European institutional investors
from nine countries, representing more than one billion shares
of Shell, to actively pursue a potential resolution of their
claims outside the U.S.

Among the European investors which actively sought and supported
this settlement are Alecta pensionsforsakring, omsesidigt, PKA
Pension Funds Administration Ltd., Swedbank Robur Fonder AB, AP7
and AFA Insurance, all of which are represented by Schiffrin
Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP.

Along with Jay Eisenhofer of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. -- who led
the European group's efforts -- Schiffrin Barroway Topaz &
Kessler founding partner, Richard S. Schiffrin, represented the
European investors in negotiating this precedent-setting
resolution with Shell.

The settlement must be approved by the Amsterdam Court of
Appeals in The Netherlands and is contingent upon the U.S. court
declining jurisdiction over these claims.  Once finalized,
European and other non-U.S. investors could receive as much as
$450 million, if the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is
persuaded to apply the $120 million fund paid to the SEC by
Shell in 2004 in a pro rata fashion based upon the overall
damages allegedly suffered by all investors.

For more information, contact Schiffrin Barroway Topaz &
Kessler, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.)
toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-822-2235, or via e-mail at
dcheck@sbtklaw.com or sberman@sbtklaw.com.


SIERRA WIRELESS: Consolidated Securities Suits in N.Y. Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sidney H. Stein of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed a consolidated
securities fraud class action against Sierra Wireless Inc.,
Reuters reports.

In 2005, Sierra Wireless was named defendant in several
securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of
the company's securities from Jan. 28, 2004 to Jan. 26,2005
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 10, 2005).

The complaints allege that Sierra and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period concerning the company's prospects and financial
performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Sierra
Wireless securities.

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following
materially adverse facts:

     (1) that Sierra's strategy to correct its deficiency in
         technology by introducing the Voq Smartphone was flawed
         and its business model was not working;

     (2) that Sierra was facing increasing competition,
         intensified by its failure to enter into the WCDMA
         (wideband code-division multiple access) market;

     (3) that Sierra's recent venture into the Smartphone market
         with the introduction of its new Voq line was a serious
         misstep, as it did little to add revenue and further
         seriously harmed Sierra's relationship with a prime
         customer palmOne as its Voq Smartphone would compete
         with palmOne's Treo -- the product for which Sierra was
         a supplier;

     (4) that Sierra's dependence on revenue from palmOne in its
         original equipment manufacturerbusiness was
         substantially greater than had been reported; and

     (5) that Sierra's customers were materially over-
         inventoried, which would lead to greatly diminished
         orders and sales in future quarters.

Recently, Judge Stein granted the Canadian company's motion to
dismiss the investors' lawsuit.

According to the judge's statements at issue in the case were
"broadly optimistic projections of future performance."  The
judge said the plaintiffs did not supply sufficient facts to
support claims these statements were false or misleading.

"The securities laws neither require corporate officers to adopt
a crabbed, defeatist view of the company's business prospects
nor permit dissatisfied shareholders to assert serious
allegations of fraud based on the perfect hindsight afforded by
the passage of time," Judge Stein wrote.

The judge said the plaintiffs could submit an amended complaint
within three weeks if they wanted to pursue the case further.

The suit is "In Re: Sierra Wireless, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01696-SHS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Sidney H. Stein.

Representing defendants is Jaculin Aaron of Shearman & Sterling
LLP (New York), 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
212 848-4450, Fax: 646 848-4450, E-mail: jaaron@shearman.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrice L. Bishop of Stull, Stull & Brody, 10940
         Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024,
         Phone: (310) 209-2468;

     (2) Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg, both of the Law
         Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy, 1801 Avenue of the Stars,
         Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-
         9150;

     (3) Robert I. Hardwood and Peter W. Overs, Jr., both of
         Wechsler & Hardwood, L. L. P., 488 Madison Avenue,
         Suite 801, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-935-7400,
         Fax: (212) 753-3630, E-mail: povers@whesq.com;

     (4) Eric James Belfi, Christopher J. Keller, Jonathan M.
         Plasse and Shelley Thompson, all of Labaton Rudoff &
         Sucharow LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY
         10017, Phone: (212) 907-0790 or (212) 907-0853 or (212)
         907-0863 or (212) 907-0700, Fax: (212) 883-7579 or
         (212) 883-7053 or (212) 883-7063 or (212) 818-0477, E-
         mail: ebelfi@labaton.com or ckeller@labaton.com or
         jplasse@labaton.com or sthompson@labaton.com;

     (5) Sharon Maine Lee, Steven G. Schulman and Lee A. Weiss,
         all of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)
         631-8605 or 212-946-9356 or 212-613-5642, Fax: (212)
         273-4430 or 212-273-4406 or 212-868-1229, E-mail:
         smlee@milberg.com or sschulman@milbergweiss.com or
         lweiss@milbergweiss.com;

     (6) Jordan L. Lurie of Weiss & Lurie, 10940 Wilshire,
         Boulevard, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone:
         (310) 208-2800;

     (7) Joseph Harry Weiss of Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Ave, New
         York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025, Fax: (212) 682
         3010, E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com;

     (8) H. Adam Prussin of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman &
         Gross LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY
         10017, Phone: 212-661-1100, Fax: (212) 661-8665, E-
         mail: HAPrussin@Pomlaw.Com; and

     (9) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
         Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP (LIs), 58 South Service
         Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-
         7100, 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com.


SOUTHEAST ASIAN: Recalls Fish Products Containing Undeclared Egg
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast Asian Foods of San Francisco is recalling its Fish
Paste, Fish Ball, and Fish Cake products, because they may
contain undeclared Liquid Egg White.

People who have allergy or server sensitivity to Liquid Egg
White run the risk of serious of life-threatening allergic
reaction if the consume these products.

The following recalled products were distributed in Northern
California through restaurants, supermarkets and retail stores
in the San Francisco Bay Area:

     -- Chiu Chow Fish Paste and Chiu Chow Fish Ball packed
        in a clear five pound plastic bag;

     -- Chiu Chow Fish Paste in the forty pound plastic gallon
        bucket and 14 oz. clear plastic cup;

     -- Chiu Chow Fish Ball in 14 oz. vacuum plastic bag; and

     -- Chiu Chow Fish Cake in 7 oz. and 13 oz. vacuum plastic
        bag.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that products
containing Liquid Egg White was distributed in packaging that
did not reveal the presence of Liquid Egg White.  Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary
breakdown in the company's production and packaging processes.

Consumers who have purchased all SOUTHEAST ASIAN FOODS Fish
Paste, Fish Ball, and Fish Cake brand are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with question may contact the company at 1-415-822-
2070.


THOMAS WEISEL: Motion to Dismiss Suit Against Friedman's Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
denied a motion seeking the dismissal of the consolidated class
action, "In re Friedman's Inc. Securities Litigation," which
names Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., as a defendant.

In September 2003, the company acted as lead manager on a
follow-on offering of common stock of Friedman's Inc.  
Plaintiffs filed a purported class action against Friedman's and
its directors, senior officers and outside accountant as well as
the its underwriters, including the company, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  

The suit is alleging that the registration statement for the
offering and a previous registration statement dated Feb. 2,
2002 were fraudulent and materially misleading because they
overstated revenue and inventory, understated allowances for
uncollectible accounts, and failed to properly account for
impairment of a particular investment.

Friedman's is currently operating its business in bankruptcy.  
The company denied liability in connection with this matter.  

