CAR_Public/070424.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 24, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 80

                            Headlines


AAMES INVESTMENT: Still Faces FCRA Violations Suit in Calif.
AAMES FUNDING: Tex. Suit Over Home Equity Loans Remains Stayed
AAMES HOME: Faces Suit by Former Aames Funding Loan Officer
ACCREDITED HOME: "Cabrejas" Plaintiffs Add SMLL Violation Claims
AK STEEL: 6th Circuit Upholds Court Order in "West" Litigation

AWB LTD: Faces Third Lawsuit Over U.N. "Oil-for-Food" Fraud
BLUE BUFFALO: Recalls Select Kitten Dry Food Containing Melamine
CANADA: Appeals CAD4.6B Award in WWII Veteran's Lawsuit
CHASE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. "Interchange Fee" Lawsuit
CHASE BANK: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Credit Card Business

CNH GLOBAL: Tentative Trial Date Set for ERISA Suit in Mich.
CONAGRA FOODS: Ga. Women File Suit Over Tainted Peanut Butter
COWEN GROUP: Ala. Court Dismisses HealthSouth-Related Complaint
COWEN GROUP: Parties Agree to Dismiss Arbinet-thexchange Lawsuit
DRAXIS HEALTH: Still Faces Ontario Lawsuit Over Permax Drug

FIRST FIDELITY: May 4 Hearing Set for $7.4M CAL Suit Settlement
GUIDA'S MILK: Recalls Lowfat Chocolate After Illness Reports
INDONESIA: Jakarta Residents Sue Gov't in Relation to Feb. Flood
LAKESIDE FARM: Meat Packers Sue for "Wrongful" Terminations
LIBERMAN BROADCASTING: Faces Labor-Related Litigation in Calif.

ONVIA INC: Insurer Appeals Approval of Junk Fax Suit Settlement
OPTION ONE: Still Faces Ill. Suits Over Mortgage Loans, Fees
PET FOOD MANUFACTURERS: Barbi Twins File Suit Over Pet's Death
PHH CORP: Faces Several N.J Lawsuits Alleging Securities Fraud
RHODIA: Seeks Dismissal of "ERISA" Type Litigation in N.Y.

ROYAL CANIN: Recalls Dry Pet Food Products Over Melamine Content
TELEFONICA SA: $260M Suit Against Chilean Unit Certified
TOBACCO LITIGATION: FTCR Files Brief Against Proposition 64
TRANSAIR: Families of Lockhart River Crash Victims to File Suit
TRAVEL COS: Bid to Seal Deposition in Ill. Tax Suit Denied

TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Settles Lawsuit by La. Policyholders
UNITED STATES: EPA May Face Suit Over Kalamazoo River Cleanup
VI-JON INC: Recalls Contaminated Evergreen Forest Body Wash
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Faces N.J. Suit Over Lead-Contaminated Vitamins


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHOICE HOTELS: Schiffrin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Co.
VISEON INC: Vianale & Vianale Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


AAMES INVESTMENT: Still Faces FCRA Violations Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Aames Investment Corp. continues to face a consolidated action
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in
connection with prescreened offers of credit.

In October 2006, by virtue of the merger of Accredited Home
Lenders Holding Co., a Delaware corporation, and Aames
Investment Corp., and the related merger of certain subsidiaries
of LEND and AIC, LEND and certain of its subsidiaries succeeded
to the litigation interests of AIC and certain of its
subsidiaries.

Two of those matters:

     -- "Webb, et al., v. Aames Investment Corp., et al.
        filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of
        California; and

     -- "Cooper, et al., v. Aames Funding Corp.," filed in U.S.
        District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin,

are class action complaints which allege violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act in connection with prescreened offers of
credit.

The Cooper matter was transferred to the Central District of
California and consolidated with the Webb matter by stipulation
of counsel on Sept. 29, 2006.  A motion to certify a class has
not yet been filed, and there has been no ruling on the merits
of either the plaintiffs' individual claims or the claims of the
putative class, according to Accredited Home's March 30 form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Paul Webb v. Aames Investment Corp., et al., Case  
No. 2:05-cv-05140-GPS-SS," filedd under Judge George P.  
Schiavelli with referral under Judge Suzanne H. Segal.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Douglas Bowdoin of Douglas Bowdoin, 255 South Orange   
         Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando, FL 32801, Phone: 407-422-  
         0025, E-mail: ctassi@bowdoinlaw.com;    

     (2) Jonathan Andrews Boynton of Kirby Noonan Lance and   
         Hoge, One America Plaza, 600 West Broadway, Suite 1100,  
         San Diego, CA 92101-3387, Phone: 619-231-8666, Fax:   
         619-231-9593; and   

     (3) Kathleen Clark Knight of James Hoyer Newcomer &  
         Smiljanich, 1 Urban Center, 4830 W Kennedy Blvd., Ste.   
         550, Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100, E-mail:  
         kknight@jameshoyer.com.     

Representing the defendant is Pauline A. Massih of Alschuler   
Grossman Stein & Kahan, Water Garden - North Tower, 1620 26th   
St., 4th Fl., Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060, Phone: 310-907-1000,   
Fax: 310-552-6077.


AAMES FUNDING: Tex. Suit Over Home Equity Loans Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action complaint, "Miller v. Aames Funding Corp."
remains stayed before the U.S. District Court for Eastern
District of Texas.

In October 2006, by virtue of the merger of Accredited Home
Lenders Holding Co., a Delaware corporation, and Aames
Investment Corp., and the related merger of certain subsidiaries
of LEND and AIC, Accredited succeeded to the position of Aames
Funding Corp. in a class action complaint, "Miller v. Aames
Funding Corp.," filed in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Texas.

The complaint alleges that adjustable-rate home equity loans
originated by Aames Funding in Texas violate the Texas
Constitution's requirement that such loans be scheduled to be
repaid in substantially equal installments.  The plaintiffs seek
to recover, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
individuals, damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court may grant.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court on its own motion stayed the
action, pending the resolution of class certification issues in
a similar action pending before the court.

A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed, and there
has been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's
individual claims or the claims of the putative class, according
to Accredited Home's March 30 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The case is docketed as 9:05-cv-00183-TH-KFG.


AAMES HOME: Faces Suit by Former Aames Funding Loan Officer
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint, "Sierra v. Aames Home Loan, was filed
in Superior Court for Los Angeles County, California in December
2006.  

In October 2006, by virtue of the merger of Accredited Home
Lenders Holding Co., a Delaware corporation, and Aames
Investment Corp., and the related merger of certain subsidiaries
of LEND and AIC, Accredited Home has succeeded to the interest
of Aames Home Loan (a trade name of Aames Funding Corp.) in this
lawsuit.

The named plaintiff is a former commissioned loan officer of
Aames Funding, and the complaint alleges that Aames Funding
violated state law by requiring the plaintiff to work overtime
without compensation.   

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees, the allegedly unpaid overtime,
general damages, multiple statutory penalties and interest,
attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

Because the complaint has not yet been served, Accredited has
not filed an answer, according to Accredited Home's March 30
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


ACCREDITED HOME: "Cabrejas" Plaintiffs Add SMLL Violation Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit "Cabrejas v. Accredited Home Lenders,
Inc.," filed a second amended complaint, alleging that
Accredited's origination in Maryland of second lien loans with
balloon payments was a violation of the state's Secondary
Mortgage Loan Law (SMLL).

