CAR_Public/070423.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 23, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 79

                            Headlines


ARCTIC EXPRESS: OOIDA Seeks Contempt Ruling in Escrow Funds Suit
ASTEA INT'L: Pa. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
ATRICURE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
AUDIBLE INC: N.J. Mulls Dismissal Motion in Securities Lawsuit
BRITISH SUPERMARKETS: Motorists Complain of "Faulty" Fuels

CALIFORNIA: Solano County Inmates File Suit Over Strip Searches
CARDTRONICS INC: NFB Suit Summary Judgment Hearing Set for 2Q
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Employees Sue Over "Server Banking" Policy
DISNEY STORES: Recalls Children's Pajamas that Fail Flame Test
HEALTHY CORNER: Recalls Salad Sandwiches Due to Undeclared Milk

TRUMP INDIANA: Discovery Completed in ERISA Suit Over Share Sale
MENU FOODS: Cook County Woman Files Suit Over Pet Food Recall
MERCEDES-BENZ: N.J. Clients Claim Fraud Regarding Tele Aid GPS
MICHIGAN: Retirees Sue Over Wayne County Insurance Premium Hikes
NATURAL BALANCE: Recalls Pet Food Products Containing Melamine

OEUF LLC: Recalls Infant Seats with Frame Prone to Breakage
PEPCO HOLDINGS: Challenges Plaintiffs' Motion in Del. ERISA Suit
PETRO STOPPING: Faces Several Suits Over Retail Fuel Temperature
QUIZNOS SUB: Ill. Franchisees File Suit Over Business Practices
ROHM & HAAS: Penn. Suit Seeks Brain Tumor Monitoring for Workers

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL: Canadian Doctors Face Negligence Lawsuit
SERVICEMASTER CO: Shareholders Oppose Sale to Clayton, Dubilier
SHELL OIL: Court Seals Record of Legal Fees in Motiva Suit Deal
ST JOSEPH'S: Lawsuit Expected After Superbug MRSA Scare
STATE FARM: Judge Senter Rejects $50M Katrina Claims Settlement

TALX CORP: Shareholder Suit Over Equifax Deal Sent to Missouri
TENNESSEE: DCEC Sued Over Runoff Election on a Jewish Holiday
TEXAS: Former TYC Inmate Sues Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
TEXAS: Round Rock Settles Suit Over Arrests of RRHS Students
TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Junk Securities Suit Pending

WELLPOINT INC: Calif. Hospitals Join Suit Over Insurance Terms
WILBUR-ELLIS: Recalls Contaminated Rice Protein Concentrate
WITNESS SYSTEMS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ga.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

VISEON INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Tex. Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


ARCTIC EXPRESS: OOIDA Seeks Contempt Ruling in Escrow Funds Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio granted a request by the Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Assoc. (OOIDA) to order Arctic
Express Inc. to prove it has not complied with court-ordered
payments in the truckers' escrow funds suit settlement, the Land
Line Magazine reports.

"If Arctic cannot show, categorically and in detail, that it is
impossible for it to meet its obligations to plaintiffs as
outlined in this court's May 28, 2004, order, Arctic shall be
found in contempt of this court," the judge wrote in an eight-
page order.

In 1997, OOIDA, with members Carl Harp, Garvin Keith Roberts and
Michael Wiese, filed s suit against Arctic Express and D&A
Associates Ltd., claiming violations of the federal truth-in-
leasing regulations for their failure to return escrow accounts
after the termination of the owner-operators' leases.

The Association requested that the case be certified as a class
action to include thousands of truckers.  The judge granted that
request in September 2001.

The class includes all independent owner-operators who entered
lease agreements with D&A Associates which purport to lease,
with the option to purchase, trucking equipment under the terms
of D&A's equipment lease-purchase agreement, and leased that
equipment to Arctic Express under the terms of Arctic's
federally regulated lease agreement.

On Aug. 29, 2001, Judge Marbley issued a written summary
judgment in OOIDA's favor finding that Arctic Express had
violated the federal leasing regulations and "absconded" with
the escrow accounts of the owner-operators.

The judge denied the motor carrier's motion for reconsideration
of the court's previous ruling to deny Arctic's motion for
partial summary judgment.  That motion sought to eliminate the
claims of those class members whose lease-purchase agreements
were entered into before Jan. 1, 1996, the effective date of the
Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act.

A second motion to decertify the class was also denied by the
court.  Arctic had asked the court to reconsider its decision
based on rulings in OOIDA's case against New Prime Inc., where
the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that owner-operators with
lease agreements executed prior to Jan. 1, 1996, could not
prosecute their claims under the federal truth-in-leasing
regulations.

In his ruling, Judge Marbley brushed aside the 8th Circuit
ruling, noting that that ruling had no binding effect on his
court and did not on its merits warrant further reconsideration
by him.

In denying the motions, Judge Marbley had opened the way for the
Arctic case to proceed to the trial phase to determine damages.

On Oct. 31, 2003, Arctic Express announced it had filed for a
voluntary petition to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.  The petition was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in Columbus, Ohio.  An affiliate leasing company, D&A
Associates Ltd., also filed a Chapter 11 at the same time.

As a result of the bankruptcy filings -- though, an automatic
stay has been imposed on the litigation before Judge Marbley to
allow the Bankruptcy Court matter to proceed -- OOIDA filed a
motion to lift the stay in order to allow the damage phase of
the case to proceed before Judge Marbley so that the amount of
the escrow funds in question can be properly determined.

After Arctic declared bankruptcy, it had agreed to pay $900,000
on a $5.58 million court-ordered judgment -- less than 20 cents
on the dollar.

The motor carrier made the first two of eight payments in June
and December 2005.  Then Arctic officials allegedly stopped
writing the settlement checks.

Attorney Joyce E. Mayers of The Cullen Law Firm in Washington,
D.C., has been working on the truckers' case for several years
and when Arctic's settlement checks stopped coming in the mail,
she filed a motion requesting the judge to order the Ohio-based
motor carrier to "show cause," or prove, why it is unable to pay
the court-ordered installments.

On April 18, Judge Marbley granted OOIDA's request, ordering
Arctic to prove that it is not able to make the ordered
payments.  If detailed evidence is not presented, the judge
indicated he will hold Arctic in contempt.

"This court finds that clear and convincing evidence exists that
illustrates that Arctic violated this court's orders," the judge
wrote.  "Arctic now has the burden of proving, in great detail,
that it is presently unable to comply ..."

If Judge Marbley finds Arctic in contempt, Richard Durst,
Arctic's president and sole owner, could be held personally
responsible and ordered to use his personal assets to make the
payments.

A hearing is set for early June.

The suit is "Owner-Operator Indep, et al. v. Arctic Express
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:97-cv-00750-ALM-NMK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Under Judge
Algenon L. Marbley with referral to Judge Norah McCann King.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joyce E. Mayers, Paul D. Cullen, Sr. and Gregory
         Michael Cork, all of The Cullen Law Firm, 1101 30th
         Street NW, Suite 300, PO Box 25806, Washington, DC
         20007-9998, Phone: 202-944-8600 or 202-944-8600, E-
         mail: jem@cullenlaw.com; and

     (2) James Burdette Helmer, Jr. and Paul B. Martins, both of
         Helmer Martins, Rice & Popham Co., L.P.A. - 2, 600 Vine
         Street, Suite 2704, 105 E. 4th Street, Cincinnati, OH
         45202-4008, Phone: 513-421-2400, Fax: 513-421-7902, E-
         mail: support@fcalawfirm.com.

Representing defendants is Sarah Daggett Morrison of Chester
Willcox & Saxbe - 2, 65 E State Street, Suite 1000, Columbus, OH
43215-4213, Phone: 614-221-4000, Fax: 614-221-4012, E-mail:
smorrison@cwslaw.com.


ASTEA INT'L: Pa. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss an amended complaint in a
consolidated securities fraud class action against Astea
International, Inc.

On and shortly after April 6, 2006, certain purported
shareholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the company and
certain of its directors and officers.  