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in this matter.  On
Sept. 7, 2005, the court denied the underwriters' motion to
dismiss.

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

The suit is "In re Friedman's Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-cv-03475-WSD," under Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are, Patricia I. Avery of Wolf
Popper, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-
4600; and David Andrew Bain of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230
Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309,
Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail: dab@classlaw.com.

Representing the company are:

     (1) Jason DeBretteville of Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, 1870
         Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Phone: 650-461-
         5600, E-mail: debrettevillej@sullcrom.com; and

     (2) Stephen Earl Hudson of Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100
         Peachtree Street, Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530,
         Phone: 404-815-6356, Fax: 404-541-3248, E-mail:
         shudson@kilpatrickstockton.com.


UAL CORP: High Court Refuses to Review Dismissal of ESOP Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to dismiss the underlying
claims in the case, "Summers v. UAL Corp. ESOP, et al.,"
according to UAL Corp.'s March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

Certain participants in the UAL Corp. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (ESOP) sued the ESOP, the ESOP Committee and State Street
Bank and Trust Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois in February 2003.  

Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages in a purported class
action that alleges that the ESOP Committee breached its
fiduciary duty by not selling UAL stock held by the ESOP
commencing as of July 19, 2001.

The ESOP Committee appointed State Street in September 2002 to
act as investment manager and fiduciary to manage the assets of
the ESOP itself.  

In August 2005, a proposed settlement was reached between the
plaintiffs and the ESOP Committee defendants.  The agreed upon
settlement amount is to be paid out of the $5.2 million in
insurance proceeds remaining after deducting legal fees.  

State Street Bank objected to the agreement during the required
fairness hearing before the district court.  The court
nevertheless approved the settlement in October 2005, but also
granted State Street's motion for summary judgment, dismissing
the underlying claims.  

Both sides appealed, from the district court's decision, and as
a result, no settlement funds have been disbursed pending a
ruling on appeal.  

In June 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
affirmed the lower court's ruling dismissing the claims against
State Street and in effect rendering State Street's challenge to
the settlement agreement moot.

Both parties have requested the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
decision of the Court of Appeals and had until Dec. 5, 2006 to
file supporting briefs.  

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Supreme Court declined both parties'
requests to review the Court of Appeals decision, bringing this
dispute to a final conclusion and foreclosing any potential
claim for indemnity against the company.

The suit is "Summers, et al. v. UAL Corp. ESOP, et al., (Case
No. 1:03-cv-01537)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Elizabeth A. Fegan of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 60 West Randolph, #200, Chicago, IL
60601, Phone: (312) 762-9235, Fax: 312-762-9286, E-mail:
beth@hbsslaw.com; and Kenneth A. Wexler of Wexler Firm, LLP, 1
North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-
346-2222, E-mail: kawexler@wexlerfirm.com.  

Representing the defendants are, Randall J. Sunshine of Liner
Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif, LLP, 1100 Glendon Avenue,
14th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone: (310) 500-3500, E-
mail: rsunshine@linerlaw.com; and Heather R.M. Becker of Laner
Muchin Dombrow Becker Levin & Tominberg, Ltd., 515 N. State St.,
Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 494-5391, E-mail:
hbecker@lanermuchin.com.


UAL CORP: Settles Lawsuits Over Air Cargo/Passenger Surcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------
UAL Corp. have settled certain purported class actions with
regards to certain surcharges included in tariffs for carrying
air cargo and certain passenger pricing practices and surcharges
applicable to international passenger routes, according to UAL
Corp.'s March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

                 Air Cargo Surcharges Litigation

The company and other air cargo carriers have been named as
defendants in more than 90 class actions alleging civil damages
as a result of the purported air cargo pricing conspiracy.

Those lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial activities in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The company has entered into an agreement with the majority of
the private plaintiffs to dismiss the company from the class
actions in return for an agreement to cooperate with the
plaintiffs' factual investigation.

                 Passenger Surcharges Litigation

More than 50 additional putative class actions have also been
filed alleging violations of the antitrust laws with respect to
passenger pricing practices.

Those lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial activities in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The company has entered a settlement agreement with a number of
the plaintiffs in the passenger pricing cases to dismiss United
from the class actions in return for an agreement to cooperate
with the plaintiffs' factual investigation.

The settlement agreement is subject to review and approval by
the court.

UAL Corp. on the Net: http://www.united.com/.


UNITED STATES: D.C. Court Dismisses "Contreras" Racial Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed
the protracted racial discrimination class action, "Contreras et
al. v. Ridge, Case No. 1:02-cv-00923-JR."

In his ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the
government, Judge James Robertson pointed out that the
agents/plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient statistical
evidence to carry the burden of proof in the case.

The suit was filed in May 5, 2002 by a group of former and
current Hispanic U.S. Customs agents.  It was filed against the
Department of Homeland Security, which oversees U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement that replaced U.S. Customs as part of
the creation of DHS.

The case grew out of the discrimination charges that Miguel A.
Contreras -- one of the plaintiffs in the case -- filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunities Commission against the Detroit
customs office in 1995.  

In the lawsuit, Mr. Contreras claims he was denied promotions,
extra pay for bilingual skills and other benefits because he is
Hispanic.  He also alleges the agency retaliated against him
when he complained (Class Action Reporter, June 10, 2002).  

Some of Mr. Contreras' allegations are related to incidents in
Yuma, Arizona, others are based on events that allegedly
occurred during his previous duty assignments in El Centro,
California, and Detroit, Michigan.

Aside from Mr. Contreras, other plaintiffs identified in the
case are:

      -- Ruben E. Gonzalez,
      -- E. William Velasco,
      -- John Year,
      -- Ricardo Sandoval,
      -- Juan Martinez,
      -- Stephen Mercado-Cruz,
      -- Frank Almonte, and
      -- Ramon Martinez

The plaintiffs had sought $150,000,000 as compensation for lost
promotion opportunities and pay for bilingual abilities.  They
also want an end to the alleged discrimination.

A copy of the court's opinion is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1d7e

The suit is "Contreras et al. v. Ridge, Case No. 1:02-cv-00923-
JR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under Judge James Robertson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roger L. Hillman at Garvey Schubert Barer, 18th Floor,
         Second & Seneca Building, 1191 Second Avenue, Seattle,
         Washington 98101-2939, Phone: (206) 464-3939 x1402,
         Fax: (206) 464-0125; and

     (2) Benjamin J. Lambiotte of Garvey Schubert Barer, 1000
         Potomac Street, NW Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20007,
         Phone: (202) 298-2525, Fax: (202) 965-1729, E-mail:
         blambiotte@gsblaw.com.


XM SATELLITE: Suit Over Commercial-free Music Channels Advances
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis affirmed a
decision of Judge G. Thomas Eisele, of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas, denying a motion by XM
Satellite Radio Inc. to dismiss or stay proceedings in the suit
filed by Pulaski County resident Matthew Enderlin, the Arkansas
News Bureau reports.

Appeals court judges concurred that the lawsuit alleging XM
Satellite Radio falsely advertises its music channels as 100
percent commercial-free can now proceed in U.S. District Court.

On Jan. 10, 2006, Mr. Enderlin filed the suit in the U.S.  
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas seeking
punitive damages (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2006).  He is
further asking the court to stop the firm from advertising and
selling "commercial-free" products.

The suit alleges that XM Radio's claim that its music channels,
which are available for a subscription fee, are free of
commercials is "false, misleading and deceptive" because the
channels' programming includes "promotional and advertisement
segments."