The suit, originally filed in the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County, Maryland, was served against the company in
March 2006.

The complaint alleges that Accredited's origination of second
lien loans in Maryland violated the SMLL and Consumer Protection
Act in that fees charged on such loans exceeded 10% of the
respective loan amounts.  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals,
damages, disgorgement of fees, pre-judgment interest,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any
other relief the court may grant.

On April 13, 2006, Accredited removed the action to the U.S.
District Court, District of Maryland.  On May 15, 2006,
Accredited filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second cause of
action alleging a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act on the basis that full disclosure of the fees cannot be an
unfair or deceptive trade practice, which motion was granted on
Dec. 4, 2006.

On Jan. 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
alleging that Accredited's origination in Maryland of second
lien loans with balloon payments was also a violation of the
SMLL.  On Jan. 16, 2007, Accredited filed a motion to dismiss
this new claim on the basis that the SMLL's prohibition of
balloon payments was and is preempted by the federal Alternative
Mortgage Transactions Parity Act.

The court has not yet ruled on this motion.  A motion to certify
a class has not yet been filed, and there has been no ruling on
the merits of either the plaintiff's remaining individual claims
or the remaining claims of the putative class, and the ultimate
outcome of this matter and the amount of liability, if any,
which may result is not presently determinable.

The suit is "Cabrejas et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,
Case No. 8:06-cv-00975-AW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland under Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.

Representing the defendant are:

     (1) Kirk D. Jensen at Buckley Kolar LLP, 1250 24th St NW
         Ste 700, Washington, DC 20037, Phone: 12023498000, Fax:
         12023498080, E-mail: kjensen@buckleykolar.com; and

     (2) Brian L. Moffet at Gordon Feinblatt Rothman Hoffberger
         and Hollander LLC, 233 E Redwood St., Baltimore, MD
         21202, Phone: 14105764000, Fax: 14105764246, E-mail:
         bmoffet@gfrlaw.com.

Representing the plaintiff is John A. Pica, Jr., Law Offices of
Peter G Angelos PC, 100 N Charles St 20th Fl, Baltimore, MD
21201, Phone: 14106492000, Fax: 14106492150, E-mail:
johnpica28@hotmail.com.


AK STEEL: 6th Circuit Upholds Court Order in "West" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld a lower
court decision in the class action, "West v. AK Steel
Retirement, et al.," wherein AK Steel Corp. was ordered to pay
more than $46 million to plaintiffs in the case, The Middletown
Journal reports.

John D. West, a former employee originally filed the suit on
Jan. 2, 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

Mr. West is claiming that the method used under the AK Steel
Corp. Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan (AK RAPP) to  
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the  
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and  
resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and the other class  
members.  

In 2005, a federal judge ruled that the company should pay the
retirees $37 million in damages and $9 million in prejudgment
interest, which was upheld in the recent decision by Circuit
Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, one of the panel members of 6th
Circuit.

Previously, Mr. West and the other retirees, who retired before
the age of 65, argued AK Steel should have used the "whipsaw
calculation" to determine lump sum retirement payments,
according to a report by The Middletown Journal.

Congress, in its Pension Protection Act of 2006, removed the
"whipsaw calculation" from employers' methods of determining
lump sum early retirement payments.

The "whipsaw calculation" is a complex calculation by which an
employee would receive what is in his or her cash balance
pension plan account plus "additional interest" the employee may
have earned after his or her quit date up to normal retirement
age, according to the American Academy of Actuaries.

Commenting on the 6th Circuit ruling, Alan McCoy, AK Steel's
vice president of government and public relations told The
Middletown Journal, "We are very disappointed and we will
consider our remaining options."  He adds, "We could appeal in
several fashions."

Mr. McCoy also pointed out, "What is most disturbing is that
Congress was crystal clear in 2006 and said unequivocally that
with the Pension Protection Act of 2006, whipsaw shall not and
may not apply.  And yet the court has essentially ordered us to
do that in violation and contrary to Congress' intent and
clearly against the law of the land."

The suit is "West v. AK Steel Retirement, et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-00001-SSB-TSB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with  
referral to Judge Timothy S. Black.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas R. Theado of Gary, Naegele  
& Theado, LLC, 446 Broadway, Lorain, Ohio 44052, (Lorain Co.),  
Phone: 216-244-4809, Fax: 440-244-3462.

Representing AK Steel is Robert Wick of Covington & Burling,  
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia  
20004-2401, Phone: 202-662-6000, Fax: 202-662-6291.


AWB LTD: Faces Third Lawsuit Over U.N. "Oil-for-Food" Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
AWB Ltd. managing director Gordon Davis said the company is
aware of least three class actions filed against the company in
Australia and the U.S., for alleged fraud over the United
Nation's "Oil for Food Program," the Asia Pulse Businesswire
reports.

Class Action Reporter reported on April 18 that the law firm of
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC filed a $100 million
class action on behalf of American wheat farmers in the U.S.
District Court in New York City against AWB Ltd.  On April 19,
it reported that the law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman
commenced a $25 class action in Federal Court in Sydney on
behalf of John Watson, a retired wheat farmer from Moama on the
Victorian-New South Wales border of shareholders.

In the Asia Pulse article, Mr. Davis said the other action AWB
faces in the U.S. was from six citizens of northern Iraq, who
felt that they were denied access to money from a United
Nation's escrow account.

The Maurice Blackburn suit would, generally, cover those
shareholders who purchased AWB shares on ASX between 11 March
2002 and Jan. 13, 2006 and held some or all of those shares as
at Jan. 13, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2007).

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

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

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

The lawsuits invoke the federal antitrust and civil Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to force AWB and its
U.S. subsidiary to compensate American farmers for the damages
they suffered.  

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

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

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

Plaintiffs in the New York action Benjamin D. Brown of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-
4600 or (888) 347-4600 (Toll Free), Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail:
dschwartz@mediarelationsinc.com.

Plaintiffs in Australia are represented by Ben Slade, Jason
Geisker or Juliana Tang, all of Maurice Blackburn Cashman,
Phone: (02) 9261 1488.


BLUE BUFFALO: Recalls Select Kitten Dry Food Containing Melamine
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Blue Buffalo Co. announces a voluntary recall of one
production run of its Spa Select Kitten dry food.

The recalled 3 lb. and 7 lb. bags of Spa Select Kitten dry food
have the production code "BEST IF USED BY MAR 07 08 B" printed
on the bag.  Consumers should check this information on the bag,
which is printed on the back panel below the seal.

The company has taken this action because the rice protein
concentrate used for this particular production run was obtained
from Wilbur-Ellis, the same company who supplied this ingredient
to Natural Balance.  Test results received the evening of April
18 indicated that this rice protein concentrate tested positive
for melamine.  This was the only production run that used rice
protein from Wilbur-Ellis.

Upon receiving the test results, the company notified the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration and immediately began this recall
process.

Of the 5,044 bags produced in this particular production run,
the company was able to prevent the majority from ever entering
retail distribution.  The company is working closely with its
retail partners and believes that most of the recalled product
that had reached retail distribution has already been pulled off
the shelf.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop feeding Spa Select
Kitten dry cat food with the above-listed date codes to their
kittens and consult with a veterinarian if they have any health
concerns with their pet.