The lawsuits, alleging that the company and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws and
state laws, relate to the company's March 31, 2006 announcement
of the accounting restatement for overcapitalized software
development costs during the first two quarters of 2005 and
undercapitalized software development costs during the third
quarter of 2005.  

Pursuant to a stipulation and order of the court entered July
12, 2006, the putative class actions were consolidated, certain
persons were appointed as lead plaintiffs, and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed on Sept. 11, 2006.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on Oct. 26, 2006, and the court will decide
this motion once briefing has been completed.  

The briefings for the motion were completed Jan. 24, 2007, and
the motion is now awaiting the decision of the court, according
to the company's April 2 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Shanahan v. Astea International Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-01467-WY," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge William H. Yohn,
Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Felderman of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, 1818
         Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-496-0300, E-mail: dfelderman@srk-law.com;

     (2) Andrew N. Friedman of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, and
         Toll, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., West Tower, Suite
         500, Washington, DC 20005-3964, Phone: 202-408-4600,
         Fax: 202-408-4699; and

     (3) Michael D. Gottsch of Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, 361
         West Lancaster Avenue, Haverford, PA 19041, Phone: 610-
         642-8500, E-mail: michaelgottsch@chimicles.com.

Representing the defendants is Robert L. Hickok of Pepper
Hamilton, LLP, 3000 Two Logan Sq., 18TH & Arch Sts.,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799, Phone: 215-981-4583, E-mail:
hickokr@pepperlaw.com.


ATRICURE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
AtriCure, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a securities fraud
class action filed against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The company and certain of its current and former officers were
named as defendants in the purported securities class action,
"Levine v. AtriCure, Inc., Case No. 06 CV 14324."

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and
seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock during the period from the company's Initial Public
Offering in August 2005 through Feb. 16, 2006.

The company's motion to dismiss this suit is pending, according
to the company's April 2 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Levine v. Atricure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
14324-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Richard J. Holwell.

Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach,
Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service
Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax:
631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Douglas M. Kraus of Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (NYC), Four Times Square, New
York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-735-3000 x2510, Fax: 917-777-2510, E-
mail: dkraus@skadden.com.


AUDIBLE INC: N.J. Mulls Dismissal Motion in Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
amended complaint in a securities class action filed against
Audible, Inc.

Starting on or about Feb. 22, 2005, several class actions were
filed against Audible and two of the company's executives in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
persons who purchased the company's securities between Nov. 2,
2004 and Feb. 15, 2005.  

They allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 there under
by failing to make complete and accurate disclosures concerning
the company's future plans and prospects.  

The individual defendants are also alleged to be liable under
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.  All of the defendants
are alleged to have sold stock at inflated prices during the
class period.

In December 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey consolidated the class action, appointed a group of
lead plaintiffs and appointed lead plaintiff's counsel.

By prior agreement, the plaintiff's consolidated amended
complaint was filed on Feb. 14, 2006.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and their reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the pleading.  The motion
has been fully briefed, but the court has not yet ruled,
according to the company's April 2 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Carter v. Audible, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
01027-JAG-MCA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. with
referral to Judge Madeline C. Arleo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163
         Madison Avenue, P.O. BOX 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962-
         1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com;

     (2) William J. Pinilis of Pinilis Halpern, LLP, 237 South
         Street, Morristown, NJ 07960, Phone: (973) 401-1111, E-
         mail: wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com; and

     (3) Daniel S. Sommers of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         PLLC, Suite 500 West, 1100 New York Avenue, NW,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600, E-mail:
         dsommers@cmht.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robert A. Assuncao of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US
         LLP, 379 Thornall Street, Eighth Floor, Edison, NJ
         08837-2226, Phone: 732-590-1850, E-mail:
         robert.assuncao@piperrudnick.com; and

    (ii) John E. Keefe, Jr. of Lynch Keefe Bartels, ESQS., 830
         Broad Street, Suite 1, Shrewsbury, NJ 07702-4216,
         Phone: (732) 224-9400, E-mail: jkeefe@lkblaw.com.


BRITISH SUPERMARKETS: Motorists Complain of "Faulty" Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------
Britain's biggest supermarkets could face a class action by
thousands of motorists it sold "faulty" fuels to, The Observer
reports.

Marishal Thompson, a Surrey-based arbitration and dispute
resolution firm, has set up a Web site http://www.faultyfuel.com
to gather complaints from drivers who suffered problems linked
to unleaded petrol sold by Tesco, Morrisons, Asda and Total.  It
estimates more than 10,000 'bona fide' drivers are affected.

Early reports say the problems were caused by contamination of
silicon in fuel supplied from the Vopak storage depot in Essex,
according to The Observer.

Marishal Thompson is examining details of the car, petrol
supplier and problems.

According to an April 18, 2007 report of Sarah Butler of The
Times, Tesco said that it had paid GBP7 million to GBP8 million
to compensate thousands of drivers whose cars were damaged by
contaminated petrol sold in its forecourts.   It said that it
had settled 15,000 of 18,000 complaints made about the incident
in February.


CALIFORNIA: Solano County Inmates File Suit Over Strip Searches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento, California lawyer Mark E. Merin filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, alleging Solano County jail personnel routinely
strip inmates and conduct body cavity searches in violation of
inmates' constitutional rights, ABC30.com reports.

Filed on behalf Michael Todd, who was arrested and searched last
year, the suit alleges that jail personnel illegally searched
inmates "without having any reasonable suspicion that the
searches will be productive of contraband."

Mr. Todd claims he was subjected to a strip search and
inspection even though his arrest was not related to violence,
drugs or weapons.

Mr. Merin believes the strip searches are a routine practice at
Solano County jails, where inmates also are searched in front of
others.

Solano County Sheriff Gary Stanton told The Vacaville Reporter
the department planned an internal investigation as the
allegations made are directly in conflict with the jail's
policies, procedures and training.

The lawsuit does not list the specific monetary damages it
seeks.

The suit is "Todd v. Solano et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00726-FCD-
EFB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California under Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr., with referral
to Judge Edmund F. Brennan.

Representing plaintiffs is Mark E. Merin of the Law Office of
Mark E. Merin, 2001 P Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95814,
Phone: (916) 443-6911, Fax: (916) 447-8336, E-mail:
mark@markmerin.com.


CARDTRONICS INC: NFB Suit Summary Judgment Hearing Set for 2Q
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cardtronics, Inc. continues to face a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts by the National Federation of the Blind in
relation to the accessibility of its automated teller machines.

In connection with the company's acquisition of the E*TRADE
Access, Inc. (ETA) ATM portfolio, the company assumed ETA's
interests and liability for a lawsuit instituted by the NFB, the
NFB's Massachusetts chapter, and several individual blind
persons as well as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with
respect to claims relating to the alleged inaccessibility of
ATMs for those persons who are visually-impaired.  

After the acquisition of the ETA ATM portfolio, the Private
Plaintiffs named Cardtronics as a co-defendant with ETA and
ETA's parent, E*Trade Bank, and the scope of the lawsuit has
expanded to include both ETA's ATMs as well as the company's
pre-existing ATM portfolio.

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs have sought to require ETA and
Cardtronics to make all of the ATMs "voice-enabled," or capable
of providing audible instructions to a visually impaired person
upon that person inserting a headset plug into an outlet at the
ATM.  

The court has ruled twice, in February 2005 and February 2006
that the NFB is not entitled to a "voice-enabled" remedy.

Nonetheless, in response to an order to describe the relief they
seek, the Private Plaintiffs have subsequently stated that they
demand either:

      -- voice-guidance technology on each ATM;

      -- "Braille" instructions on each ATM that allow
         individuals who are blind to understand every screen
         (which, the company assumes, may imply a dynamic
         Braille pad); or

      -- a telephone on each ATM so the user could speak with a
         remote operator who can either see the screen on the
         ATM or can enter information for the user.