The suit also says XM's commercial-free claim violates the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  It identifies similar
statutes in 41 states and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Enderlin is also seeking to have the suit certified as a
class action so all XM Radio customers can be considered
plaintiffs.

Consequently, the company filed a motion for dismissal or,
alternatively, a stay of the proceedings pending arbitration.  
It argued the case should not proceed in court because the
customer service agreement it entered into with Mr. Enderlin
contains a clause requiring that he submit any claims to
arbitration.

Mr. Enderlin challenged the validity of the clause requiring
arbitration, calling it "unconscionable."  Judge Eisele denied
the company's motion, a ruling that the 8th Circuit Appeals
Court had affirmed earlier.

The appellate court said that although the customer service
agreement does contain an arbitration clause, it makes an
exception for some claims -- including claims based on the
arbitration clause.

In the appellate court's decision, Judge Morris Arnold wrote
that Mr. Enderlin's challenge of the validity of the arbitration
clause qualifies as an excepted claim, and therefore the
district court was correct in ruling that "it was for the court
to determine the threshold issue of arbitrability."

The suit is "Enderlin v. XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., Case
No. 4:06-cv-00032-GTE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge G. Thomas Eisele.

Representing plaintiffs are, James Allen Carney, Jr., Steven
Eugene Cauley and Tiffany M. Wyatt Oldham, all of Cauley Bowman
Carney & Williams, LLP, Post Office Box 25438, Little Rock, AR
72221-5438, Phone: (501) 312-8500, E-mail:
acarney@cauleybowman.com and toldham@cauleybowman.com.


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Converium's A&E Reserves Remain at $49.2M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Converium Holding AG, as of Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005,
reserved US$49.2 million for environmental impairment liability
and asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's report,
filed on Form 6-K, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 11, 2007.

The Company' survival ratio for asbestos and environmental
reserves was 13.8 years at Dec. 31, 2006 and 14.1 years at Dec.
31, 2005.

The Company's survival ratio was 13.6 years at Dec. 31, 2004.
(Class Action Reporter, April 7, 2006)

Based in Zug, Switzerland, Converium Holding AG provides treaty
and facultative (individual) coverage for risks including
accident and health, credit and surety, e-commerce, third party
and professional liability, life, and special casualty. The
company operates in more than 60 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chem. Continues to Indemnify Kraton
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Chemicals Ltd. continues to indemnify Kraton Polymers LLC
against certain asbestos liabilities and obligations, including
those involving third parties, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 12, 2007.

Under the sale agreements between the Company and Shell
Chemicals relating to the Separation from Shell Chemicals in
2001, Shell Chemicals has agreed to indemnify the Company for
certain liabilities and obligations to third parties or claims
against the Company by a third party relating to matters arising
prior to the closing of the acquisition by Ripplewood Chemical.

Shell Chemicals has been named in several lawsuits relating to
the elastomers business that the Company has acquired.

In particular, claims have been filed against Shell Chemicals
alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the Belpre, Ohio
facility.

Based in Houston, Kraton Polymers LLC supplies engineered
polymers worldwide. The Company offers about 1,000 products to
over 700 customers in over 60 countries worldwide. The Company
has six plants, which are located in the U.S., The Netherlands,
Germany, France, Brazil, and Japan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met-Pro Corp. Has 37 Pending Actions in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Met-Pro Corp., as of Jan. 31, 2007, recorded a total of 37
asbestos-related cases pending against it, compared with 51
cases that were pending as of Jan. 31, 2006, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 13, 2007.

As of Oct. 31, 2006, the Company recorded a total of 40 pending
asbestos-related cases, compared with 151 pending cases as of
Oct. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2006)

Beginning in 2002, the Company and one of its divisions began to
be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related suits
filed mainly in Mississippi by plaintiffs against industrial
companies including in particular those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.

The Company and this division have been named as one of many
pump and fluid handling defendants in asbestos-related suits
filed in New York and Maryland by individual plaintiffs,
sometimes husband and wife.

To a lesser extent, the Company and this division have also been
named together with many other pump and fluid handling
defendants in these types of cases in other states as well.

The suits allege that the Company, and the division, along with
the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-
containing products and engaged in other related actions, which
caused injuries and loss to the plaintiffs.

The Company and the division have been dismissed from or settled
a number of these cases. The sum total of payments made through
Jan. 31, 2007 to settle these cases is US$305,000, all of which
has been paid by the Company's insurers including legal
expenses, except for corporate counsel expenses, with an average
cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, of about
US$28,000.

During the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2007, 20 new cases were
filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from or
settled 34 cases.

Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early
stages of discovery, although several cases are on schedules
leading to trial.

Based in Harleysville, Pa., Met-Pro Corp. makes and sells
product recovery and pollution control equipment for
purification of air and liquids, and fluid handling equipment
for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Electric Incurs $200M Charge in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Co., in the 2007-1st quarter, incurred a US$200
million charge for an asbestos-related legal ruling, according
to a Company press release, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2007.

Based in Fairfield, Conn., General Electric Co. is a diversified
technology, media and financial services company. With products
and services ranging from aircraft engines, power generation,
water processing and security technology to medical imaging,
business and consumer financing, media content and advanced
materials, the Company serves customers in more than 100
countries and employs more than 300,000 people worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Remand Motion in Brewster Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. California, granted Joseph and
Cecile Brewster's motion to remand to state court an asbestos-
related lawsuit filed against General Electric Co. and other
defendants, in which the District Court ruled that federal
subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup handed down the decision on
Case No. C 07-01688 WHA on April 6, 2007.

The complaint asserted asbestos-related injury claims by Mr.
Brewster and a loss of consortium claim by Mrs. Brewster.
Defendants are companies that made products with asbestos during
the relevant period.

Mr. Brewster alleged that he was injured as a result of his work
around asbestos during his service as a machinist mate in the
U.S. Navy from 1965 to 1971, and from his work at PG & E and
AGCHEM from 1971 to 1983.

This action was originally filed on Sept. 22, 2006, in
California Superior Court. General Electric filed an answer to
the complaint on Nov. 13, 2006.

Mr. Brewster is dying of mesothelioma. A declaration submitted
by his doctor in November 2006 stated that he was not expected
to live another six months. Because of his condition, in
December 2006 the state court granted the case trial-setting
preference.

The trial was originally supposed to begin on April 2, 2007. It
was continued to April 23, 2007. General Electric removed this
case to federal court on March 23, 2007.

The Brewsters filed the instant motion for a remand to state
court, along with a motion to be heard on shortened time.
General Electric has filed a motion for a stay pending a
decision on transfer to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

This Court granted plaintiffs' request to hear the motion to
remand on shortened time and held a hearing on April 3, 2007.

This action was remanded to the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Francisco.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Units Reach Agreement with Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Within four years of their Petition Date, ASARCO LLC and its
Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors Lac d'Amiante du Quebec Ltee, CAPCO
Pipe Company Inc., Cement Asbestos Products Co., Lake Asbestos
of Quebec Ltd., and LAQ Canada Ltd., entered into certain
settlement agreements with several insurance companies:

1. Allstate Insurance Co., successor-in-interest to Northbrook
Excess and Surplus Insurance Co.,

2. American Home Assurance Co.,

3. Century Indemnity Co., successor to CIGNA Specialty Insurance
Co.,

4. Everest Reinsurance Co., formerly known as Prudential
Reinsurance Co.,

5. First State Insurance Co.,

6. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.,

7. Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.,

8. Lexington Insurance Co.,

9. Mt. McKinley Insurance Co., formerly known as Gibraltar
Casualty Co.,

10. New England Insurance Co., formerly known as New England
Reinsurance Corp.,

11. Stronghold Insurance Co. Ltd.,

12. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, and

13. certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London, including
Syndicates 035, 056, 090, 099, 109, 126, 175, 183, 190, 205,
210, 219, 224, 231, 235, 243, 250, 263, 278, 279, 346, 365, 383,
408, 417, 471, 494, 518, 553, 602, 604, 618, 620, 650, 653, 661,
673, 694, 701, 722, 727, 729, 751, 772, 799, 918, 935, 948, 987,
and 989.