No other cat or dog foods, canned or dry, made by the company
are affected by the recall.

Bill Bishop, chief executive and president of The Blue Buffalo
Co., commented: "As a family owned company whose reason for
being is to provide cats and dogs with the highest quality
natural foods, we are extremely upset by this recall and can't
begin to apologize enough to our customers.  From our
perspective, it is unacceptable to produce even one bag of food
with the potential to cause a pet to become ill, and we will
further tighten our ingredient sourcing and quality assurance
procedures as a result of this incident."

Should consumers have a specific question, they can email the
company: info@bluebuff.com or call 1-800-919-2833, Monday
through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT, to receive more
information.


CANADA: Appeals CAD4.6B Award in WWII Veteran's Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the government are asking the Ontario Court of
Appeal to overturn a CAD4.6 billion award of damages to mentally
disabled war veterans in relation a lawsuit over the management
of retirement funds, The Toronto Star reports.

A class action was brought against Ottawa in 1999 for failing to
invest veteran's money.  The lead plaintiff was Joseph
Authorson, a WWII veteran who developed schizophrenia and died
in 2002.  The suit seeks interest on the money.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the government was within
its rights when it passed a law in 1990 that blocked claims for
unpaid interest.

Justice John Brockenshire in Windsor, however, accepted
argument's by veterans' lawyers that while the high court had
barred any claims for interest, they could seek damages for the
failure to invest the veterans' money.  Two years ago, he
ordered the government to pay damages for its failure to invest
or pay interest on pensions and treatment allowances it managed
on behalf of veterans from the end of WWI to 1990.

In arguments before the appeals court last week, federal lawyers
accused Judge Brockenshire of ignoring the Supreme Court's
ruling.  They also said Judge Brockenshire computed the CAD4.6
billion by relying on investment techniques that weren't in use
in Canada at the time.

Lawyer William Knights of Toronto argued for the government.


CHASE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. "Interchange Fee" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated antitrust class action
over "interchange fees" that names Chase Bank USA, N.A., as one
of the defendants.

On June 22, 2005, a group of merchants filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The complaint alleges that VISA, MasterCard and certain member
banks including Bank of America, Chase Bank, Capital One,
Citibank and others, as well as unnamed people and entities,
conspired to set the price of interchange in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The complaint further alleges tying/bundling and exclusive
dealing.  Since the filing of the Connecticut complaint, other
complaints have been filed in different U.S. District Courts
challenging the setting of interchange, as well the
associations' respective rules.

To date, eight of the cases, two filed in the Southern District
of New York, four in the Eastern District of New York, one filed
in the Central District of California and one filed in South
Carolina, have named Chase Bank, as a defendant.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
cases in the Eastern District of New York for pretrial
proceedings (except for the South Carolina case which was
recently filed and has not yet been brought to the Panel's
attention).

The plaintiffs in those cases that were consolidated in the
Eastern District of New York filed an amended consolidated
complaint on April 24, 2006.  The consolidated amended complaint
added claims relating to off line debit transactions.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss all claims that pre-
date Jan. 1, 2004.  The motion has not yet been decided.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a supplemental complaint
challenging MasterCard's initial public offering in 2006,
alleging that the offering violates the Section 7 of the Clayton
Act and that the offering was a fraudulent conveyance.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss both of those claims.  The
motion has not yet been decided.  Discovery is ongoing,
according to Chase Bank's March 30, 2007 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.  


CHASE BANK: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Credit Card Business
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Bank USA, N.A., was named defendant in a number of
lawsuits seeking class-action certification from both state and
federal courts.

These lawsuits challenge certain policies and practices of Chase
Bank's credit card business.  A few of these lawsuits have been
conditionally certified as class actions.  

Chase Bank has defended itself against claims in the past and
intends to continue to do so in the future, according to Chase
Bank's March 30, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  


CNH GLOBAL: Tentative Trial Date Set for ERISA Suit in Mich.
------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative September or October trial is set for a purported
class action, "Gladys Yolton, et al. v. El Paso Tennessee
Pipeline Co., and Case Corp."

In December, 2002, six individuals acting on behalf of a
purported class filed the lawsuit as a class action, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against:

     -- El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Co., formerly Tenneco Inc.;
        and
     -- Case, LLC, now known as CNH America LLC, a unit of CNH
        Global N.V.

The lawsuit alleged breach of contract and violations of various
provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
Labor Management Relations Act arising due to alleged changes in
health insurance benefits provided to employees of the Tenneco
Inc. agriculture and construction equipment business who retired
before selected assets from that business were transferred to
Case in June, 1994.

El Paso administers the health insurance programs for these
employees.  An agreement had been reached with the UAW capping
the premium amounts that El Paso would be required to pay.  Any
amount above the cap limit would be the responsibility of the
retirees.

The lawsuit arose after El Paso notified the retired employees
that the employees had reached the cap limits and would be
required to pay the premiums above the cap amounts.  

Plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction in
March 2003, asking the court to order El Paso and/or Case to pay
the above-cap amounts.

On Dec. 31, 2003, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction, ordering El Paso to resume paying the
full costs of health insurance benefits for retirees (and
surviving spouses) who retired prior to Oct. 3, 1993.

The court also stated that Case might be secondarily liable for
these costs.  On March 9, 2004, in response to El Paso's motion
for reconsideration, the court reversed itself and held that
Case was primarily liable and ordered that Case pay the above-
cap health insurance benefits.

Case filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for stay,
both of which the court denied on June 3, 2004.  Case and El
Paso appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 6th Circuit, but
it affirmed the trial court.

El Paso filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review
by the U.S. Supreme Court of the vesting issue, and Case sought
review of the alter ego ruling, as well as the vesting issue.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied El Paso's and
Case's petitions.  The matter now returns to the trial court.
Trial is set for either September or October 2007, according to
CNH Global N.V.'s March 30, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.  

CNH Global N.V. on the Net: http://www.cnh.com/.


CONAGRA FOODS: Ga. Women File Suit Over Tainted Peanut Butter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three Bartow County women filed a lawsuit seeking class-action
status in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia against ConAgra Foods Inc. over salmonella-contaminated
peanut butter, the Rome News-Tribune reports.

Plaintiffs Jacqueline Blasengame, Annette Adcock and Danica
Willerson all claim different levels of illness caused by what
the suit calls the negligence of ConAgra.

The three women allege that Nebraska-based ConAgra distributed
contaminated peanut butter that caused them to seek medical
treatment, miss work and be hospitalized.  They are demanding
damages for medical expenses, lost wages, emotional distress and
pain and suffering.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said it is conducting
an extensive investigation of ConAgra's now-closed plant in
Sylvester, Georgia, where samples collected revealed the
presence of salmonella.

According to the FDA, tests in several states identified
salmonella in many open jars of ConAgra-made Peter Pan and Great
Value peanut butter recovered from consumers.  Close to 400
confirmed cases of illness have been linked to the product in 42
states, officials said.

The suit is "Blasengame et al. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., Case No.
4:07-cv-00074-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Harold L. Murphy.