Cardtronics has asserted numerous defenses to the lawsuit.  One
defense is that, for ATMs owned by third parties, the company
arguably does not have the right to make changes to the ATMs
without the consent of the third parties.  

Another defense is that the Americans with Disabilities Act
arguably do not require the company to make changes to ATMs if
the changes are not feasible or achievable, or if the costs
outweigh the benefits.

The costs of retrofitting or replacing existing ATMs with voice
technology, dynamic Braille keypads, or telephones and
interactive data lines would be significant.  

Additionally, in situations in which third parties own the ATMs
and Cardtronics provides processing services, the costs are
extremely disproportionate to the company's interests in the
ATMs.

Cardtronics has also challenged the plaintiffs' standing to file
this lawsuit.  

In response to the company's challenge, the plaintiffs have
requested the court's permission to:

      -- amend their complaint to name additional individual
         plaintiffs; and

      -- certify the lawsuit as a class action under the Federal
         Rules of Civil Procedure.

Cardtronics has objected to the motion, on the grounds that the
plaintiffs who initially filed the lawsuit lacked standing and
amending the complaint cannot cure this deficiency.

Hearings on both the standing issue and Cardtronics' motion for
summary judgment are scheduled to occur during the second
quarter of 2007, according to the company's April 2 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. E*Trade
Access, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-11206-MEL," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
Judge Morris E. Lasker.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Anthony M. Doniger of Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak &
         Cohen, 9th Floor, 101 Merrimac Street, Boston, MA
         02114, Phone: 617-227-3030, Fax: 617-523-4001, E-mail:
         doniger@srbc.com;

     (2) Patricia Correa, Attorney General's Office, One
         Ashburton Place, Room 2019, Boston, MA 02108-1698,
         Phone: 617-727-2200 ext.2919, Fax: 617-727-5762, E-
         mail: patty.correa@ago.state.ma.us; and

     (3) Timothy P. Fox of Fox & Robertson, PC, 910 16th Street,
         Suite 610, Denver, CO 80202, US, Phone: 303-595-9700,
         Fax: 303-595-9705, E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com.

Representing the defendants is Jenny K. Cooper of Bingham
McCutchen, LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone:
617-951-8000, Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail:
jenny.cooper@bingham.com.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Employees Sue Over "Server Banking" Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olive Garden, a division of Darden Restaurants, Inc., faces a
purported class action in California over its "server banking"
policies and practices, according to Darden Restaurants' March
29, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 25, 2007.

The suit, filed in January 2007, alleges that under the policies
and practices (under which servers settle guest checks directly
with customers throughout their shifts, and turn in collected
monies at the shift's end), the company improperly required
plaintiff and other food servers and bartenders to make up cash
shortages and walkouts in violation of California law.

It was brought on behalf of servers and bartenders alleging that
Olive Garden's server banking policy and its alleged failure to
pay split shift premiums violated California law.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. on the Net: http://www.darden.com/.


DISNEY STORES: Recalls Children's Pajamas that Fail Flame Test
--------------------------------------------------------------
Disney Stores North America, of Pasadena, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 200 Baby Einstein Caterpillar Sleepwear and Baby
Einstein Duck Sleepwear.

Disney Stories is owned and operated under a licensing agreement
by a subsidiary of The Children's Place Retail Stores Inc. of
Secaucus, New Jersey.

The company said these footed pajamas fail to meet the
children's flammability standard, posing a risk of burn injury
to children.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves footed pajamas made of 100 percent cotton.
The sleepwear was sold in two styles including green with blue
sleeves, which has a caterpillar design on the front, and yellow
with orange sleeves, which has a duck design and "Quack! Quack!"
printed on the front and duck beaks on the feet.

"Baby Einstein" is printed on the back of the sleepwear.  
"Disney Store" is printed on a tag inside the pajamas.  Only
sleepwear in sizes 12 months and 18 months is included in this
recall.  Sleepwear sold in sizes 3, 6 and 9 months is not
included in this recall.

These recalled footed pajamas were manufactured in China and are
being sold exclusively at Disney Stores nationwide from April
2006 through May 2006 for about $20.

Pictures of recalled children's footed pajamas:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07156a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07156b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
sleepwear and return it to any Disney Store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Disney Store toll-free at
(866) 902-2798 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday.


HEALTHY CORNER: Recalls Salad Sandwiches Due to Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Agriculture Commissioner Patrick Hooker alerted
consumers that Healthy Corner Foods Inc., d/b/a Healthy Corner
Foods of 6005 16th Ave., Brooklyn, New York 11204, is recalling
certain Chicken and Turkey Salads; and Turkey, Turkey Salad and
Chicken Salad Sandwiches due to undeclared milk ingredients.

People who have allergies to milk may run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this
product.

The recalled Corner Foods Salads and Sandwiches were sold in New
York City and New Jersey.  These varieties of sandwiches are
included in the recall:

     -- Vegetarian Turkey Sandwich - 6oz., Plastic film wrapped
        - All codes;

     -- Vegetarian Turkey Salad Sandwich - 6oz., Plastic film
        wrapped - All codes;

     -- Vegetarian Chicken Salad Sandwich - 7oz., Plastic film
        wrapped - All codes;

     -- Vegetarian Chicken Salad Sandwich on Whole Wheat Pita -
        6oz., Plastic film wrapped - All codes;

     -- Vegetarian Turkey Salad - 6.5oz., Plastic container -
        All codes; and

     -- Vegetarian Chicken Salad - 6.5oz., Plastic container -
        All codes.

The problem was discovered during a routine food safety
inspection by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets Food Inspectors that revealed the presence of a milk
ingredient in product packages that did not declare a milk
ingredient on the label.

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

Consumers who have purchased the affected Healthy Corner Foods
Salads and/or Sandwiches should return them to the place of
purchase.


TRUMP INDIANA: Discovery Completed in ERISA Suit Over Share Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has been completed in a purported class action pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Trump Indiana, Inc., an acquisition of Majestic Star
Casino, LLC.

Plaintiffs, who participants in the Trump Companies' Capital
Accumulation Plan, filed a complaint on Feb. 8, 2005 against
certain individuals and organizations, including Trump Indiana,
Inc., and members of the Trump Capital Accumulation Plan
Administrative Committee.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, when Trump Hotel and
Casino Resorts Common Stock held in employee accounts was sold
by the Committee.

The complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an amount
ranging from $1.1 million to $2.3 million plus costs and
attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed an answer denying any wrongdoing and the case
has been certified as a class action.  Discovery has been
completed, according to the Majestic Star's April 2 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Noa et al. v. Keyser et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00776-JEI-AMD" filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey under Judge Joseph E. Irenas with referral to
Judge Ann Marie Donio.

Representing the plaintiffs is Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo,
Rodriguez & Richards, LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ
08033, Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Florina A. Moldovan of Mcelroy,
Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, 1300 Mount Kemble Avenue,
Morristown, NJ 07962-2075, Phone: (973) 993-8100, E-mail:
fmoldovan@mdmc-law.com.


MENU FOODS: Cook County Woman Files Suit Over Pet Food Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County, Illinois resident Heather Amro filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against dog and cat food manufacturers that produced a "cut and
gravy style" food, blamed for the deaths of pets who ate it, the
WBBM780 reports.

Ms. Amro filed suit against:

     -- Menu Foods Income Fund,
     -- Menu Food, Inc.,
     -- Menu Foods Holding, Inc.,
     -- Menu Foods Midwest Corp.,
     -- Chemnutra, Inc.,
     -- Chemnutra LLC.,
     -- The Proctor & Gamble Co., and
     -- The Iams Co.

She is seeking class-action status on behalf of others who are
similarly situated.

Ms. Amro claims the companies knew that pet illnesses and deaths
could be related to their pet food products and waited nearly a
month before informing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and
the public that it was recalling its products.

The suit alleges the companies' excessive delay resulted in
significant financial loss to thousands of pet owners.

The suit accuses the companies of waiting an excessive period of
time before deciding to recall the products.  Rather than
announcing an immediate recall, the companies decided to conduct
tests involving more than 50 animals, the suit claims, and one
in six animals died in those tests.