According to Rhonda D. Orin, Esq., at Anderson Kill & Olick,
LLP, in Washington, D.C., the Insurance Settlements provide that
the Asbestos Debtors are to furnish certain releases and
property rights to the Insurance Companies in exchange for
certain consideration. Most of the Settlements, however,
contained confidentiality provisions restricting the rights of
each party to fully disclose the terms of the Settlements.

The delivery of the releases accompanying the Settlements
constitute fraudulent transfers under Sections 548(a)(1)(B) or
544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Asbestos Debtors assert.

The Asbestos Debtors transferred the Releases or Property Rights
to or for the benefit of the Insurance Companies and the
Transfers were in the interest of the Asbestos Debtors in
certain properties, Ms. Orin tells the Court.

Ms. Orin contends that the Transfers were made at the time the
Asbestos Debtors were insolvent or the Asbestos Debtors became
insolvent due to the Transfers and they received less than
reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfers or
obligations.

Thus, Asbestos Debtors assert that they are entitled to recover
the value of the releases and property rights transferred to the
Insurance Companies pursuant to Section 550(a).

Ms. Orin relates that the Transfers were made pursuant to
agreements, including insurance agreements, written settlement
agreements and releases, some of which may have contained choice
of law provisions regarding all transactions being governed by
the laws of the state of New York.

Ms. Orin argues that the Asbestos Debtors are entitled to
recover and avoid the Transfers to the extent that the
agreements have choice of law provisions and to the extent the
choice of law provisions are enforceable against the Asbestos
Debtors.

Accordingly, the Asbestos Debtors ask the Court to enter a
judgment in their favor and award them of interest, as
applicable.

The Asbestos Debtors also ask the Court to award them of
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 44; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Law Stresses Hiring of Accredited Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, on April 6, 2007, were
further strengthened by the requirement that anyone who
certifies premises to be safe to be re-occupied following
asbestos work must be accredited.

Regulation 20(4) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006
requires anyone who issues a site-clearance certificate to be
accredited by an appropriate accreditation body as competent to
carry out such work.

The site clearance certificate requires that premises where
licensable asbestos work has been carried out has been
thoroughly cleaned and is safe for re-occupation.

To demonstrate competence they must conform to the specified
requirements in two international standards: ISO 17020 and ISO
17025.

The United Kingdom Accreditation Service is currently the sole
recognized accreditation body in Great Britain.

The Control of Asbestos Regulations came into force on Nov. 13,
2006. The Regulations introduced other changes including:

* A single control limit of 0.1 fibers per cm3 of air for work
with all types of asbestos;

* Specific mandatory training requirements for anyone liable to
be exposed to asbestos;

* A requirement to analyze the concentration of asbestos in the
air with measurements in accordance with the 1997 World Health
Organization recommended method.

All work with asbestos containing materials, whether licensed or
not, must be undertaken by trained workers following a risk
assessment and in accordance with appropriate controls to
prevent exposure to asbestos fibers.

Two Approved Codes of Practice "Work with materials containing
asbestos" and "The management of asbestos in non-domestic
premises" provide further details and guidance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Widow Wins $5.55M Settlement in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kay Oney, the widow of a former shipyard worker who died from
exposure to asbestos while building Navy aircraft carriers, was
awarded US$5.55 million by a Circuit Court jury, The Daily
Progress reports.

The seven jurors, on April 11, 2007, determined that Mrs. Oney
should receive the damages from two suppliers to the
shipbuilding industry, John Crane Inc. and Garlock Sealing
Technologies, for their role in the death of her husband of 43
years, Vaughn Oney.

In November 2000, the Newport News shipbuilding worker died
after developing mesothelioma.

Jurors actually awarded US$9.25 million to Mrs. Oney.

Sixty percent of the total, or US$5.55 million, is to be paid by
John Crane Inc.

Garlock Sealing Technologies, a Palmyra, N.Y.-based company that
competed with John Crane in making the same products, had
already settled for an undisclosed amount with Mrs. Oney before
the case went to trial.

Attorneys for the Oney family said that between 1963 and 1973,
Mr. Oney was sometimes in contact with asbestos daily. He
retired in 1994, in his early 50s and, according to attorneys
representing the family, in good health. He was diagnosed of
mesothelioma in 2004.

The verdict comes less than a year after the court awarded
US$10.4 million to the family of Buddy Jones, another Newport
News shipyard worker who died of the disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitter Sues Rhodes, BTR Fatati for GBP200T
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Ashton, a 68-year-old retired fitter, has launched a legal
battle for GBP200,000 compensation in London's High Court,
Tameside Advertiser reports.

According to a writ issued in the High Court, Mr. Ashton has
developed malignant mesothelioma. He claims damages from BTR
Fatati and Rhodia Ltd., whom he blames for his disease.

The writ says that Mr. Ashton contracted mesothelioma after
being exposed to asbestos when he worked for BTR as a fitter at
premises in Hyde between 1957 and 1982.

The writ says Mr. Ashton worked for Rhodia between 1983 and 2003
as a foreman fitter at its premises in Poleacre Lane, Woodley,
Stockport, and was also exposed to asbestos when he brushed
against lagging on steam jackets and coils, and walked through
asbestos debris.

Mr. Ashton sometimes removed old preformed asbestos lagging,
which usually broke, and had to remove asbestos rope on smoke
box doors to a boiler, the writ alleges.

Mr. Ashton also removed asbestos ring joints on lids to boilers
annually, and used asbestos based materials to make gaskets.

The writ says Mr. Ashton first noticed that he was short of
breath in early 2006, and went on to develop chest pain.

Mr. Ashton's case is the latest in a series of legal actions
filed by cancer victims from the United Kingdom.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CARES Reinstates Suit v. Marco Island City
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Advocating Responsible Environmental Solutions, on
April 12, 2007, filed a motion for declaratory judgment in
Collier County Circuit Court, questioning whether the City of
Marco Island in Florida breached a six-month-old settlement
agreement in a suit over asbestos found on city property, Naples
Daily News reports.

The new suit springs from a contract ratified in March 2007
between the city and its contractor, Quality Enterprises, both
parties in the original suit filed in March 2006.

CARES argues that the new contract violates the settlement
because the city is sharing the cost for the removal of asbestos
from two city-owned lots at the corner of Elkcam Circle and Park
Avenue.

CARES' complaint alleges that the city and Quality, the
contractor on the city's Collier Boulevard road construction
project, negotiated the new contract in bad faith.

The city had to make a demand and pursuit of all costs against
Quality associated with an asbestos cleanup resulting from the
contractor's use of a lot known as "Site A" as a staging area
for construction work and from the unknown contamination of an
adjoining lot known as "Site C."