Representing plaintiffs is Bryan Neil Cigelske of McCain Law
Firm, 324 East Main Street, Cartersville, GA 30120, Phone: 770-
382-4440, Fax: 770-382-5051, E-mail: bryan@mccainlaw.com.


COWEN GROUP: Ala. Court Dismisses HealthSouth-Related Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has
dismissed the only claim against a predecessor of Cowen Group,
Inc. in a class action against HealthSouth Corp. over private
placements.

The company was named as defendant in a purported class action
over the involvement of the predecessor of Cowen as one of the
managing underwriters for certain HealthSouth private
placements.

The complaint alleges that the offering materials for each
private placement were deficient, in violation of federal
securities laws, by failing to disclose HealthSouth's
subsequently revealed accounting irregularities.

The predecessor company to Cowen participated as an "initial
purchaser" in only one of the private placements at issue -- the
March 1998 private placement of $567.75 million principal amount
of 31.4% Convertible Subordinated Debentures due 2003.

On June 8, 2006, the district court, among other things,
dismissed the claims arising out of the March 1998 private
placement -- the only claims against Cowen.  

On Aug. 21, 2006, following plaintiffs' subsequent submission of
amendments to the complaint, the district court so-ordered a
stipulation and order dismissing all amended counts against the
company.

The dismissal is not yet a "final" judgment from which
plaintiffs may take an appeal, 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.  

Cowen Group, Inc. on the Net: http://www.cowen.com/.


COWEN GROUP: Parties Agree to Dismiss Arbinet-thexchange Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit, "In re Arbinet-thexchange, Inc.
Securities Litigation," which names Cowen Group, Inc. as one of
the defendants, agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice.  

The company is one of several named defendants in a putative
securities class action filed by plaintiffs seeking to recover
losses allegedly caused by misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with the December 2004 initial public offering of
Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., an electronic marketplace for trading,
routing and settling telecommunications capacity.

The lawsuit alleges that these misrepresentations and omissions
inflated the price of Arbinet's securities and that following
disclosure in May and June 2005 of the true state of Arbinet's
market and its business, Arbinet's securities lost more than 60%
of their value.

The defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint and, on Dec. 22, 2006, the court granted
defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint in its entirety,
but granting leave to re-plead.

By stipulation and order dated Jan. 22, 2007, plaintiffs agreed
that the case should be dismissed with prejudice, each side to
bear its own costs.  

Accordingly, the case now has been fully resolved in the
company's favor, 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.  

The suit is "In re Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 05-CV-04444-JLL_RJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Jose
L. Linares with referral to Judge Ronald Hedges.  

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;
         and

     (2) J. Erik Sandstedt of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
         Grossmann, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
         NY 10019, Phone: (212) 554-1495, E-mail:
         erik@blbglaw.com.


DRAXIS HEALTH: Still Faces Ontario Lawsuit Over Permax Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
Draxis Health, Inc. continues to face a purported class action
filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario with regards
to the drug, Permax.

On July 22, 2005, the company announced that, together with
other defendants, it had received a Statement of Claim filed
alleging that Permax, a drug that the company distributed in
Canada for a third party manufacturer prior to July 2003, causes
"compulsive/obsessive behaviour, including pathological
gambling."  

The plaintiff is seeking to have this case certified as a class
action.  

The company believes this claim against it is without merit and,
thus it intends to vigorously defend this proceeding and any
motion for certification.  

Prior to July 2003, Permax was distributed in Canada by DRAXIS
Pharmaceutica, its Canadian pharmaceutical sales and marketing
division.  

In July 2003, the company sold the DRAXIS Pharmaceutica division
to Shire.   As of Dec. 31, 2006, there have been no developments
in this action, according to the company's March 30, 2007 Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

Draxis Health, Inc. on the Net: http://www.draxis.com/.


FIRST FIDELITY: May 4 Hearing Set for $7.4M CAL Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on May 4, 2007 at 11:30 a.m. for
the proposed $7.4 million settlement of a suit filed on behalf
of holders of Continental Airlines, Inc. first priority secured
equipment certificates.

The hearing will be held before Judge Denise Cote of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, at the
U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 11B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New
York.

Exclusions from the settlement were due March 30, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons or entities who are or were
holders of Continental Airlines, Inc. first priority secured
equipment certificates at any time from the commencement of
Continental's Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on Dec. 3, 1990 to the
present.

Generally, the complaint alleges that defendants violated their
obligations under 15 U.S.C. Section 77ooo(c) of the Trust
Indenture Act of 1939, breached their fiduciary duties to the
Certificate holders, breached their contractual duties under the
Indenture and were negligent.  

The suit is "The Dresner Co. Profit Sharing Plan and Leon Meyers
v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A., New Jersey, Midlantic National
Bank, Nationsbank of Tennessee, N.A., and Constellationbank,
Case No. 95 Civ. 1924 (DLC)."

For more details, visit Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212)
545-4600, E-mail: continentalcs@whafh.com, Web site:
http://www.whafh.com/continentalcertificatesettlement.


GUIDA'S MILK: Recalls Lowfat Chocolate After Illness Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Guida's Milk & Ice Cream of New Britain, Connecticut, in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is
conducting a voluntary recall of Guida Label Lowfat Chocolate
(1/2% Milkfat) half-pints (product code 138) with sell date of
APR 13.

The products are being recalled because they may contain a
presence of food grade sanitizer containing less than 1%
phosphoric acid, acetic acid, nitric acid, and organic acids
which may cause a burning sensation in the mouth, stomach ache,
nausea and dizziness.

Approximately 17,750 half-pints were distributed primarily to
schools, some hospitals and retail accounts in New York,
Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

The issue was a result of human error in not following the
company's standard operating procedures.

Guida's has taken the necessary corrective action to prevent
this from occurring again.

The company has received several reports of children
experiencing illness (stomach ache, nausea) after drinking the
product.

Consumers that have the product should not consume it and return
it to the store and/or distributor.

Customers with questions may contact Guida's Dairy at 800-832-
8929 ext. 550 or visit the company's website:
http://www.supercow.com/product_recall_info.html.


INDONESIA: Jakarta Residents Sue Gov't in Relation to Feb. Flood
----------------------------------------------------------------
A first hearing on a suit filed by Jakarta residents against the
government over flooding that hit the city in February was held
on April 19, according to The Jakarta Post.

The hearing before the Central Jakarta District Court was
adjourned for a week after representatives for the mayors of
East and West Jakarta failed to turn up, the report said.

Ten flood victims filed the suit accusing the city's governor
the mayors of its five municipalities of failing to properly
manage the flooding.  They are demanding IDR533 million
($58,554).

Outside the court, more than 200 flood victims from 25
subdistricts in Jakarta rallied to support plaintiffs in the
suit.  

Nurkholis Hidayat is legal advisor to the plaintiffs.


LAKESIDE FARM: Meat Packers Sue for "Wrongful" Terminations
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Docken and Co. filed an Alberta-wide class action
on behalf of former workers of Lakeside Farm Industries Ltd.,
alleging human rights abuses and wrongful dismissals leading up
to their unionization, the Canadian Press reports.

Kerry Williamson of The Calgary Herald said the suit comes 18
months after the end of a bitter three-week strike at the
Lakeside Packers plant that saw almost half the workforce --
about 1,000 people -- walk off the job.