Ms. Amro alleges that she fed her cat, Zelda, Iams Select Bites
Pouches, a brand recalled by the defendants.  The cat then
became ill and was taken to a veterinarian, where it was
discovered that Zelda suffered from kidney failure.

On March 20, Zelda was euthanized as a result of her kidney
failure.  Zelda's diagnosis, treatment and euthanization cost
the plaintiff more than $400, according to the suit.

Ms. Amro is seeking other unspecified damages in addition to
asking a judge to grant the suit class-action certification.

Pet owners have faced substantial expenses from the medical
costs associated with cats and dogs that may have consumed the
food, in addition to the cost of purchasing the food, the suit
says.

According to the suit, several pet owners have veterinary bills
that have climbed into the thousands.

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

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

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

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

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

The suit is "Majerczyk v. Menu Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
01543," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Wayne R. Andersen.

Representing plaintiffs are John Blim and Jay Edelson, both of
Blim & Edelson, LLC, 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1642
Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 913-9400, Fax: (312) 913-9401,
E-mail: john@blimlaw.com or jay@blimlaw.com.


MERCEDES-BENZ: N.J. Clients Claim Fraud Regarding Tele Aid GPS
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. (MBUSA) is facing a class-action complaint
in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Bergen Count, alleging
the DaimlerChrysler AG subsidiary, defrauded customers, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action is brought as a class action on behalf of
individuals and entities who purchased or leased Mercedes-Benz
automobiles from Sept. 24, 2002 to the present.

Plaintiffs allege MBUSA installed analog Tele Aid GPS and
wireless phone systems in cars but failed to tell customers it
would stop working on Jan. 1, 2008, when wireless providers plan
to stop operating analog networks.

Lead plaintiff Howard Morris claims Mercedes violated consumer
laws and deceived consumers in all 50 states by "touting Tele
Aid as in important safety feature, but intentionally failing to
tell its customers the equipment would not work after a date
certain in 2008."

Mr. Morris said his dealer told him it would cost $777 to make
the system work after the switch to digital service.

Plaintiff brings this action under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code (relating to breach
of warranty), the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, the common law of
negligent misrepresentation and, alternatively, the consumer
fraud laws of each of the 50 states, for actual and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs with respect to the injuries sustained by plaintiff and
the members of the class.

Plaintiffs want the court to determine:

     (a) whether defendant MBUSA intentionally and/or
         negligently withheld relevant information from
         purchaser or lessers of Mercedes vehicles with Tele
         Aid;

     (b) whether defendant MBUSA took affirmative steps to
         conceal the truth about nature and operation of its
         Tele Aid equipment;

     (c) whether MBUSA's failure to disclose the truth about its
         analog Tele Aid equipment is an unconscionable
         commercial practice in violation of the New Jersey
         Consumer Fraud Act;

     (d) whether MBUSA's failure to provide functioning digital
         Tele Aid equipment to its customers constitutes a
         breach of warranty;

     (e) the effect of the false and misleading statement and
         omissions alleged in the complaint upon the purchase
         price of Mercedes-Benz automobiles;

     (f) whether the conduct of defendant MBUSA caused injury to
         the business or property of plaintiff and the other
         members of the class;

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages; and

     (h) whether plaintiff and the members of the class are
         entitled to injunctive relief.

Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to Rule 4:32 of the New Jersey Court Rules on
        behalf of the class as defined in the complaint;

     -- that plaintiff be designated the class representative;

     -- that plaintiff's counsel be designated class counsel;

     -- that MBUSA be ordered to pay economic damages in an
        amount to be determined by court;

     -- that MBUSA be ordered to pay treble, punitive and/or
        exemplary damages;

     -- that an injunction be issued requiring MBUSA to provide     
        digital Tele Aid upgrades to its customers at no cost;

     -- that plaintiff and the class members be awarded
        attorneys' fees and reimbursement for the costs and
        expenses of this action; and

     -- that plaintiff and the class be awarded any other relief
         the court deems necessary, just and proper.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d90

The suit is "Morris et al. v. Mercedes-Benz U.S.A, Docket No. L-
2592-07," filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Bergen
County.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen M. Sohmer, Esq. of The Sohmer Law Firm, One
         Passaic Avenue, Fairfield, NJ 07004, Phone: (973) 227-
         7080;

     (2) Eugene A. Spector, Jeffrey L. Kodroff and John A.
         Macoretta, all of Spector Roseman & Kodforr, P.C., 1818
         Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: (215) 496-0300;

     (3) Marc H. Edelson, Esq., of Edelson & Associates, LLC, 45
         West Court Street, Dowylestown, PA 18901, Phone: (215)
         230-8043;

     (4) Ronald Jay Smolow, Esq, and Michael H. Landis, Esq.,
         both of Smolow & Landis, Two Neshaminy Interplex,
         Trevose, PA 19053, Phone: (215) 244-0880; and

     (5) E. Powell Miller, Esq. and Marc Newman, Esq., both of
         The Miller Law Firm, PC, 950 W. University Drive, Suite
         300, Rochester, Michigan 48307, Phone: (248) 841-2200.


MICHIGAN: Retirees Sue Over Wayne County Insurance Premium Hikes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations, and three retirees filed a class
action against Wayne County and the Retirement Board to
challenge unilateral premium increases for retiree life
insurance.

The case is assigned to Judge Prentice Edwards who ordered the
County and the Retirement Board to show cause in his courtroom
on Friday, May 4, 2007 why an injunction should not issue.

The suit claims AFSCME's retirees have been paying level
premiums for retiree insurance for about 40 years.  Then,
without prior notice, the premiums became age related.  The
effect of this change was to require the oldest retirees to pay
the highest premium.

Nora Raymond, one of the plaintiffs, is 80 years of age.  Her
insurance premium was increased from $27.14 per month to $79.35
per month.  She was forced to cut her insurance in half, and due
to her age, cannot get insurance anyplace else.  The policy in
full would have been for $11,500.

Florence Glover, 84 years old, also a plaintiff, saw her
premiums go from $27.14 per month to $79.35 per month.  She is
hanging on to her policy because she knows she cannot replace it
but is finding it to be a big strain on her limited income,
which comes from her County pension and Social Security.

The County sent all the retirees a form to encourage them to
cancel their insurance.  Many have cancelled or cut it.  Once
they cancel or cut, under the County's plan, they cannot get
that insurance back.

Albert Garrett, AFSCME Council 25 President, whose union is also
a plaintiff in this case, said, "For many of our retirees, this
insurance was burial money.  Now those who have been forced to
cancel or cut their insurance worry about whether or not they
will get a decent funeral after all their years of service to
Wayne County.  These enormous increases are without any
justification.  They make the old subsidize the young.  Our
collective bargaining agreement guaranteed these retirees
lifetime life insurance at level rates.  We cannot understand
why the County would reduce the rates of younger retirees and
raise those for the aged."

He added, "We want the court to restore the rates to what they
were before the change.  And, we want our retirees to get their
insurance back if they were forced to cancel or cut it."

For more information, contact Bruce A. Miller of Miller Cohen,
P.L.C., Phone: +1-313-964-4454, E-mail:
http://www.miafscme.org/Releases.htm


NATURAL BALANCE: Recalls Pet Food Products Containing Melamine
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Balance of Pacoima, California, is issuing a voluntary
nationwide recall for all of its Venison dog products and the
dry Venison cat food only, regardless of date codes.

The recalled products include Venison and Brown Rice canned and
bagged dog foods, Venison and Brown Rice dog treats, and Venison
and Green Pea dry cat food.  Recent laboratory results show that
the products contain melamine.

The company believes the source of the melamine is a rice
protein concentrate.  Natural Balance has confirmed that some
production batches of these products may contain melamine.

Consumer complaints received by Natural Balance involving a
small number of cats and dogs that developed kidney failure
after eating the affected product prompted the recall.

Owners of dogs or cats that have consumed the suspect food and
show signs of kidney failure (such as loss of appetite, lethargy
and vomiting) are advised to take their pets to a veterinarian.

The company advises their customers to immediately stop feeding
their pets with the recalled venison products regardless of date
code and return unused product to their retailer for a full
refund.

The products are packaged in bags, cans and zip lock treat bags
and sold in pet specialty stores and PetCo nationally.

No other Natural Balance products are involved in this voluntary
recall as none of the company's other formulas include the rice
protein concentrate.

Although the problems seem to be focused on a particular
production period of the venison products, over the last four
days the company have notified distributors and retailers by
phone and e-mail to immediately stop selling and return all
recalled Venison dog foods and treats and the Venison dry cat
food. Venison canned cat food is not involved.

The source of the melamine appears to be a rice protein
concentrate, which was recently added to the dry venison
formulas.  Natural Balance does not use wheat gluten, which was
associated with the previous melamine contamination.

None of Natural Balance's other dry formulas, none of the
company's other canned or roll products and none of other treats
are involved with this voluntary recall.

The company continues to work closely with the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration in their ongoing investigation.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-829-
4493 or visit their website: http://www.naturalbalance.net.


OEUF LLC: Recalls Infant Seats with Frame Prone to Breakage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oeuf LLC, of Brooklyn, New York, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,400
infant bouncer seats.

The company said the tubular metal frame can break, posing a
fall hazard to infants in the seat.  Oeuf LLC has received six
reports of frames breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Oeuf infant bouncer seats with padded
canvas supported by a tubular steel frame.  The canvas seat is
brown with white, blue or pink stripes.  A three-point safety
belt is attached to the canvas.  Model number 2005 is printed on
the label.

These recalled infant bouncer seats were manufactured in China
and are being sold at juvenile specialty stores and Web
retailers nationwide from September 2006 through March 2007 for
about $100.

Picture of recalled infant bouncer seats:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07162.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the infant seat immediately
and contact Oeuf LLC to receive a repair kit.

For additional information, contact Oeuf at (800) 691-8810
between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.oeufnyc.com


PEPCO HOLDINGS: Challenges Plaintiffs' Motion in Del. ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc. is challenging a plaintiffs' motion in a
purported class action filed by management employees of PHI
Service Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

In 1999, Conectiv, which the company later acquired, established
a cash balance retirement plan to replace defined benefit
retirement plans then maintained by Atlantic City Electric Co.
and Delmarva Power & Light Co.  

Following the acquisition by Pepco of Conectiv, this plan became
the Conectiv Cash Balance Sub-Plan within the PHI Retirement
Plan.

On Sept. 26, 2005, three management employees of PHI Service Co.
filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware against the PHI Retirement Plan, PHI and Conectiv (PHI
Parties), alleging violations of ERISA, on behalf of a class of
management employees who did not have enough age and service
when the Cash Balance Sub-Plan was implemented in 1999 to assure
that their accrued benefits would be calculated pursuant to the
terms of the predecessor plans sponsored by Atlantic City
Electric and Delmarva Power.

A fourth plaintiff was added to the case to represent DPL-
heritage "grandfathered" employees who will not be eligible for
early retirement at the end of the grandfathered period.

Plaintiffs have challenged the design of the Cash Balance Sub-
Plan and are seeking a declaratory judgment that the Cash
Balance Sub-Plan is invalid and that the accrued benefits of
each member of the class should be calculated pursuant to the
terms of the predecessor plans.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the use of a variable
rate to compute the plaintiffs' accrued benefit under the Cash
Balance Sub-Plan results in reductions in the accrued benefits
that violate ERISA.

The complaint also alleges that the benefit accrual rates and
the minimal accrual requirements of the Cash Balance Sub-Plan
violate ERISA as did the notice that was given to plan
participants upon implementation of the Cash Balance Sub-Plan.

The PHI Parties filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which was
denied by the court on July 11, 2006.  The court stayed one
count of the complaint regarding alleged age discrimination
pending a decision in another case before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

On Jan. 30, 2007, the 3rd Circuit issued a ruling in the other
case that PHI's counsel believes should result in the favorable
disposition of all of the claims (other than the claim of
inadequate notice) against the PHI Parties.

The PHI Parties filed pleadings apprising the court of the 3rd
Circuit's decision on Feb. 16, 2007, at the same time they filed
their opposition to plaintiffs' motion, according to the
company's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Pepco Holdings, Inc. on the Net: http://www.pepcoholdings.com/.


PETRO STOPPING: Faces Several Suits Over Retail Fuel Temperature
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petro Stopping Centers, L.P. was named as defendant in 13
lawsuits -- Retail Fuel Temperature Litigation -- where
plaintiffs are attempting to establish class actions relating to
the temperature at which fuel is sold, according to the
company's March 29 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The allegation is that although fuel volume expands with
increases in fuel temperature, defendants do not adjust the
volume of fuel sold based on temperature, resulting in economic
damage to retail purchasers of fuel.

Nationwide, 36 similar lawsuits have been filed, and the company
is one of more than 100 named defendants in these pending
actions.  

The 13 lawsuits in which the company has been named as a
defendant have been filed in federal court in California (three
cases), Missouri (two cases), Kansas, Nevada, Tennessee,
Oklahoma, Maryland, Alabama and Mississippi, and in state court
in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The lawsuits in which the company was named as a defendant
allege the following causes of action violation of various state
consumer statutes, civil conspiracy, breach of duty of good
faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit/unjust enrichment, breach
of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of warranty, conversion, violation of
the Lanham Act, and unjust enrichment based on over collection
but underpayment of federal fuel taxes.

The lawsuits seek orders compelling the installation of
temperature correction devices at retail dispensers and
associated monetary damages, including punitive damages, and
attorney's fees.

Petro Stopping Centers, L.P. on the Net:
http://www.petrotruckstops.com/.


QUIZNOS SUB: Ill. Franchisees File Suit Over Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Franchisees of Quiznos Sub filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging
that the company systematically defrauded its franchisees in a
scheme designed to build the brand at the expense of its
operators in the field.

Defendants include:

     -- The Quiznos Franchise Co., LLC, and Quiznos
        Franchising LLC, both of Denver, Colo.;

     -- various affiliates of the company;

     -- Richard E. Schaden of Lafayette, Colo., and Richard F.
        Schaden, of Westminster, Colo., the father-son owners of
        Quiznos; and

     -- Cervantes Capital, LLC, of Denver, which is alleged to
        run the Quiznos operations.

The plaintiffs in the class action are all operators of Quiznos
franchises in Illinois.

Among other things, the lawsuit contends that the company forces
franchisees to buy food, supplies, and services from Quiznos or
its affiliates at inflated prices while concurrently setting
artificially low retail prices for its products -- in many
instances, making the stores unprofitable for the franchisees.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that Quiznos unlawfully
participates in a scheme to sell the franchises by omitting or
otherwise misrepresenting key facts about Quiznos' business
operations in an effort to induce potential franchisees to buy
into the system.

In seeking damages for lost investments as well as injunctive
relief, the suit alleges, among other things, statutory and
common law fraud, violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, breach of contract, and violations of
Illinois franchise and consumer protection laws.

The suit in Illinois is the third class action brought on behalf
of Quiznos franchisees in less than a year, according to Justin
M. Klein, Esq., a partner in the Red Bank, N.J. law firm of
Marks & Klein, LLP.

Mr. Klein also represents the plaintiffs in similar actions
filed on behalf of Wisconsin and Michigan franchisees, joined by
Mark M. Leitner and Joseph S. Goode of the Milwaukee-based law
firm of Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk S.C.

"Quiznos has been taking advantage of its franchisees for years
through practices that we contend are illegal and in violation
of the franchise agreement," said Chris Bray, president of the
Toasted Subs Franchisees Association, Inc., a trade group
representing Quiznos franchisees that helped organize the class
action.

Mr. Bray, who owns two locations in Texas and has been a
franchisee for nine years, said Quiznos "has slowly,
methodically and deliberatively modified the business model,
year over year, to inflate corporate profits at the expense of
franchisees system wide.  This has led to a lack of franchisee
profitability and excessive store closures.  It is time to put a
stop to this."

Mr. Klein added, "There are Quiznos franchisees around the
country that have been and continue to be injured and we will
continue to fight to protect their interests."

In April 2006, Quiznos announced that J.P. Morgan Partners, the
private- equity division of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. would
acquire a significant share of Quiznos pursuant to undisclosed
terms.  Since the acquisition, the company has replaced its
chief executive with former Burger King CEO Greg Brenneman.

Almost one year later, in a Feb. 24, 2007 article published in
the New York Times, Mr. Brenneman acknowledged historical
problems with the franchise and vowed to work to correct those
problems.  In that article, Brenneman is quoted as saying, "it
was clear [when he got involved with the company] that food
costs, as a percent of revenue were, quite honestly, out of line
..."

"Management changes are a step in the right direction, but there
is still a lot of work that needs to be done before there can
truly be a synergy between Quiznos and its franchisees, and even
that won't help all of those that have already been damaged,"
concluded Mr. Klein.

For more information, contact Chris Bray, President of Toasted
Subs Franchisee Association, Inc., Phone: +1-254-618-5417; or
Justin Klein, Esq. of Marks & Klein, LLP, Phone: +1-732-747-
7100.


ROHM & HAAS: Penn. Suit Seeks Brain Tumor Monitoring for Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia lawyer Aaron Freiwald is filing a class action to
obtain routine brain tumor testing for Rohm & Haas Co. workers
employed at the company's research center in Spring House,
Montgomery County (Penn.), according to a report by Tom Avril of
The Philadelphia Inquirer.

In 2002, it was found out that at least 10 of more than 5,600
employees had developed brain tumors.  A company doctor later
estimated the tumor rate might be as much as five times normal,
according to documents obtained by The Inquirer.  The cause of
the tumor and extent of the problem is not yet established.

Recently, Mr. Freiwald sought before the Commonwealth Court in
Philadelphia routine tumor screenings for anyone who has worked
at the Spring House, Montgomery County, facility since it opened
in 1963.

He approached the Bureau of Workers' Compensation, which
normally deals with workplace issues, but a class action is
something new to it, so he opted to go to court, according to
the report.

Aaron J. Freiwald is member at Layser & Freiwald, P.C., 1500
Walnut Street, 18th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
(Philadelphia Co.), Phone: 215-875-8000, Fax: 215-875-8575, Web
site: http://www.lflawoffice.com.


SCARBOROUGH GENERAL: Canadian Doctors Face Negligence Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Toronto lawyer is planning a class action after receiving
complaints from 26 women claiming they have suffered physical
injury at the hands of some physicians in Scarborough General
Hospital, CTV.ca reports.

Amani Oakley already filed three negligence lawsuits against Dr.
Richard Austin and several other parties at Scarborough General
Hospital.

Some of the women complained they were subjected to surgeries
without their consent.  The allegations have not been proven in
court.


SERVICEMASTER CO: Shareholders Oppose Sale to Clayton, Dubilier
---------------------------------------------------------------
ServiceMaster Co. is facing three separate class actions filed
in Shelby County courts in late March over the acquisition of
the company by New York-based Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Inc.,
according to Memphis Daily News.

The suits allege inadequate and unfair pricing of publicly owned
shares of ServiceMaster stock in the $5.5 billion acquisition.  
Plaintiffs, who purport to be shareholders of ServiceMaster,
claim the company's acceptance of the price signals a breach of
the company's financial duties to its stockholders.

The company is facing 193 breach of contract complaints in
Shelby County courts during the first quarter of 2007, according
to The Daily News Online.

The sale has been approved by ServiceMaster board of directors.  
Stockholders are expected to vote on the proposed merger at a
special meeting that will be scheduled for some time during the
second quarter.


SHELL OIL: Court Seals Record of Legal Fees in Motiva Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle has sealed records on the award
of a $6.8 million legal fee in the settlement of a class action
over fuel gauge damage caused by tainted gasoline made at Shell-
Motiva refinery, Times Picayune reports.  

In January, Judge Lemelle ordered each of the 79 lawyers in the
case not to reveal how much they were paid or face court
sanction.

Loyola Law School ethics professor Dane Ciolino has asked the
seal lifted.  Mr. Ciolino said the order violates the right of
the lawyers and the public to have access to court records.  In
addition, under Louisiana attorney ethics rule, a client is
entitled to know how his lawyer shares fees with other lawyers.

The Motiva litigation was filed against Shell Oil Co., and
Motiva Enterprises LLC, and others.  It concerns people who used
or bought Motiva gasoline from certain gasoline stations in
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida from May 11, 2004
to June 2, 2004, or through certain fleet storage facilities.

Lawsuits began in May 2004, after it was discovered that certain
batches of Motiva gasoline were sold with some amounts of
elemental sulfur and/or hydrogen sulfide.

Although the total sulfur content was below the applicable
governmental regulations, these particular sulfur compounds can
damage fuel sensors in some models of cars and vehicles causing
gas gauges that measure the fuel level in the vehicle's gas
tank, to break or malfunction.

Soon after the problem emerged, Shell volunteered to fix broken
gauges in tens of thousands of vehicles at a cost of $200 to
$1,000 each, depending on the car model.  Afterwards, Shell
agreed to expand the repair program and provide $3.7 million to
cover general damages, such as lost wages, for plaintiffs who
filed repair claims. T he settlement limited individual payments
for general damages to $150 and $300 for lost wages.

The settlement also called for Shell to provide $6.875 million
to cover attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, $2,000 for each
class representative and $400 for each named plaintiff.

The suit is "In Re: High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products
Liability Litigation (2:04-md-01632-ILRL-KWR)," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under
Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle with referral to Karen Wells Roby.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ben Barnow at Barnow & Associates, PC, 1 North La Salle
         St., Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-621-2000, E-mail:
         b.barnow@barnowlaw.com; and

     (2) Don John W. Barrett at Barrett Law Offices, 404 Court
         Square North, P.O. Drawer 987, Lexington, MS 39095,
         Phone: 662-834-2376.


ST JOSEPH'S: Lawsuit Expected After Superbug MRSA Scare
-------------------------------------------------------
St. Joseph's Hospital in Vegreville, Alberta, Canada could face
a new class action over contaminated scooping equipment,
Edmonton lawyer Philip Tinkler said, according to Edmonton Sun,
Canada.

Mr. Tinkler said a class action was launched in Ontario after a
clinic's failure to sterilize needles left patients exposed to
the risk of hepatitis B.  He expects a legal suit will be filed
after the result of a test is laid down.

The hospital was recently reopened after it was closed to new
admissions as a result of concerns over high incidence of
methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus in the facility and
problems with sterilizing equipment.  

Alberta Health says about 300 people underwent scoping
procedures at the Vegreville hospital and about 80 had biopsies
taken, according to the report.


STATE FARM: Judge Senter Rejects $50M Katrina Claims Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge L.T. Senter Jr. dismissed a case
against State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. that included a proposed
class-action settlement of Katrina claims, according to
SunHerald.com.

Judge Senter rejected a proposed $50 million settlement between
State Farm and attorneys for the Scruggs Katrina Group in the
case, "Dennis R. and S. Imani Woullard, et al. v. State
Farm."  He found that the agreement failed to adequately protect
policyholders' rights.

The settlement is with approximately 36,200 homeowners, rental
and commercial policyholders in the coastal Mississippi counties
of Jackson, Harrison and Hancock.  It is being led by the law
firm of Pascagoula, Mississippi-based attorney Richard F.
Scruggs.

The Scruggs Group independently settled the claims of its 640
clients, including the Woullards, with State Farm on
confidential terms, according to the report.

With regards to Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood's request
to intervene, Judge Senter said he had no opinion on the merit
of Mr. Hood's dispute with State Farm.

Under the settlement, State Farm will pay $50 million to 35,000
State Farm policyholders who have not filed suit or received
payment post-Katrina.  The policyholders are homeowners, rental
and commercial policyholders in the coastal Mississippi counties
of Jackson, Harrison and Hancock.

The case is "Dennis R. and S. Imani Woullard, et al. v. State
Farm, Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-1057-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court of Southern Mississippi.

The Scruggs Law Firm, P.A. -- http://www.scruggskatrinagroup.com
-- is at 120A Courthouse Square, P.O. Box 1136, Oxford,
Mississippi 38655, Phone: 662-281-1212, Fax: 662-281-1312.


TALX CORP: Shareholder Suit Over Equifax Deal Sent to Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
TALX Corp. is facing a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri that alleges
the company, its executives, and directors profited at the
expense of shareholders in selling TALX assets to Equifax, Inc.

The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, under the caption, "Tony Gabriel v. TALX Corp., et al.,
Case No. 07CC-001251."  It was later transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on April 17,
2007.

Aside from TALX, others that were named as defendants in the
suit, are:

      -- William Caufield, TALX's president and chief executive;
      -- Richard Ford, Board Member;
      -- Craig LeBarge, Board Member;
      -- Eugene Toombs, Board Member;
      -- M. Steve Yoakum, Board Member; and
      -- Tony Holcomb, Board Member.

Generally, the purported shareholder class action alleges that
defendants failed to disclose or misrepresented material
information about a contract entered between TALX and the U.S.
Postal Service (USPS), which suppressed TALX stock value in
advance of a planned merger with Equifax.  

Subsidiary to this claim, the suit alleges purported breaches of
fiduciary duty by the defendants in connection with the planned
merger.

The suit plainly alleges a fraudulent scheme that coincides with
the purchase or sale of securities.  In essence, according to
court documents, defendants' purported manipulation of
information about the USPS contract was intended to influence
TALX stock value by deterring the purchases of the security in
advance of the announcement of the planned merger with Equifax.

The suit is essentially seeking damages and rescission of the
Equifax deal.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1d94

The suit is "Gabriel v. TALX Corp. et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-
00738-MLM," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri under Judge Mary Ann L. Medler.

Representing the plaintiff is Michael J. Flannery of Carey &
Danis, 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100, Clayton, MO 63105,
Phone: 314-725-7700, Fax: 314-721-0905, E-mail:
mflannery@careydanis.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Kathryn M. Dornbush of Bryan Cave LLP, 211 N. Broadway,
         Suite 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102-2750, Phone: 314-259-
         2371, Fax: 314-552-8371, E-mail:
         kate.dornbush@bryancave.com; and

     (2) Glenn E. Davis of Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, One
         Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600, St. Louis, MO 63102-
         2740, Phone: 314-621-5070, Fax: 314-612-2241, E-mail:
         gdavis@armstrongteasdale.com.


TENNESSEE: DCEC Sued Over Runoff Election on a Jewish Holiday
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Davidson County Election Commission is facing a purported
federal class action over the scheduling of runoff elections for
Sept. 13, the day of the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah, Ken
Whitehouse of The Nashville Post reports.

Elinor Gregor and Ruth Fagen filed the suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 11, 2007,
challenging the scheduling of runoff elections on the day of
Rosh Hashanah.

Identified as defendants in the litigation, besides the DCEC,
are:

      -- Lynn Greer,
      -- Edward Bryan,
      -- Ana Escobar Burchwell,
      -- A. J. Starling,
      -- Patricia Heim,
      -- Ray Barrett

The civil-rights lawsuit generally asserts that the timing of
the runoff could prevent plaintiffs and other observant Jewish
voters from casting their votes.  

It specifically stated that the scheduling of the election
deprives observant Jews of their rights under the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment, the Free Speech Clause of the
First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment right to Equal
Protection of the Laws.

The suit is seeking both class-action status and an early ruling
from the court.  It also seeks relief under the Tennessee
Constitution.

Rosh Hashanah is a high holy day in the Jewish faith that
literaly translates to "head of the year."  It will signify New
Year's Day of the year 5768 in the Hebrew calendar beginning at
sundown on Sept. 12.  The Torah, the first five books of the
Hebrew bible, refers to the holiday as "The Day of the Blowing
of the Shofar."  A shofar is the horn of a kosher animal.

Along with Yom Kippur, which follows 10 days afterward, Rosh
Hashanah is generally considered among the most important Jewish
holidays.

The suit is "Gregor v. Greer et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00400,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee under Judge Robert Echols with referral to Judge
Juliet E. Griffin.

Representing the plaintiffs is George Edward Barrett of Barrett,
Johnston & Parsley, 217 Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201,
Phone: (615) 244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) C. Dewey Branstetter, Jr. of Branstetter, Stranch &
         Jennings, 227 Second Avenue, N 4th Floor, Nashville, TN
         37201, Phone: (615) 254-8801, E-mail:
         cdbjr@branstetterlaw.com; and

     (2) James W. J. Farrar, Metropolitan Legal Department, P.O.
         Box 196300, Nashville, TN 37219, Phone: (615) 862-6341,
         E-mail: jeff.farrar@nashville.gov.


TEXAS: Former TYC Inmate Sues Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Youth Commission is facing a class action filed by
Joseph Galloway of Crockett, a former inmate who claims he was
molested, beaten and sexually assaulted while under the
commission's custody, reports say.  Other juvenile offenders
across the state have made similar allegations, according to
KTRE 9.

He was released from the youth commission custody on April 5
after serving four years for a nine-month sentence.  

The lawsuit was filed on Mr. Galloway's behalf by the Texas
Civil Rights Project in federal court.  It seeks unspecified
damages and an injunction on behalf of other children in an
effort to prevent further civil rights abuses, according to
KCEN-TV.

Mr. Galloway's attorney is Scott Medlock.


TEXAS: Round Rock Settles Suit Over Arrests of RRHS Students
------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Round Rock Council voted to accept a settlement of a
suit filed by Round Rock High School students over arrests at
immigration protests held in March 2006, 590 KLBJ News Radio.

In the suit, parents of those students charged that both city
and Round Rock Independent School District (RRISD) conspired to
violate their children's rights, according to a report by News 8
Austin (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 28, 2006).

Approximately 200 students were arrested during the rallies
mostly for curfew violations.  Most those cases have been
dismissed.

The students are represented in the case by the Texas Civil
Rights Projects.  Attorneys contend that Round Rock's youth
curfew ordinance cannot be enforced against juveniles
participating in First Amendment activities protected by the
U.S. Constitution.

Under the settlement, Round Rock will dismiss all pending
municipal trials against students, expunge student arrest
records, RRISD will seal disciplinary records.  

About 70 students represented by the Texas Civil Rights Projects
will each receive $100.  Texas Civil Rights Projects will
receive $50,000 in fees and costs.  Each of its client will sign
release of RR and RRISD and each student will attend one of 3
community forums of First Amendment.

The suit is Civil Action No A-06-CA-1000-LY, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin
Division.


TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Junk Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action filed against TorreyPines
Therapeutics, Inc., formerly Axonyx, Inc.

Several lawsuits were filed against the company in February
2005, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
from June 26, 2003 through and including Feb. 4, 2005.

Director and former Axonyx chief executive Dr. M. Hausman, and
Axonyx chief executive Dr. G. Bruinsma, were also named as
defendants in the lawsuits.  These actions were consolidated
into a single class action in January 2006.  

Plaintiffs allege generally that the company's Phase III
Phenserine development program was subject to errors of design
and execution, which resulted in the failure of the first Phase
III Phenserine trial to show efficacy.

They also said that the defendants' failure to disclose the
alleged defects resulted in the artificial inflation of the
price of the company's shares during the class period.

On April 10, 2006, the class action plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  The company filed its answer to that
complaint on May 26, 2006.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was filed on May 26, 2006 and was submitted to the
court for a decision in September 2006.  

The motion to dismiss is pending, according to the company's
March 29 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: Axonyx Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
cv-02307-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Thomas P. Griesa.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Evan Jay Kaufman and 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, Fax: (631) 367-1173, E-mail:
         ekaufman@lerachlaw.com and srudman@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Evan J Smith of Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C., 240 Mineola
         Blvd., Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: 516-741-4977, E-mail:
         esmith@brodsky-smith.com; and

     (3) Darren J. Robbins and William S. Lerach of Milberg
         Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, (San Diego), 401 B
         Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
         e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are May Orenstein and Sigmund
Samuel Wissner-Gross of Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP,
(NYC), Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone: (212) 209-
4800 and 212-209-4930, Fax: 212-938-2804, E-mail:
morenstein@brownrudnick.com and swissnergross@brownrudnick.com.


WELLPOINT INC: Calif. Hospitals Join Suit Over Insurance Terms
--------------------------------------------------------------
The national health law firm of Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc.
filed an amended complaint as the next step in the quest by
California health care providers to stop the alleged practice of
wrongful rescission of individual health insurance policies.

That illegal practice is allegedly being perpetrated by:

     -- Blue Cross of California,
     -- Blue Cross Life and Health, and
     -- their parent company, Wellpoint, Inc.

The amended complaint includes the California Hospital
Association, on behalf of its nearly 450 member hospitals, and
the California Medical Association, on behalf of its 35,000
physician members, as additional plaintiffs to join the class
action complaint that was filed in October 2006.

In October, Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc. filed a class action
complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeking to
expand protection of hospitals statewide from the practice of
retroactively rescinding insurance policy coverage for numerous
patients after the health care services have been provided by
the hospitals (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2006).

The complaint seeks to protect patients, hospitals, and
physicians from Blue Cross' illegal practice of retroactively
rescinding insurance policy coverage for patients after the
health care services have been provided by the providers.

The complaint explains that California law prohibits Blue Cross
from retroactively denying payment after the services have been
provided in good faith.

In December 2006, the law firm filed a motion to intervene,
requesting that the California Medical Association, on behalf of
its more than 30,000 physician members, be permitted to join the
class action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on
behalf of California hospitals (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29,
2006).

"The decision by CHA and CMA to join in the class action
indicates the broad scope of the problem being caused by Blue
Cross' rescission practices.  We believe that Blue Cross has
failed to pay claims worth hundreds of millions of dollars based
on its illegal practices," said Daron Tooch, one of the lead
attorneys in this case.

"Blue Cross' rescissions appear calculated to push providers to
bill and collect from their patients what Blue Cross itself has
an obligation to pay," explained Mr. Tooch.  "This conduct by
Blue Cross is precisely what California law is intended to
prevent."

The Department of Managed Health Care recently determined that
Blue Cross' rescission practices violated the Knox-Keene Act,
and the DMHC levied a $1 million dollar fine against Blue Cross.

"Unfortunately, it appears that Blue Cross' rescission practices
are not isolated to particular providers, but reflect a
systematic practice by Blue Cross to avoid paying for these
claims," explained Glenn Solomon, another one of the lead
attorneys for the lawsuit.

Blue Cross has been the subject of dozens of lawsuits by
patients alleging that Blue Cross routinely looks for after-the-
fact reasons to cancel policies by reviewing previously approved
applications.  The rescissions directly impact the hospitals and
physicians, because they are not being paid for their services,
and instead are being directed by Blue Cross to collect from the
patients.

"The entire health care system is at jeopardy when insurers do
not pay valid claims based on improper rescissions," noted Mr.
Solomon.

"Not only do patients and providers suffer when valid claims go
unpaid, but also rescinded patients are pushed onto the rolls of
the uninsured, which strains limited public resources."

The case is BC360235 (CCW).

For more information, contact Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc., Los
Angeles Daron Tooch, Principal, 310-551-8192 Cell: 310-702-8192
Glenn Solomon, Principal, 310-551-8179 Cell: 310-503-2553,
Website: http://www.health-law.com.


WILBUR-ELLIS: Recalls Contaminated Rice Protein Concentrate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilbur-Ellis Co. is voluntarily recalling all lots of the rice
protein concentrate the San Francisco company's Feed Division
has shipped to pet-food manufacturers because of a risk that
rice protein concentrate may have been contaminated by melamine,
an industrial chemical used to make plastics and fertilizers
that can lead to illness or fatalities in animals if consumed.

Wilbur-Ellis noted that it obtained rice protein from a single
source in China and shipped to a total of five U.S. pet-food
manufacturers located in Utah, N.Y., Kansas and two in Missouri.

On April 15, Wilbur-Ellis notified the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration that a single bag in a recent shipment of rice
protein concentrate from its Chinese supplier, Binzhou Futian
Biology Technology Co. Ltd., had tested positive for melamine.

Unlike the other white-colored bags in that shipment, the bag in
question was pink and had the word "melamine" stenciled upon it.
Wilbur-Ellis separated that bag and quarantined the entire
shipment for further testing and since that time, no further
deliveries of rice protein concentrate have been made.  Samples
from the white bags tested negative for melamine.  However,
subsequent and potentially more sensitive tests by the FDA came
back positive for melamine, leading Wilbur-Ellis to voluntarily
issue the recall.

Wilbur-Ellis began importing rice protein concentrate from
Binzhou Futian Biology Technology in July 2006.  A total of 14
containers holding 336 metric tons of rice protein concentrate
were sent from Futian to Wilbur-Ellis.  Wilbur-Ellis has
distributed 155 metric tons to date.

On April 16, a pet food distributor issued a voluntary recall of
its pet food, believing the source of contamination to be rice
protein concentrate supplied by Wilbur-Ellis.

As an additional precaution, Wilbur-Ellis is urging all pet food
manufacturers using rice protein concentrate supplied through
Wilbur-Ellis to recall any pet food that may be on supermarket
shelves.

Consumers with questions about the pet food they use should
visit the FDA Web site: http://www.fda.gov.


WITNESS SYSTEMS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
Witness Systems, Inc. remains a defendant in a securities class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, according to the company's March 30, 2007
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

An individual claiming to be a stockholder of the company filed
the suit on Aug. 14, 2006, naming the company and certain of its
directors and officers as defendants in connection with certain
stock option grants made by the company.  

The suit, "Rosenberg v. Gould, et al., Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-
1894," generally alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and
seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other costs and
expenses, unspecified extraordinary, equitable and injunctive
relief, and other relief as determined by the court.  

A lead plaintiff has been designated, and the amended complaint
was due on March 26, 2007.

The suit is "Rosenberg v. Gould et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01894-
CC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia under Judge Clarence Cooper.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lauren S. Antonino of Motley Rice, LLC, One Georgia
         Center, Suite 800, 600 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta,
         GA 30308, US, Phone: 404-201-6908, E-mail:
         lantonino@motleyrice.com; and

     (2) Lewis Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, Suite 2150, 650
         Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, US, Phone: 504-
         455-1400, Fax: 504-455-1498.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robin L. Alperstein of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
         Dorr, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-
         937-7262; and

    (ii) John H. Williamson of Morris Manning & Martin, 3343
         Peachtree Road, N.E. 1600 Atlanta Financial Center,
         Atlanta, GA 30326-1044, Phone: 404-233-7000, E-mail:
         jwilliamson@mmmlaw.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


VISEON INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Tex. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm announces that a class action has been
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division, on behalf of purchasers of Viseon,
Inc. (OTCBB:VSNI) common stock during the period between Nov. 3,
2004 and May 15, 2006.

The complaint charges Viseon and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by virtue of the company's issuance of a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
quality and stage of development of the company's Viseon
VisiFone.

The complaint alleges that the company misrepresented that the
products worked and were marketable.  When news that the
products did were not marketable and not being sold to
customers, the price of Viseon stock plummeted.

For more information, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip
Kim, Esq., both of The Rosen Law Firm, Phone: 866-767-3653 (Toll
Free), E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.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  * * *