The city's new contract with Quality forces the contractor to
pay for the cleanup of Site A while the city will pay for the
cleanup of Site C through an agreement with the Collier County
landfill.

Since its formation in October 2005, CARES has been involved in
three prior suits with the city.

This newest suit comes less than a month after the Marco Island
City Council on a 4-3 vote decided not to pursue legal fees
against CARES in another suit.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Law Firm Seeks Changes in Payout Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
A law firm based in the United Kingdom, Thompsons, which has
launched a campaign to achieve compensation for all asbestos
disease sufferers and their families irrespective of where in
the U.K. they live, has called for a change in the law to bring
payments into line with Scotland, The Herald reports.

According to a report issues on April 16, 2007, families who
have suffered a bereavement caused by asbestos receive tens of
thousands of pounds less in compensation if they live in England
and Wales compared with those in Scotland.

The solicitors said the level of compensation is set at
GBP10,000 in England and Wales, but in Scotland payments of up
to GBP30,000 have been made to widows.

South of the border the amount of compensation paid to bereaved
spouses is set at GBP10,000 by the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, but
in Scotland the level of bereavement payments is decided by the
courts.

Thompsons' head of asbestos policy, Ian McFall, said, "The law
must be changed to ensure families in England and Wales are
entitled to the same level of compensation as the equivalent
family in Scotland. Any imbalance is unjust and cannot
continue."

Describing GBP10,000 as a "derisory sum" for the grief caused by
the death of a close family member, Mr. McFall added, "Whole
families suffer terribly when they lose a loved one to
mesothelioma. They carry the emotional burden for the rest of
their lives."

On April 15, 2007, Des McNulty, a leading campaigner for victims
of mesothelioma at the Scottish Parliament and the Labour
candidate for Clydebank, said Scotland had worked hard to
achieve the levels of compensation it awards.

Mesothelioma affects nearly 90,000 people in the U.K. and it is
estimated at least 2000 former workers on the Clyde suffer from
the condition.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Resident Sues 47 Firms in Injury Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney John Skaggs, on behalf of West Virginia resident Paul
Moss, on April 2, 2007, sued 47 companies in an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed in Kanawha Circuit Court, The West Virginia Record
reports.

Mr. Moss was employed at a Verizon West Virginia Inc. facility
in Sutton, W.Va., during the 1980s.

Defendant companies include A&I Co., Gordon Gasket and Packing
Co., Nitro Industrial Coverings Inc., and Verizon West Virginia
Inc., all West Virginia corporations.

Mr. Moss claims he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials
in brakes and related products during his employment with
Verizon.

According to the suit, Mr. Moss was required to handle and use
asbestos products. He now suffers from severe illnesses and
disease in his lungs, respiratory and cardiovascular systems,
which he claims is a result of working around the asbestos-
containing materials.

The suit claims that even when he was not actually using and
handling the products, Mr. Moss was exposed to fibers contained
in asbestos dust generated by the use of said products by other
workers in the same work environment.

Mr. Moss claims in the 11-count suit that the defendants failed
to warn him of the dangers associated with asbestos.

Mr. Moss seeks compensatory and punitive damages for all counts.
His wife, Ruby, seeks compensatory and punitive damages for loss
of consortium.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-631 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Says Asbestos in Pa. Site Poses No Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynda Rebarchak, a Department of Environmental Protection
spokeswoman, on April 13, 2007, said that a DEP inspection of
the demolished Levittown Shopping Center site in Tullytown, Pa.
found asbestos-containing materials, but the asbestos poses no
health risk, Bucks County Courier Times reports.

Two air quality inspectors with the state department collected
samples of materials, including shingles, piping and tar paper,
from the 50-acre property at the corner of Levittown Parkway and
Route 13 on April 6, 2007 and April 9, 2007 in the wake of an
asbestos controversy at the site.

Of the 18 samples collected, four had asbestos. However, the
asbestos found was classified as the "nonfriable" type, which
cannot be crushed by hand and is made up of fibers that cannot
be easily released into the air, Ms. Rebarchak said.

Ms. Rebarchak said that type of asbestos is not regulated by the
DEP or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since it does
not pose a health risk.

However, it's still unclear whether the materials were left over
from the Levittown Shopping Center demolition. Ms. Rebarchak
said officials with DEP's Bureau of Waste Management would
continue to investigate whether illegal dumping took place on
the largely vacant site.

Stephen Ifshin, of DLC Management Corp., the site's developer,
declined to comment on the DEP findings.

In a statement, State Rep. John T. Galloway, D-140, said even
though the asbestos-containing materials found by the DEP posed
no health risk, Mr. Ifshin created a "mess" at the property.

Mr. Galloway said the asbestos found on the site posed a threat
to construction workers if it was crushed and added Mr. Ifshin
should solidify the fencing around the site to make sure
potential illegal dumping does not take place.

While researching state grants and low-interest loans on for the
site, Mr. Galloway discovered a US$37,500 fine the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency levied on the site's developer,
owner and a demolition subcontractor for improperly handling
asbestos-containing materials during the center's demolition
that began in 2002.

According to court documents, an EPA official found asbestos-
containing materials strewn about the site during an inspection
in April and May 2002.

In 2002, DLC Management won approvals to develop the property,
but three of the 31 proposed commercial properties at the site
have been developed. In 2006, the Tullytown council granted Mr.
Ifshin a two-year extension on the agreement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Woman Sues MoD for Exposure from Blast
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Shropshire, England, woman sues the Ministry of Defence, for
an undisclosed six-figure amount, for exposure to asbestos,
shropshirestar.com reports.

She claims her terminal illness was caused by the asbestos
fallout from a huge blaze at Central Ordnance Depot Donnington,
as it was then known, on June 24, 1983.

The Telford mother, who is in her early 30s, claims tens of
thousands of pounds in damages from the MoD and Rubery Owen,
after she was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Asbestos in the roof of the burning building was scattered over
more than 15 square miles of east Shropshire and more than
GBP165 million of damage was caused.

The woman has told her lawyers, Reading-based Boyes Turner
Solicitors, she remembers playing in the garden at her Leegomery
home as the asbestos fell like "snow." She was seven when the
blaze ripped through the military base.

"The damage for somebody so young, for the pain and suffering,
is GBP70,000 but there is the loss of care of being a mum in
future years so we are claiming damages amounting to a six-
figure sum," Helen Childs, the woman's lawyer said.

Mrs. Childs said the case for damages against the MoD and Rubery
Owen, for which the woman's father worked, was still in the
early stages, but investigations had revealed no warnings were
given about the danger of the fall-out from the fire.

In 2005, a former county firefighter who helped tackle the blaze
died from lung disease, which an inquest ruled was largely
caused by asbestos fall-out from the fire. Stephen Loftus, 86,
had been one of the team of firefighters who helped extinguish
the 1983 blaze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow to Claim GBP150T for Husband's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Manning, a Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire, widow has launched
a legal battle for compensation of up to GBP150,000 for the
death of her husband John to mesothelioma, The Citizen reports.

According to a writ issued in London's High Court, 83-year-old
Mr. Manning died from malignant mesothelioma. He first suffered
symptoms of mesothelioma in autumn 2003.

Now 77-year-old Mrs. Manning is claiming damages from RMD
Kwikform, in the West Midlands.

The writ says that Mr. Manning developed mesothelioma through
his work there, and died on May 1, 2004. The writ alleges he was
exposed to asbestos dust and fibers when he worked for the
company between 1965 and 1982.