The complaint claims that leading up to the unionization of
workers at the plant in late August 2004, several human rights
complaints were filed against Lakeside.  They include claims
that workers were fired for getting injured on the job, or for
forming an employee committee.

Former workers at the Lakeside Farm -- which does business as
Lakeside Packers and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods
Inc. -- claim they were wrongfully fired between April 2004 and
April 2006 for bringing up human rights violations, such as
discrimination, racism and violence (Class Action Reporter, Apr.
20, 2007).

"The allegation in the claim is that there were in excess of 50
individuals at the plant who were terminated wrongfully because
of health or safety concerns that they were raising," said
lawyer Clint Docken.

Libby Lawson, a spokeswoman for Arkansas-based Tyson Foods told
Ms. Williamson the company was unaware of the lawsuit.

On the Net: http://www.lakesidepackers.com/.

Plaintiffs' counsel, Clint Docken, is with Docken & Co., 900,800
- 6th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G3, Phone: (403) 269-
3612, Fax: (403) 269-8246, E-mail: cgd@docken.com, Website:
http://www.docken.com.


LIBERMAN BROADCASTING: Faces Labor-Related Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberman Broadcasting of California LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary LBI Media Holdings, Inc., was named as a defendant in
a purported class action alleging labor-related violations.

Nine former employees of the Liberman Broadcasting of California
LLC (successor in interest to Liberman Broadcasting, Inc.), a
California limited liability company, filed suit in Los Angeles
Superior Court.

The suit is alleging claims on their own behalf and also on
behalf of a purported class of former and current Liberman
Broadcasting of California employees.

It alleges, among other things, wage and hour violations
relating to overtime pay, and wrongful termination and unfair
competition under California Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified general, treble
and punitive damages, as well as profit disgorgement,
restitution and attorneys' fees.

Liberman Broadcasting of California has filed its answer to the
complaint, generally denying plaintiffs' claims and allegations.
The plaintiffs have begun conducting discovery and have filed a
motion for class certification, according to LBI Media's March
29, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  


ONVIA INC: Insurer Appeals Approval of Junk Fax Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., the commercial insurer
of Onvia, Inc. appealed the final approval of a settlement of a
purported class action filed against the company in the King
County Superior Court in Washington.

On Feb. 3, 2005, Responsive Management Systems filed a lawsuit
against Onvia, Inc. in King County, Washington.  The complaint
alleged that Onvia had sent unsolicited facsimiles to recipients
in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
Washington's facsimile law, and the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.

It sought injunctive relief as well as incidental statutory
damages allowed under the federal and Washington facsimile laws
on behalf of the plaintiff and each member of the proposed class
who received a facsimile in 2001-2004.

The company sends facsimiles to customers with whom it has an
existing business relationship, or to vendors with whom its
agency partners have an existing relationship.

The parties reached a settlement on April 28, 2006, which was
preliminarily approved by the court on July 13, 2006.  Under the
settlement agreement, Onvia has no liability, but Onvia has
agreed to assign its rights and claims under its general
commercial liability insurance to the plaintiff class.

The company received final court approval on the settlement
agreement on Nov. 19, 2006.  Onvia's commercial insurance
company St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. appealed the
final court approval of the settlement.  

The outcome of the appeal will not impact Onvia's release under
the settlement agreement, according to its March 30, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

Onvia, Inc. on the Net: http://www.onvia.com/.


OPTION ONE: Still Faces Ill. Suits Over Mortgage Loans, Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Option One Mortgage Corp. continues to face class actions in the
3rd Judicial Circuit Court in Madison County, Illinois and in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department,
Chancery Division in relation to its mortgage loans.

In July 2004, Option One Mortgage was served with a class action
complaint filed by Larry and Brandi Freitag in the 3rd Judicial
Circuit Court in Madison County, Illinois.

The complaint alleges breach of contract, or in the alternative
unjust enrichment, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  Specifically, the
plaintiffs allege that Option One Mortgage improperly retained
an extra day of per diem interest on residential mortgage loans
by charging per diem interest up to and including the date of
payoff.

The class is defined as all persons in the U.S. who paid
interest on or after the day of payoff and who did not receive a
refund from Option One Mortgage of the interest charged on or
after the day of payoff.  

This action is one of several actions filed earlier against
other lenders by the same attorneys on a similar basis in the
same court.  In one such action, the court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of
defendant's violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.  

Plaintiffs have agreed to settle their individual claims;
plaintiffs' counsel has a motion pending to continue prosecution
of the class action.  Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to
substitute Larry and Pamela Smith as plaintiffs, which was
granted.  Option One Mortgage filed a motion to compel
arbitration.  

In a similar action before the same judge in the 3rd Judicial
Circuit Court in Madison County, Illinois, the Court ruled in
favor of the defendants on the underlying per diem interest
claim.

On Jan. 31, 2006, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
County Department, Chancery Division, certified a nationwide
class action against Option One Mortgage on a complaint brought
by Erin and Earl Austria, in which the Austria's allege that
Option One impermissibly assessed them a reconveyance fee and
authorized the assessment of a title indemnity fee on certain
mortgage loans that have been paid-in-full.  The Court has
granted Option One's motion for an interlocutory appeal of the
order of class certification.


PET FOOD MANUFACTURERS: Barbi Twins File Suit Over Pet's Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pin-up models Sia and Shane Barbi filed a class action against
pet food manufacturers alleging products sold by the companies
killed their cat, TMZ.com reports.

Named defendants in the lawsuit are:

     -- Nestle Purina,
     -- Nutro Products, Inc.,
     -- Del Monte Foods Co. and
     -- Menu Foods, Inc.

All of these pet food manufacturers were the subject of a recent
nationwide recall.

Nestle Purina recalled certain Alpo and Mighty Dog brand
products in March after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
linked pet illnesses to pet foods containing contaminated wheat
gluten from China (Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2007).

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. (Class
Action Reporter, March 23, 2007).

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

Earlier, Del Monte Pet Products voluntarily recalled select
product codes of its pet treat products sold under the Jerky
Treats, Gravy Train Beef Sticks and Pounce Meaty Morsels brands
as well as select dog snack and wet dog food products sold under
private label brands (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 10, 2007).

The company took this voluntary recall action immediately after
learning from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that wheat
gluten supplied to Del Monte Pet Products from a specific
manufacturing facility in China contained melamine.

To see complete list of recalled products:
http://www.delmonte.com/petfoodrecall.html

The Barbi Twins claim their beloved pet Dearest died after
eating contaminated pet food, the report said.

They are asking for unspecified damages to cover veterinary
bills, attorneys' fees and other costs, including burial and
disposal costs.

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.

Veterinarians recommend that all animals known to have ingested
recalled pet foods be examined immediately.


PHH CORP: Faces Several N.J Lawsuits Alleging Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
PHH Corp. is facing several purported securities fraud class
actions that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, according to the company's March 31,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

In March and April 2006, several class actions were filed
against the company, its chief executive officer and its former
chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
persons who purchased the company's common stock during certain
time periods beginning March 15, 2005 in one case and May 12,
2005 in the other cases and ending March 1, 2006.  

They allege, among other things, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

The first identified complaint is "Monica Salim, et al. v. PHH
Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-01302," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100,
         Dallas, TX, 75219, Phone: 1800-946-9646, E-mail:
         info@baronandbudd.com;

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610-660-0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

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

     (4) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

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

     (6) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York) of One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

     (7) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800-797-5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

     (8) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; and
   
     (9) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.


RHODIA: Seeks Dismissal of "ERISA" Type Litigation in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Rhodia S.A., a French global manufacturer of a range of
specialty chemical and other products, is seeking the dismissal
of several purported class actions filed in New York federal
court, which are alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.  

Since April 7, 2005, various complaints have been filed by the
company's shareholders, including certain "ERISA" type
litigation filed by company employees, against the company as
well as certain of its directors and senior management in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On Oct. 21, 2005, the U.S. judicial panel on multidistrict
litigation decided to regroup all the pending litigation, which
was then transferred to the U.S. federal court for the Southern
District of New York as one lawsuit.

It was specified nevertheless that the same court in parallel
due to its particularity would judge the "ERISA" type
litigation.  

The plaintiffs have generally alleged that between April 26,
2001 and March 23, 2004 or March 24, 2005, depending on the
plaintiff, certain provisions of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Acts of 1933 and 1934 were violated, notably in terms of
financial communication.  

The certification proceeding has begun and may lead to a
consolidated class action.  On Sept. 28, 2006, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, aiming to reinforce their case.

Following this complaint, the company filed on Nov. 28, 2006, a
motion to dismiss for "forum non conveniens" on various
procedural grounds, according to Rhodia's March 30, 2007 Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

Rhodia on the Net: http://www.rhodia.com/us/home_tunel.asp.


ROYAL CANIN: Recalls Dry Pet Food Products Over Melamine Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Canin U.S.A. has determined there is a melamine derivative
in the rice protein concentrate in some of its dry pet food
products.

Although Royal Canin USA has no confirmed cases of illness in
pets, the company has decided to voluntarily remove all of their
dry pet food products containing rice protein concentrate.  It
is taking this proactive stance to avoid any confusion for their
customers about which Royal Canin USA products are safe and
which products may be affected.

"We are as passionate about the health and happiness of our
customers' pets as we are of our own, so we are committed to
taking the steps necessary to ensure this never happens again,"
said Olivier Amice, President and CEO of Royal Canin USA.

As a precaution, Royal Canin USA is voluntarily recalling the
following dry pet food products:

     -- Royal Canin Veterinary Diet (available only in
        veterinary clinics)
        
        Dry Dog Food

             -- Canine Early Cardiac EC 22,
             -- Canine Skin Support SS21

        Dry Cat Food

             -- Feline Hypoallergenic HP23

     -- Royal Canin Sensible Choice (available in pet specialty
        stores nationwide)

        Dry Dog Food

             -- Chicken Meal & Rice Formula Senior,
             -- Lamb Meal & Rice Formula Puppy,
             -- Lamb Meal & Rice Formula Adult,
             -- Lamb Meal & Rice Formula Senior,
             -- Rice & Catfish Meal Formula Adult,

Based on this announcement, pet owners are advised to
immediately stop feeding their pets the Royal Canin USA dry pet
food products listed above.

Pet owners should consult with a veterinarian if they are
concerned about the health of their pet.

No other Royal Canin diets are affected by this recall and
continue to be safe for pets to eat.

Along with this announcement, Royal Canin USA will no longer use
any Chinese suppliers for any of their vegetable proteins.

"On behalf of the entire Royal Canin family, our hearts go out
to the pet owners and everyone in the pet community who have
been affected by all of the recent recalls," said Dr. Denise
Elliott, Director of Scientific Affairs for Royal Canin USA.  
"We are working very closely with the FDA to assist in its
efforts to determine the cause of this most recent and
disturbing development."

The safety and nutritional quality of the company's pet food is
Royal Canin USA's top priority as the company understands that
the health of pets comes first.

All Royal Canin USA products have a satisfaction guarantee and
the company will refund or replace the diets that have been
recalled.

Pet owners who have questions about this recall and other Royal
Canin USA products should call 1-800-592-6687 or visit the
company's web site: http://www.royalcanin.us.


TELEFONICA SA: $260M Suit Against Chilean Unit Certified
--------------------------------------------------------
Business News Americas reported that a Chilean court has
admitted a class action against mobile operator Movistar, a unit
of Spain's Telefonica S.A., over alleged service quality
failures.

The class would include all of Movistar's 5.7 million users at
the end of 2006.

In August 2006, Jaime Mullet led a group of Chilean
parliamentarians in filing a suit claiming Movistar is
responsible for service failures and consequently should pay
compensation to all affected users.  The group is seeking US$260
million in damages.

The government officials believe Movistar could have prevented
the service failures.

Telefonica, S.A. (NYSE: TEF) is the telecommunications "jefe"
among Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking populations worldwide.
Through Telefonica de Espana, the company is the leading fixed-
line operator in Spain with more than 16 million lines in
service.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: FTCR Files Brief Against Proposition 64
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nonprofit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights filed a
"friend of the court" brief challenging the tobacco industry's
attempt to invoke the initiative, Proposition 64.

The tobacco industry is arguing that a ballot initiative
promoted as a law to stop "shakedown" lawsuits against small
businesses should also allow cigarette makers to get away with
lying about the health effects of smoking and marketing
cigarettes to children, according to a statement by FTCR.

In a "friend of the court" brief filed with the California
Supreme Court on March 27, FTCR challenged the industry's
attempt to invoke the initiative, Proposition 64, to further
curtail consumers' ability to stop unfair and misleading
business practices under California's unfair competition law.

                      Statement by the FTCR

The "In re Tobacco II Cases" charge the tobacco industry,
including Phillip Morris, a $200,000 donor to Prop 64, with
denying or disputing the health hazards and addictiveness of
cigarette smoking and targeting minors with tobacco
advertisements.  If the industry wins, Tobacco II would allow
other companies to deceive the public through false and
misleading advertisements because consumers will have lost their
right to hold them accountable.

Proponents of Prop 64 told voters that the initiative would stop
frivolous suits against small businesses and protect legitimate
public interest cases.  However, large donors to the initiative
are now using the measure to dismiss legitimate unfair
competition lawsuits filed against them.

"Voters did not pass Prop 64 so that Phillip Morris could avoid
accountability for marketing tobacco to kids and lying about the
health dangers of cigarettes," said Carmen Balber, consumer
advocate with FTCR.  "Big tobacco's courtroom arguments that the
initiative was meant to protect cigarette makers and other
companies that mislead the public shows that Prop 64 was a fraud
sold to the voters as reform."

The tobacco industry argues in Tobacco II that all members of a
class action must meet the standing requirements that
Proposition 64 only imposed on the representative plaintiff, a
rule that would severely restrict the ability of consumers to
bring class actions under the unfair competition law.  Big
tobacco's interpretation of Proposition 64 imposes requirements
that the voters did not enact.

Companies also seek to weaken the unfair competition law's false
advertising protections.  Before Prop 64, a plaintiff had to
prove that a misleading advertisement was likely to deceive the
public.  The tobacco companies claim that Prop 64 added tougher
requirements to prove a company's false advertising, limiting
the types of activities prohibited under the law.

FTCR's friend of the court brief challenges these industry
claims as both unfaithful to the language of Proposition 64 and
in obvious conflict with the intent of the voters.  Voters
agreed to limit so-called "shakedown" lawsuits, not cases that
protect the public from unfair and illegal activities by large
corporations.