For the last 15 years of his work, Mr. Manning was based at ICI
in Thornton where he and his colleagues worked alongside laggers
stripping asbestos lagging from pipework, says the writ.

The writ says Mr. Manning worked alongside laggers mixing up
asbestos powder with water to form new lagging.

After lagging had been stripped, the debris was left until the
end of the shift, and Mr. Manning had to dismantle scaffolding
once an area of lagging had been finished. The scaffolding and
wooden platforms were often covered in asbestos dust.

Mrs. Manning now accuses her husband's former employers of
negligence and says they failed to provide protective equipment,
failed to damp down asbestos, failed to warn him of the dangers
to his health and failed to provide a safe system and place of
work.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Survey to be Conducted at Arkansas Hospital
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Howard County Quorum Court, in a Dierks, Ark., session,
approved the hiring of Environmental Protection Associates of
Little Rock, Ark., to do an asbestos survey of the Howard
Memorial Hospital, The Nashville News reports.

The survey is to be conducted within one week, said County Judge
Max Tackett.

Within 30 days, the County should know what it will cost to
remove asbestos from the old hospital. The survey alone could
reach US$7,000, Judge Tackett said. Removal costs are unknown at
this time.

After the survey, the asbestos will need to be removed after
vacating the building in March 2009 before new tenants move in
or if a decision is handed down to demolish the building.

Brian Bickel, HMH administrator, said a preliminary run-through
on the building's asbestos contents was conducted.

Judge Tackett said he was surprised to learn that asbestos could
be in newly remodeled parts of the hospital as well as original
sections of the nearly 60-year-old facility.

If a decision is made at a later date to demolish the building,
Howard County might need help financially from the city of
Nashville, Ark., and its public schools.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Tenants to Vacate Cottages for Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elderly tenants of some of Suffolk, England's most famous
cottages will have to temporarily vacate while asbestos is
removed from their homes, Suffolk Free Press reports.

And the charity that owns the Cavendish almshouses faces a five-
figure bill for the work.

Workmen in protective suits will start taking out contaminated
boards from the historic thatched cottages later in April 2007.
The five tenants will move out one at a time while work is done.

Adele Wayman, chairman of the George Savage Trust, which owns
the almshouses, said each resident would probably have to stay
away for a day.

The boards with asbestos were discovered during a routine
inspection in 2006. The boards date from the 1970s when the
cottages were rebuilt after a disastrous fire.

Mrs. Wayman, of Colts Hall, Cavendish, said at that time the use
of asbestos was acceptable, but now it would have to be removed.

Mrs. Wayman added that the trust had appointed a reputable and
appropriately accredited contractor, and notified the Health and
Safety Executive of the work.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Remands Georgia-Pacific Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed a trial court's ruling
of three asbestos-related lawsuits, and remanded those cases for
further proceedings.

The suits are entitled Johnson et al. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
et al., Barnett et al. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. et al., and
Isbell et al. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. et al.

The Panel, comprised of Chief Judge Anne Elizabeth Barnes,
Presiding Judge J.D. Smith, and Judge M. Yvette Miller, handed
down the decision of Case Nos. A07A0637, A07A0709, and A07A0710
on April 12, 2007.

These consolidated appeals consist of three asbestos cases
brought by multiple plaintiffs against multiple defendants. The
trial court dismissed all three cases.

A statute provides that plaintiffs must submit reports
establishing "prima-facie evidence of physical impairment"
either with the complaint, if it was filed after April 12, 2005,
or within a specific time frame, if the complaint was pending on
April 12, 2005.

While these cases were on appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court held
that the statute could not be constitutionally applied to cases
in which the cause of action accrued before the effective date
of the statute, April 12, 2005, and could not be severed to
apply any part of the statute to those cases.

The court held that the statute was unconstitutional in these
cases because it affected the plaintiff-employees' substantive
rights by establishing a new element, which did not exist when
the original cause of action accrued.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court reversed and remand these cases
for further proceedings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Motion in Favor of Flowserve Corp
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, 3rd District, granted
Flowserve Corp.'s petition for Writ of Certiorari in an
asbestos-related lawsuit styled, "Flowserve Corp. (f/k/a
Durametallic Inc.), Petitioner, v. Thomas J. Bonilla et al.,
Respondents.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Gerald B. Cope, Jr., Linda Ann
Wells, and Barbara Lagoa, handed down the decision of Case No.
3D06-2201 on April 4, 2007.

Flowserve petitioned for a writ of certiorari to quash an order
of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, holding the Asbestos
and Silica Compensation Fairness Act to be unconstitutional when
applied retroactively to respondents' pending asbestosis claims.

The respondents' lawsuit was already pending on the July 1,
2005, effective date of the Act.

The Appeals Court granted Flowserve's petition for certiorari.

Hawkins & Parnell of Atlanta and Evelyn M. Fletcher of Ruden,
McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, and John H. Pelzer
represented Flowserve Corp. (f/k/a Durametallic Inc.)

James L. Ferraro, David A. Jagolinzer, and Case A. Dam
represented Thomas J. Bonilla and the other respondents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial Date in Ohio Action v. Chase Moved
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related trial, set to commence on April 30, 2007,
against Chase Corp. has been postponed, however, no new trial
date has been set, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April
16, 2007.

The Company is one of more than 100 defendants in a personal
injury lawsuit, pending in Ohio, which alleged personal injury
from exposure to asbestos found in certain Company products.

The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to Chase in
August 2005, to which Chase timely responded in September 2005.

The Ohio lawsuit has been inactive with respect to Chase.

Based in Bridgewater, Mass., Chase Corp. makes products for the
electronic, public utility, and oil industries. Products include
insulating and conducting materials for electrical wire,
electrical repair tapes, protective pipe coatings,
thermoelectric insulation for electrical equipment, and moisture
protective coatings for electronics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal Govt. Begins Ill. Hospital Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. federal government has begun the removal of asbestos
and old chemicals from the former St. Mary's Hospital and the
old Southern Medical Center in Cairo, Ill., Associated Press
reports.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on April 17, 2007,
said that a Superfund team has begun the US$1.2 million effort
to clean up the former St. Mary's Hospital and the old Southern
Medical Center. The work is expected to be finished in July
2007.

EPA officials said the hospital closed in 1986 and the site has
gone unused since 1996, when the property began falling into
disrepair.

Environmental hazards in the property's three buildings include
frayed asbestos-wrapped piping and floor surfaces with asbestos.

The site also has various containers of flammable and hazardous
chemicals that EPA spokesman Mick Hans said have not yet been
identified.

Solid waste removed from the site, including asbestos materials,
will be sent to a Jackson County landfill, while waste chemicals
will be packed for special handling and disposal, the EPA said.

The EPA's Superfund program initially will pay for the cleanup,
though officials still are trying to pinpoint any other
potentially responsible parties who may be able to pay for some
or all of the cleanup.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe on Amsterdam Bldg. Scam to Cover City
----------------------------------------------------------------
Police confirmed, on April 17, 2007, that an investigation into
a building scam involving asbestos has been extended to cover
all of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, DutchNews.nl reports.

Several construction projects have been stopped because of
"acute health risk" from asbestos, the Dutch newspaper Het
Parool said on April 17, 2007.

The police have refused to say which buildings are involved.

The scandal involves asbestos removed by unqualified workers
without proper licenses during conversion work.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dutch Police Arrests 4 Workers for Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Police of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, on April 12, 2007, said
that four employees of two property companies were arrested on
suspicion of endangering the health of tenants, DutchNews.nl
reports.