The unfair competition law has enabled members of the public to
eliminate unfair business practices that could not have been
otherwise assailed.  If industry succeeds in hijacking Prop 64
for its own purposes, past consumer protection successes will
not be possible, including cases:

    -- forcing pest control companies to stop using misleading
       and illegal ads claiming termite services were "safe for
       children and pets" and "environmentally friendly"
       (CalPIRG v. Unibid);

    -- ending false claims by refrigerator manufacturers that
       their products are good for the environment when in fact
       they contribute to ozone depletion and global warming
       (Ozone Action v. Amana);

    -- preventing the sale of cigarettes to minors (Stop Youth
       Addiction v. Lucky Stores); and

    -- requiring dairies to stop falsely claiming that raw milk
       is as safe as pasteurized milk and warn consumers of its
       dangers (Consumers Union v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy).

Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights contact: Carmen
Balber, Phone: +1-310-392-0522 ext. 324, or Pamela Pressley,
Phone: +1-310-392-0522, ext. 307.  On the Net:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org.


TRANSAIR: Families of Lockhart River Crash Victims to File Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the 15 families whose relatives died when a TransAir-
operated plane crashed in the Lockhart River in Cape York
Peninsula in Queensland, Australia in 2005 plan to file a
multimillion-dollar class action against the Civil Aviation
Safety Authority and the airline, Courier Mail reports.

Brisbane-based TransAir operated the Metroliner that crashed in
May 2005, killing all 15 people aboard, including seven Injinoo
and Bamaga community members.

The findings of a two-year Australian Transport Safety Bureau
investigation into the disaster showed pilot error and poor
maintenance for the tragedy, as well as fault on the part of
CASA.  It found that the airline failed to report 25 safety
incidents between July 2003 and May 2005 and that CASA conducted
no special audits or spot checks on TransAir between 1999 and
the time of the crash.

Lawyer Simon Harrison, a partner at Nicol Robinson Halletts,
said he was representing two families who would seek damages of
between AUD800,000 and AUD1.2 million per victim, according to
the report.  The suit will be filed in Brisbane Supreme Court.


TRAVEL COS: Bid to Seal Deposition in Ill. Tax Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson denied a motion by an
attorney of Fairview Heights to seal a deposition of the city
mayor in a lawsuit filed by the city against travel companies
over hotel occupancy taxes, The St. Clair Record reports.

Mayor Gail Mitchell was secretly deposed on March 9 in a suit
filed by Fairview Heights against Orbitz, Hotels.com, Hotwire,
Cendant Travel, Expedia, Lodging.com, Lowest Fare.com,
Maupintour, Priceline.com, Site 59.com, Travelocity, Travelweb
and Travelnow.com.

On the same day, city attorney Kevin Hoerner filed a motion for
protective order.  He amended the motion on March 13.

Defense attorney Robert Shultz of Edwardsville opposed the
motion for protective order on March 21, saying "Mayor Mitchell
desperately wants to bury his testimony during his public
election run..."

On April 9, Mr. Hoerner appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge
Donald Wilkerson, to argue for secrecy.  He admitted that the
deposition would embarrass Mayor Mitchell and influence the
election.  The testimony remained closed on April 11, six days
before the election, according to the report.

Judge Wilkerson on that day denied Mr. Hoerner's request to
protect the entire deposition.  

"Although the public may or may not have any interest in
learning the details of Mayor Mitchell's involvement in the
instant lawsuit, it nonetheless is an interest not to be lightly
regarded, regardless of the subjective motivations of the
Defendants in bringing it to the Court's attention," the judge
wrote.

Mr. Hoerner has objected and appealed to U.S. District Judge
David Herndon.

                        Case Background

On Oct. 5, 2005, the city of Fairview Heights filed a purported
state wide class action, "City of Fairview Heights et al. v.
Orbitz, Inc., et al., No. 05L0576" in the Circuit Court  
for the 20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County against a  
number of internet travel companies, including Hotels.com,  
Hotwire and Expedia Washington, a Washington corporation and  
wholly-owned subsidiary of Expedia Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to  
the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal  
ordinance.  The complaint purports to assert claims for  
violation of that ordinance, violation of the consumer  
protection act, conversion and unjust enrichment.  The complaint  
seeks damages and other relief in an unspecified amount.  

On Nov. 28, 2005, defendants removed this action to the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The suit is "City of Fairview Heights et al. v. Orbitz, Inc., et
al., No. 05L0576," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois under Judge David R. Herndon.

Robert H. Shultz, Jr. is partner at Heyl, Royster, Voelker &
Allen, Professional Corp., Suite 100, Mark Twain Plaza II, 103
West Vandalia Street, P.O. Box 467, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025
(Madison Co.), Phone: 618-656-4646, Telecopier: 618-656-7940.


TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Settles Lawsuit by La. Policyholders
---------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Insurance Co. withdrew on March 29 a motion to dismiss
a suit filed by New Orleans policyholders, and said it had
reached an agreement with the lead plaintiff in the suit,
BestWire Services reports.

Plaintiffs in the suit are seeking additional remuneration to
repair storm-damaged properties.  Travelers Insurance argued
that when policyholders assigned future insurance proceeds to
the U.S. Small Business Administration in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, it loses the right to pursue a case in court
for additional money needed to repair insured damage.  

SBA had said the assignment of insurance proceeds is simply
standard procedure designed to ensure that any net insurance
recovery is used toward the loan, and was not an assignment of
the right to sue.

On March 29, the company said it had reached an agreement with
the lead plaintiff that would allow any future settlement to be
paid jointly to the policyholder and the SBA.


UNITED STATES: EPA May Face Suit Over Kalamazoo River Cleanup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Residents near a landfill at Kalamazoo, Michigan are planning to
file a class action against the Environmental Protection Agency
and two paper chemical companies, reports say.

A cleanup of the Kalamazoo River near Plainwell, from which two
tons of polychlorinated biphenyls will be dredged and dumped in
the Allied Paper Inc. landfill, the site north of Cork Street
between Burdick and Portage Roads, is set to begin next month.  
Georgia-Pacific and Millennium Holdings agreed to perform the
$21 million cleanup of the Plainwell Impoundment Area, including
a portion of the Plainwell Dam.

Residents are worried that toxic substances from the landfill
would contaminate a nearby source of water supply, according to
a report by WOOD-TV.

There may not be a federal permit for the disposal of toxic
wastes at the Allied Paper landfill, but because the site
exceeds every federal disposal regulation for landfills in which
PCBs may be disposed, its approval as the proposed dumping site
is likely to stand, according to a report by Chris Killian of
the Kalamazoo Gazette.

The city is seeking for an attorney that could represent
homeowners in the suit, and an anonymous donor has already
pledged to fund the case, City Commissioner Don Cooney told a
meeting of the Homecrest Circle Association, a neighborhood
organization, on April 10.

The Kalamazoo Environmental Justice Coalition is looking for an
attorney "with a national, proven track record" in litigating
such environmental lawsuits, the report said.   

Commissioner Cooney said the plan is to file the suit under the
state's nuisance law, making the claim the trucks and toxic
chemicals are so close to neighborhoods it would be a nuisance,
according to a report by WOOD-TV.

"The noise, the dirt and the permanent presence of this material
on that site would do significant harm to the their life and the
value of their property," Mr. Cooney said.


VI-JON INC: Recalls Contaminated Evergreen Forest Body Wash
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vi-Jon, Inc. issued a voluntary nationwide consumer product
recall of a single lot of 28 fluid ounce bottles of Alpine
Xtreme Evergreen Forest Body Wash after determining the presence
of a bacteria, Enterobacter gergoviae, in some of the product
samples tested.

The company became aware of this after determining that some of
the product had become cloudy in appearance.  An investigation
concerning the cause of the issue is ongoing.

After conducting a thorough assessment, the company concluded
that the risk of illness in healthy individuals following use of
this product is very low.  However, there could be an increased
health risk of small wound, skin or more serious infections to
individuals with cuts, scrapes, rashes or other compromised skin
conditions, or weakened or suppressed immune systems.  There
have been no consumer adverse health events reported that are
related to this issue.

The only affected product is Alpine Xtreme Evergreen Forest Body
Wash, which is green in color.  The Lot Code involved in this
recall is 286071; identified by the first six numbers printed on
the back of the bottle between the pump and the top of the back
label.

The recall docs not affect any other Alpine Xtreme Body Wash
product.

Consumers are advised to discontinue using and properly discard
the product, and may obtain a full refund through calling the
company's toll-free consumer line, 1-888-593-0593, and mailing
in the back label, including the UPC code.

Additional information can be found at the product website:
http://www.alpinextreme.net.


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Faces N.J. Suit Over Lead-Contaminated Vitamins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vitamin Shoppe Industries is facing a product liability class-
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit is filed on behalf of all persons in the U.S. who
purchased Vitamin Shoppe "Especially for Women" multivitamins at
any time during the period commencing on the first date the
defendant manufactured, marketed, advertised, sold and/or
distributed the offending multivitamins and ending on the date
that the court certifies this suit as a class action.

The complaint claims the company is endangering women by selling
"Especially for Women" multivitamins contaminated with lead.

ConsumerLab.com, provider of independent test results and
information to help consumers and health care professionals
evaluate health, wellness and nutrition products, found that 52%
of multivitamins selected for testing were contaminated with
lead, unable to property break apart, or contained significantly
more or less of certain ingredient than claimed.

The complaint further claims the lab said its own analysis was
backed up by another analysis by an independent lab.

Plaintiffs claim the lead contamination particularly threatens
pregnant women.  They claim the "Especially for Women" tab
contains only 54 micrograms of calcium, rather than the 200 mcg
claimed on the label.

The suit raises questions of:

     (a) whether Vitamin Shoppe misrepresented or omitted the
         lead content of its "Especially for Women"
         multivitamins;

     (b) whether Vitamin Shoppe's misrepresentation or omission
         of the lead content in its "Especially for Women"
         multivitamins violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
         Act;

     (c) whether the class has been damaged and, if so, the
         extent of such damages;

     (d) whether Vitamin Shoppe has been unjustly enriched and,
         if so, the extent to which they were unjustly enriched;
         and

     (e) whether Vitamin Shoppe should be enjoined from engaging
         in the conduct complained.

Plaintiffs and the class pray that the court enter judgment for
them and against defendant as follows:

     -- certifying the class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying plaintiffs as the
        representatives of the class, and designating
        plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the class;

     -- declaring that defendant's acts and practices, as
        described in the complaint, constitute deceptive acts
        and unconscionable business practices that are unlawful
        under the New jersey Consumer Fraud Act;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class permanent injunctive
        relief prohibiting, restraining and enjoining defendant
        from engaging in the conduct complained of, including,
        inter alia, manufacturing, marketing, advertising,
        selling and/or distributing supplements or other
        multivitamins which contain excessive levels of lead or
        which contain ingredients (harmful or otherwise) which
        are either not disclosed or not accurately disclosed on
        the product's label;

     -- ordering defendant to issue corrective advertising;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class full or partial
        refunds, damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees,
        expert witness fees and other costs; and

     -- granting any such other and further legal or equitable
        relief as the court deems appropriate.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?18e2

The suit is "Guittard et al. v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-01827-DRD-ES," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey under Judge Dickinson R.
Debevoise with referral to Judge Esther Salas.

Representing plaintiffs is Bruce Daniel Greenberg of Lite,
DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor,
Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
bgreenberg@ldgrlaw.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHOICE HOTELS: Schiffrin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Co.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP gave
notice that a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado on behalf of all common stock
purchasers of Choice Hotels International, Inc. from April 25,
2006 through July 26, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Choice Hotels and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that new hotel franchise contracts sharply declined to
         the point where the company was not meeting internal
         expectations;

     (2) as such, Choice Hotels had no choice but to report
         slowing growth in this key business segment;

     (3) that Choice Hotels was experiencing declining growth in
         its conversion of hotels to its system;

     (4) that the company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
         statements about its financial strength and operating
         condition were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the company had 5,376 hotels under
franchise agreements, and an additional 930 hotels under
development.

Prior to and throughout the Class Period, Choice Hotels
represented to investors that the company's business model was
going to continue to deliver strong revenue and earnings growth
to investors.  One of the main tenets of this plan was the
franchising of hotels, and converting newly acquired hotels into
the Choice Hotels' system.

However, on July 25, 2006, after the market had closed for the
day, the company shocked investors when it revealed that,
contrary to earlier representations, the company was unable to
sign nearly as many franchise agreements as it projected that it
would.  The company further revealed that it was also unable to
successfully integrate newly acquired hotels into the Choice
Hotels' system as planned.

Upon the release of this news, shares of the company's stock
fell $14.65 per share, or 24.89 percent, to close on July 26,
2006 at $44.20 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Choice Hotels, through its subsidiaries, operates as a hotel
franchisor worldwide.  The company franchises lodging properties
under brand names, such as Comfort Inn, Comfort Suites, Quality,
Clarion, Sleep Inn, Econo Lodge, Rodeway Inn, MainStay Suites,
Suburban Extended Stay Hotel, Cambria Suites, and Flag Hotels.

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

For more information, Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq., both of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP,
280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-
7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com.


VISEON INC: Vianale & Vianale Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Viseon, Inc. (Ticker: VSNI.OB) between Nov. 3,
2004 and May 15, 2006.

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. During the class period, Viseon issued a series of
statements relating to Viseon's next generation VisiFone
broadband video phone.

Viseon claimed to have developed the VisiFone II, the next
generation of consumer telephony. Viseon failed to disclose to
the public that the development of the VisiFone II was only
partially completed, and that it was not ready for production.

The complaint alleges that Viseon and its officers were well
aware of production problems in connection with the VisiFone II.

On May 15, 2006, Viseon announced in a public filing that
minimal revenue was recorded on the deployment of units of next
generation VisiFones to carriers since the deployments continued
to be for trial-purposes only. Viseon's stock price fell as a
result of this announcement.

The stock is currently trading at $0.01.

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

For more information, contact Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. and Julie
Prag Vianale, Esq., both of Vianale & Vianale LLP, 2499 Glades
Road, Suite 112 Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 888-657-9960 (Toll
Free) or 561-392-4750, Website: http://www.vianalelaw.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  * * *