Two civil servants from local housing departments in two
Amsterdam districts have also been arrested. The locations have
not been disclosed.

The unnamed housing firms, Diacra Holding and AB Vastgoed, have
divided up properties in Amsterdam to create at least 200
apartments over recent years.

According to the police, the firms structurally and purposely
cut corners when it came to safely disposing of asbestos, which
was exposed during construction work. This exposed residents to
serious health risks.

Police say the suspects repeatedly defied building regulations
and that local officials were also involved.

The police said they do not rule out further arrests in this
affair.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Up to 13,000 U.K. Schools Have Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information
Act, up to 13,000 state schools in the United Kingdom still
contain asbestos, The Independent reports.

Thousands of pupils and teachers will be at risk of exposure to
asbestos fumes for years. The figures indicate more than three
million children are at risk.

Moreover, despite the U.K. Govt.'s GBP45 billion program to
refurbish every secondary school and half of England's primary
schools, there is no guarantee asbestos will be eliminated from
buildings.

The figures have been obtained by Michael Lees, an anti-asbestos
campaigner whose wife died of mesothelioma after 30 years
teaching in a primary school.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Blaze Aftermath Poses Exposure Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Queensland Fire and Rescue authorities, a fire at a
joinery shop in New Farm, Queensland, Australia, has been
extinguished, but now there is an asbestos risk, The Courier
Mail reports.

QFRS said five fire trucks were dispatched to the scene of the
fire, a joinery shop near the corner of Arthur Street and James
Street in New Farm.

The QFRS spokeswoman said the fire had been "sizeable," the
joinery had been evacuated, and the fire put out.

The spokeswoman said the rear portion of the roof had caved in,
creating an asbestos risk.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Karmanos Finds Breakthrough in Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, on April 17, 2007,
announced significant scientific findings that could lead to
better treatment and therapies for cancer patients suffering
from malignant pleural mesothelioma, according to a Barbara Ann
Karmanos Cancer Institute press release.

Karmanos scientists presented their research at the American
Association of Cancer Research annual meeting in Los Angeles,
Calif.

"We are getting closer and closer to making an impact on this
insidious disease," said Anil Wali, Ph.D., an associate
professor with Karmanos who led a group of cross-collaborative
researchers in studying the ubiquitin-proteasome proteolytic
pathway regulatory proteins.

Their study demonstrated that protein ubiquitination and
degradation are critical players in the spread of mesothelioma.
After studying 241 genes involved in the UPP pathway, Dr. Wali's
group determined 33 genes were differentially expressed among
epithelioid and biphasic histotypes.

The Karmanos Cancer Institute has a long history of mesothelioma
education and treatment. In 2004, the Institute joined with
Wayne State University's Center for Occupational and
Environmental Medicine to create the National Center for
Vermiculite and Asbestos Related Cancers.

Based in Detroit, the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute is a
National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer
centers in the U.S. The Institute cares for more than 6,000 new
patients annually on a US$216 million budget and conducts more
than 700 cancer-specific scientific investigation programs and
clinical trials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rando Suit in La. Ends in $3.2M Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Baton Rouge, La.-based law firm of LeBlanc & Waddell LLP,
reports a US$3.2 million judgment against eight defendants who
were found responsible for workplace asbestos exposure that
caused a Metairie, La., man to contract mesothelioma, according
to a LeBlanc & Waddell LLP press release dated April 18, 2007.

The judgment signed by Judge Robert Burns in the 19th Judicial
District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge awards US$2.8
million to Louisiana native Ray F. Rando for pain, suffering and
mental anguish, and US$402,000 in special damages.

The case was tried before Judge Burns in January 2007. His final
judgment was entered April 16, 2007 against Jacob Constructors
(formerly H.E. Wiese Inc.), Parsons Infrastructure and
Technology, Lou-Con Construction, insulator contractors Eagle
and McCarty, Shell Oil Co., Tenneco and Murphy Oil.

Mr. Rando worked as a pipefitter and welder at various
commercial and industrial sites beginning in 1965. Evidence in
the case showed that none of Mr. Rando's employers warned him
about the dangers of the asbestos products he regularly handled
during the course of his work.

In September 2005, Mr. Rando, now 61, was diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Records 114 Pending Suits in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises Inc.'s subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light
Co., as of Dec. 31, 2006, faced about 114 pending asbestos-
related lawsuits, compared with about 109 suits as of Dec. 31,
2005, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17, 2007.

These suits alleged personal injury or wrongful death stemming
from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products
formerly located in IPL power plants.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, IPL recorded about 115 pending asbestos-
related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006)

IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" in that IPL did not
mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos
containing products. These suits have been brought on behalf of
persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by
IPL.

IPL has insurance, which may cover some portions of these
claims. Counsel, retained by various insurers who wrote policies
applicable to the period of time during which much of the
exposure has been alleged, is defending these cases.

Based in Indianapolis, IPALCO Enterprises Inc., through its
regulated utility unit, Indianapolis Power & Light, generates,
transmits, and distributes electricity to more than 465,000
customers in central Indiana. IPL has about 3,400 MW of
generating capacity. The Company is a subsidiary of independent
power producer The AES Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nebraskan Sues 107 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Moore, of Nebraska, who suffers from mesothelioma, sued
107 defendant corporations in an asbestos-related suit filed in
Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., on April 16, 2007, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Moore alleges he was exposed to airborne asbestos fibers
from his father's clothing. He claims his father was employed as
a mechanic at various locations across the country. He claims
his father would carry the asbestos dust on his clothing home
with him where it would again become airborne.

"Dust created by working with and around asbestos and asbestos-
containing products would permeate the person and clothing of
the plaintiff's father," the complaint states. "This dust
contained asbestos fiber."

Mr. Moore was employed from 1940 through 1953 as a electrician,
laborer and mechanic at various locations including Illinois. He
claims he was also exposed to asbestos during non-occupational
work projects including home and automotive repairs, maintenance
and remodeling.

The suit claims Mr. Moore was diagnosed with mesothelioma on
Jan. 29, 2007 and subsequently became aware that his illness was
wrongfully caused.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to require and
advise their employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce
or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

As a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Moore claims he was
exposed to fibers with asbestos, and developed a disease caused
only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him.

Mr. Moore also claims that he has sought, but has been unable to
obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information
from the defendants leading him to believe the defendants
destroyed documents related to asbestos.

Mr. Moore seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$300,000,
plus punitive damages.

Nicholas Angelides, John Barnerd, Perry Browder, Tim Thompson
and Richard Saville of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
represent Mr. Moore.

Case No. 07 L 361 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Guesnard Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld a November
2004 decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals that denied
Adolph E. Guesnard entitlement to service connection for
residuals of asbestos exposure.

Judge Davis handed down the decision on Case No. 05-0533 on
March 14, 2007.

Mr. Guesnard served in the U.S. Marine Corps from March 1954 to
March 1957. He was treated for pneumonia in May 1954 and
contended that he was exposed to asbestos while in service.

In August 1994, Mr. Guesnard filed a service-connection claim
for residuals of asbestos exposure. In October 1995, Veterans
Affairs denied his claim. He appealed, and in June 1998, the
Board remanded his claim for further development. The
Montgomery, Ala., regional office denied his claim in February
1999.

The Board affirmed that denial in June 2000, but after Mr.
Guesnard appealed, James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, filed an unopposed motion for remand.

Under that remand, the Board issued decisions in September 2003
and April 2004 requesting additional development.

In its November 2004 decision here on appeal, the Board noted
that medical evidence of record dated from 1984 to 1994
indicated that the veteran had asbestosis and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease with mild restrictive disease.

However, the Board also stated that beginning in 1999, Mr.
Guesnard underwent numerous VA evaluations, including chest x-
rays, a CT scan, and pulmonary function tests.

The Appeals Court had jurisdiction to review the Board's
decision. Single-judge disposition is appropriate. For the
following reasons, the Court affirmed the November 2004 Board
decision.


ASBESTOS ALERT: American Asbestos Pleads Guilty to OSHA Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Asbestos Control Co., of Cranberry Township, Pa., on
April 12, 2007, pleaded guilty in federal court to an asbestos-
related charge of willful violation of Occupational Safety and
Health Administration regulations, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
reports.

American Asbestos entered the plea before Senior U.S. District
Judge Alan N. Bloch.

The alleged violations caused the death of 27-year-old Saul F.
Martinez, of High Point, N.C., a roofer who fell through a glass
panel on the roof of a World Class Processing Inc. plant on
Century Drive in Ambridge, Beaver County.

Mr. Martinez died on April 18, 2005.

Prosecutors said some American Asbestos employees expressed
concerns about the safety of the project before the accident.

American Asbestos violated OSHA regulations by not covering the
skylight and not providing adequate fall protection for Mr.
Martinez.

Sentencing is set for July 12, 2007.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CUTERA INC: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock and other securities of
Cutera, Inc. (Nasdaq:CUTR) from Jan. 31, 2007 through April 4,
2007.

The complaint accuses Cutera and certain of its top officers and
directors of violating the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements and omissions assuring the
investing public that increased sales efforts and other
corporate developments would lead to extraordinary growth in the
first quarter of 2007, and for the entire year.

Specifically, Cutera asserted on Jan. 31, 2007 that these
positive factors would lead to 25% revenue growth for the first
quarter of 2007 and for the full year, 33% growth in net income
for the first quarter of 2007, and 25% growth in net income for
the full year.

This announcement was followed shortly thereafter by unusually
large stock sales by Cutera's CEO, defendant Kevin P. Connors
and Cutera's CFO, defendant Robert J. Santilli.

The Complaint alleges that CEO Connors has a history of making
stock sales at high prices just prior to the release of adverse
corporate news.

On April 5, 2007 defendants shocked the market by announcing
that revenues and earnings for the first quarter of 2007 would
not increase 25%, as stated just weeks before, but rather would
materially decrease.

Defendants offered no cogent explanation for this reversal. On
this news, Cutera shares dropped $11.72 per share on
extraordinary trading volume of 7.2 million shares.

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

For more information, contact Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: 1-
888-884-4490 (Toll Free), E-mail: jacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com.


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Kaplan Fox Files Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
International Rectifier Corp. and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the common stock of IRF between Oct. 27, 2005 and April 9, 2007,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial
results, thus causing IRF's common stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that, unknown to investors,
during the Class Period, defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that IRF's:

     (i) revenues,
    (ii) gross profits
   (iii) earnings, and
    (iv) accounts receivable were false and misleading,

in violation of generally accepted accounting principles. In
addition, the Complaint alleges that the company's internal
controls were inadequate.

The Complaint further alleges that on April 9, 2007, before the
markets opened, IRF disclosed, among other things, that an
internal investigation at the company revealed "accounting
irregularities" at one of the company's foreign subsidiaries.

The company further disclosed that the accounting irregularities
included among other things premature revenue recognition of
product sales.

In addition, according to the Complaint, based on an interim
report of the investigation, the Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors concluded that the company's financial statements for
the quarters ended Dec. 31, 2006, Sept. 30, 2006, March 31,
2006, Dec. 31, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005, and for the year ended
June 30, 2006, should no longer be relied upon.

Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that the company cited
"material weaknesses in the internal control over financial
reporting at a foreign unit."

On April 9, 2007, in reaction to IRF's surprising disclosure,
its shares declined from $38.80 per share at the close of
trading on April 5, 2007, to close at $35.97 per share, a
decline of $2.83 per share or approximately 7.3%, on unusually
heavy volume.

The Complaint also alleges that certain individual Defendants
collectively sold approximately 364,000 IRF shares at
artificially inflated prices for proceeds of approximately $13
million.

For more information, contact:

     (1) Joel B. Strauss and Jeffrey P. Campisi, both of Kaplan
         Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New
         York, New York 10022, Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212)
         687-1980, Fax: (212) 687-7714; and

     (2) Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 555
         Montgomery Street, Suite 1501, San Francisco,
         California 94111, Phone: (415) 772-4700, Fax: (415)
         772-4707.


TOLL BROTHERS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that
a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of
Toll Brothers, Inc. (NYSE:TOL) common stock during the period
between Dec. 9, 2004 and Nov. 8, 2005.

The complaint charges Toll Brothers and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made a series of false and
misleading statements indicating that Toll Brothers' business
model, which was based on developing expensive homes for a niche
market of high-end buyers, was unique and thus immune from the
adverse impact of rising interest rates and other negative
macro-economic factors that appeared to be negatively impacting
the home-building industry during 2004 and 2005.

As the truth was revealed to investors, including the
deteriorating state of demand for Toll Brothers' homes, its
constrained and shrinking number of active selling communities,
the insufficient inventory of lots for Toll Brothers to achieve
20% net income growth in 2006 and 2007, and the actual adverse
impact of rising interest rates and negative macro-economic
trends on traffic to Toll Brothers communities and demand for
its homes and thus its future prospects, Toll Brothers stock
plummeted, falling from its $58.25 per share Class Period high
in July 2005 to as low as $33.72 per share on Nov. 9, 2005, a
42% drop.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Toll Brothers common stock during the Class Period.

Toll Brothers is a home builder which specializes in building
large, expensive homes.

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


WORLDSPACE INC: Schiffrin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all common stock purchasers of
WorldSpace, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the company's Aug. 4,
2005 Initial Public Offering through March 16, 2006 inclusive.

The Complaint charges WorldSpace and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the company failed to
disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them concerning
WorldSpace's operations and financial performance which caused
the company's stock price to become artificially inflated.

On Aug. 4, 2005, WorldSpace conducted its IPO. In connection
with the IPO, the company filed a Registration Statement and
Prospectus (collectively referred to as the "Registration
Statement") with the SEC.

The company's Registration Statement was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose that the company's
subscriber count was artificially inflated by Defendant's
failure to timely remove those customers who had discontinued
their service, and that that the company was experiencing higher
"churn" rates than it was disclosing to investors.

Rather than disclosing this information, the company continued
to count these expired subscriptions as current subscriptions
for at least an additional ninety days after the customer
terminated the service.

On March 16, 2006, WorldSpace finally disclosed to investors for
the first time that its reported number of subscribers was
materially inflated because the company lacked the technology to
terminate ex-subscribers' service.

On this news, shares of the company's stock dropped $2.63 per
share, or 22 percent, to close on March 17, 2006 at $8.89 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Over the next two
trading days, shares of the company's stock declined an
additional 16 percent and 20 percent, respectively.

In all, this three-day drop caused shares of the company's stock
to decline $5.57 per share, or 48 percent, to close on March 21,
2006 at $5.95 per share, on usually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq., both of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler,
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (Toll Free) or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail:
info@sbtklaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *