CAR_Public/070425.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 25, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 81

                            Headlines


ALCON LABORATORIES: Recalls Moldy Liquid Gel Lubricant Eye Drops
ARAMARK CORP: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit in Del. for $222M
ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS: Still Faces Camellia Island Project Lawsuit
ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS: Still Faces Fla. Suit Over Defective Homes
ASTRAZENECA: Fla. Seroquel Suit Plaintiffs Amend Complaints

ATLAS AMERICA: Settles N.Y. Suit Over Royalty Payments for $300T
BOEING CO: Workers Union Amends Kans. Suit Over Lost Pensions
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Suit in Tex. Over EZD Credit Card Marketing
CARDINAL HEALTH: Sets Up $600M Reserve for Ohio Securities Suit
CHATTEM INC: Seeks Summary Judgment in Calif. False Ad Lawsuit

CONSUMERINFO.COM INC: July Hearing Set in CROA Suit Settlement
EPDM ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Fairness Hearing Set Next Month
GENERAL MOTORS: Suit by Cadillac DeVille Owners Decertified
GLOBALSTAR INC: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.
GRANDVIEW MEMORIAL: Accused of Swindling $4M from Trust Fund

HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Candies with Undeclared Nuts
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Mediation in Tex. Securities Suit Fails
HORACE MANN: Accused of Laundering Motor Vehicle Titles in Fla.
INDEPENDENT TRADING: Recalls Kids' Sweatshirts with Drawstrings
INFOSONICS CORP: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

INTELSAT LTD: July 12 Hearing Set for D.C. ERISA Suit Settlement
INTERNATIONAL COAL: Investors Sue Over Alleged Misrepresentation
IOWA: Court Certifies Class in Traffic Camera-Ticketing Lawsuit
LAMSON & SESSIONS: Recalls Electrical Outlets Posing Shock Risks
NEW CENTURY: New Plaintiffs Named in Suit by Retail Loan Officer

NEW CENTURY: Enters Deal to Settle Ind. Privacy Violations Suit
NEW CENTURY: Settles FCRA Violations Lawsuit in California
NEW CENTURY: Settles Ind. Lawsuit Over "Excessive" Loan Fees
NEW CENTURY: Settles Calif. Credit Reporting Act Violations Suit
NEW CENTURY: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in California

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Suit Over Ban on "Hidden City" Ticket Junked
ODIMO INC: Discovery Proceeds in Fla. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
OMEGA FLEX: Ark. Court Okays Settlement in Suit Over CSST
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
RAM ENERGY: Okla. Court Certifies Class in Landowner's Suit

RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Calif. Labor Lawsuit for $7.5M
SEPRACOR INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Mass. Securities Suits
SPEAR & JACKSON: May Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: $24.5M Settlement with Desert Orchid Okayed
WILTON INDUSTRIES: Recalls Candy Melts Over Undeclared Milk

* Oklahoma Senate Passes Litigation Restriction Bill to Governor


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ALCON LABORATORIES: Recalls Moldy Liquid Gel Lubricant Eye Drops
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcon Laboratories, Inc., a subsidiary of Alcon, Inc. (NYSE:
ACL), announces a voluntary recall of Systane Free LIQUID GEL
lubricant eye drops.

This product is distributed only in the U.S., including Puerto
Rico.  No other formulations of Systane lubricant eye drops are
included in this recall.  This voluntary recall is in response
to 11 consumer reports citing the presence of foreign material.
Alcon has distributed over 5 million bottles of Systane Free
LIQUID GEL since its introduction in January 2006.

After testing particles from the opened, partially used bottles
that were returned to Alcon, the company identified the foreign
material as mold.

However, because of the characteristics of these molds, the
development of an infection is considered unlikely.  In fact,
Alcon has received no reports of fungal infections associated
with the 11 reports.  

The company is taking this action to voluntarily recall Systane
Free LIQUID GEL because eye drops that become contaminated after
opening the bottle may cause eye infections.  Alcon has notified
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of this voluntary action.  

Alcon has tested returned product and retained samples from the
lots with reports of mold and has conducted a comprehensive
review of its manufacturing records.  Based on this testing and
analysis, Alcon has determined that the cause of the product
problem is the specific formulation of Systane Free LIQUID GEL,
and is not the result of any manufacturing processes.

Therefore, the recall applies only to Systane Free LIQUID GEL.  
The original formulation of Systane lubricant eye drops and
Systane unit dose are not part of this recall and can continue
to be used safely.

Retailers, distributors, customers and consumers can identify if
their bottles are subject to the recall by locating the words
"Free" and "LIQUID GEL" on the product box or bottle.  If these
words are not on the bottle or box, the product is safe for use
and is not subject to this recall.  The picture provided shows
where these words are found on the bottle and box.  

Consumers who are in possession of Systane Free LIQUID GEL are
advised to immediately discontinue use and call 1-866-608-3936
or visit http://www.systane.comfor instructions.  

The company is currently contacting retailers, distributors and
eye doctors to communicate return and replacement instructions.
These customers may also call 1-866-608-3936 for more
information.  Reply cards and pre-paid mailing slips are being
provided for product return.

Alcon will replace any purchased bottles of Systane Free LIQUID
GEL with a 15mL bottle of its original formulation of Systane
lubricant eye drops.  The original formulation of Systane is
based on the Polyquad preservative system that has been used for
more than 20 years to prevent contamination of eye care
products.  Furthermore, the original formulation of Systane has
been used safely by consumers since 2003.  

To reduce the potential for contamination of eye drops,
consumers should not touch the tip of the bottle to their eye,
should not allow anything else to touch the tip of the bottle
and should always put the cap on the bottle immediately after
use.

Consumers who have concerns about the health of their eyes or
who experience unusual eye symptoms, such as severe pain, loss
of vision, or significantly increased sensitivity to light,
should consult with their eye doctor immediately.  

For more information, contact Doug MacHatton - Alcon Investor
Relations or Carol Massey - Alcon Strategic Corporate
Communications, Phone: 817-551-8974 or 817-551-8058, E-mail:
doug.machatton@alconlabs.com or carol.massey@alconlabs.com,
Website: http://www.alconinc.com.


ARAMARK CORP: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit in Del. for $222M
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARAMARK Corp. entered into an agreement in principle to settle
for $222 million a suit filed against it in Delaware over a
proposal from members of the company's management committee to
acquire shares in the company, a report from Lawyers and
Settlements said.

On May 1, 2006, two cases were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware in New Castle County against the company
and each of the company's directors.

The two cases are putative class actions brought by stockholders
alleging that the company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the company in connection with the proposal from a
group of investors led by Joseph Neubauer to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the company.

On May 22, 2006, two additional cases making substantially
identical allegations were brought against the company and
certain of its directors:

      -- one in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia,
         Pennsylvania in which only the company and Mr. Neubauer
         were named as defendants; and

      -- another in the Court of Chancery of the State of
         Delaware in New Castle County in which the company and
         all directors were named as defendants.

All of the cases make claims for monetary damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees and expenses.  On June 7, 2006, the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated the
three pending Delaware actions as "In re: ARAMARK Corp.
Shareholders Litigation."

On or around Aug. 11, 2006, the City of Southfield Police and
Fire Retirement System filed a fourth putative class-action
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in
New Castle County purportedly on behalf of the company's
stockholders.  

The complaint names the company and each of the company's
directors as defendants and alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the stockholders in connection with
the proposed acquisition of the company's outstanding shares and
making claims for monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
consolidated this action with "In re: ARAMARK Corp. Shareholders
Litigation."

The parties have entered into an agreement in principle to
settle the Delaware actions (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 15,
2007).

As part of the agreement in principle, each share of Class A
common stock beneficially owned by members of ARAMARK's
management committee -- Joseph Neubauer, L. Frederick
Sutherland, Bart J. Colli, Timothy P. Cost, Andrew C. Kerin,
Lynn B. McKee, Ravi K. Saligram and Thomas J. Vozzo -- will be
counted as one vote for purposes of the additional vote to
approve the adoption of the merger agreement.

Delaware Chancery Court Judge John Noble awarded lawyers $2.1
million in fees and expenses to be paid by Aramark.

According to the report, the acquisition, which took the company
private, was completed in January 2007 and was funded in part by
$4.4 billion in loans.


ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS: Still Faces Camellia Island Project Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P., its General Partner Arvida/JMB
Managers, Inc., and certain related and unrelated parties remain
defendants in a purported class action pending in the Circuit
Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida.

The suit is "Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case No.
03-10709 CACE 12."  In this suit that was originally filed on or
about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs purport to bring a class action
allegedly arising out of construction defects occurring during
the development of Camellia Island in Weston, which has
approximately 150 homes.  

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may
deem just and proper.   

Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the homes were not
adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity
with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with
Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer
from improper shutter storm protection systems.  

The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint.

This case has been tendered to one of the company's insurance
carriers, Zurich American Insurance Co., for defense and
indemnity.  Zurich is providing a defense of this matter under a
purported reservation of rights.

The company has also engaged other counsel in connection with
this lawsuit.

The company reported no development in the case at its March 30
form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS: Still Faces Fla. Suit Over Defective Homes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. remains a defendant in a purported
class action filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

The suit is "Osnovsky et al. v. Arvida Co., Arvida/JMB Partners,
and Arvida Realty Co., Inc., Case No. 05015925."  The Arvida
defendants were served on March 1, 2006.  

Plaintiffs have filed a three count class action complaint for
alleged violations of state building code, failure to disclose
known defects in a residential real estate transaction, and
negligence, all in connection with injuries allegedly sustained
to their homes in the Ridges, a homeowners association in Weston
that has about 1,500 units.  

Plaintiffs complain of alleged roofing defects in their homes,
among other things.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and the
opportunity to amend to add punitive damages.  The complaint has
been tendered to Arvida's carrier for defense and indemnity.  In
response to the tender, the company received a purported
reservation of right letter from the carrier.  

The Arvida defendants believe they have meritorious defenses and
intend to vigorously defend themselves.  The ultimate legal and
financial liability of the company, if any, in this matter
cannot be estimated with certainty at this time.  The company is
unable to determine the ultimate portion of the expenses, fees
and damages, if any, which will be covered by the insurance.

The company reported no development in the case at its March 30
form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


ASTRAZENECA: Fla. Seroquel Suit Plaintiffs Amend Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida against makers of the anti-psychotic
drug Seroquel has been amended, according to Lawyers and
Settlements.

The suit is filed against AstraZeneca PLC, a U.K.-based
pharmaceutical company, and a handful of other companies by the
state of Pennsylvania in February 2007.  The state wants to
recover monies paid through state health plans for the
inappropriate use of drugs such as Seroquel.

Seroquel is essentially an anti-psychotic drug developed and
approved by the U.s. Food and Drug Administration for the
treatment of schizophrenia and manic episodes associated with
Bipolar I disorder.

But recently filed court documents show that patients who have
been prescribed Seroquel have developed diabetes.  Seroquel
attorneys in the lawsuit argue that patients were not adequately
warned about the risks of diabetes, while the manufacturer of
Seroquel, AstraZeneca, knew of the risk.

According to reports, the drug regulatory agency in Japan had
already required the manufacturer to place a Seroquel warning
about diabetes on the product while AstraZeneca continued
aggressive marketing and concealed the dangers of Seroquel side
effects.

Seroquel lawyers in the Seroquel class action claim that the
drug company also marketed the drug for the treatment of
conditions not approved by the FDA.

A Lawyers and Settlements report said there seems to be two
issues at play:

     -- the emergence of serious, and sometimes life-threatening
        side effects that are downplayed in the product
        literature; and

     -- the practice of prescribing the medication for
        conditions it was not designed to treat.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1dd2

The suit is "Gee v. AstraZeneca et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-00325-
ACC-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, under Judge Anne C. Conway, with referral
to Judge David A. Baker.

Representing plaintiffs is Dean F. Mosley of Mosley & Mosley,
P.A., 20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 807, Orlando, FL 32801, Phone:
407/649-7111, Fax: 407/649-7127, E-mail: flomegajd@aol.com.


ATLAS AMERICA: Settles N.Y. Suit Over Royalty Payments for $300T
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas America, Inc. tentatively settled in October a class
action filed in February 2000 in New York relating to payment of
royalty revenues to landowners.  

Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to pay
$300,000, upgrade certain gathering systems and cap certain
transportation expenses chargeable to the landowners.

Resource Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of Atlas America, is named
defendant in the class action originally filed in February 2000
in the New York Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, by
individuals, putatively on their own behalf and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, who leased property to the
company.

The complaint alleges that the company is not paying landowners
the proper amount of royalty revenues from the natural gas
produced from the wells on leased property.  

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the
alleged difference between the amount of royalties actually paid
and the amount of royalties that allegedly should have been
paid.

The settlement terms are subject to final approval by the court,
according to Atlas Energy Resources, LLC's March 27, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Atlas America, Inc. on the Net: http://www.atlasamerica.com/.


BOEING CO: Workers Union Amends Kans. Suit Over Lost Pensions
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. and Spirit AeroSystems Inc. were named defendants
in a purported class action by retirees that is currently
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas,
Molly Mcmillin of The Wichita Eagle reports.

The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace,
(SPEEA) which represents engineers and technical and
professional employees at Spirit and Boeing, filed the original
suit back in Aug. 8, 2005.  The International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers joined in as a plaintiff to
case in 2006.

The case was later dismissed because the court said the union
was not a plan beneficiary and therefore was unable to sue,
SPEEA general counsel Phyllis Rogers told The Wichita Eagle.  
The suit was revised as a class action.

A second claim of breach of contract was not dismissed and
continues to move forward, she said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of those who lost early retiree
medical and pension benefits in the sale of Boeing's commercial
aircraft division in Wichita, according to SPEEA officials.

Specifically, the lawsuit was brought on behalf of former Boeing
employees between the ages of 49 and 55 at the time of the sale
with 10 years experience or more who received employment offers
at Spirit.

Ms. Roger explains that the problem is during the divestiture,
Boeing did not classify the workers as "laid off."  She pointed
out that had the workers been classified as such, their pension
benefits would have remained with Boeing.

Ms. Rogers adds that if they were classified as being "laid
off," they could have taken early retirement under Boeing's
pension plan, and received early retirement medical benefits.

More than 1,100 SPEEA-represented workers lost the benefit in
the sale, according to the Wichita Eagle report.

The suit is "Society of Professional Engineering Employees in
Aerospace, IFPTE Local 2001, AFL-CIO v. The Boeing Co., Case No.
6:05-cv-01251-MLB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Monti L. Belot with
referral to Judge Karen M. Humphreys.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Hammond of Hammond, Zongker & Farris, L.L.C.,
         727 North Waco, Ste. 200, P. O. Box 47370, Wichita, KS
         67201, Phone: 316-262-6800, Fax: 316-262-3770, E-mail:
         tehammond1@yahoo.com; and

     (2) Joni S. Jacobs of Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP, 1701 K.
         Street NW - Ste. 210, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202-
         223-2620, Fax: 202-223-8651 E-mail:
         jjacobs@dcbwash.com.

Representing the defendants are Boyd A. Byers and Sophie K.
Counts of Foulston Siefkin LLP - Wichita, 1551 N Waterfront
Parkway - Ste. 100, Wichita, KS 67206-4466, Phone: 316-267-6371
and 316-291-9771, Fax: 866-738-3152, E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com
and scounts@foulston.com.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Suit in Tex. Over EZD Credit Card Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Bank and Capital Services, Inc. are facing a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas over alleged deceptive trade practices, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The complaint alleges defendants deceptively solicit subprime
borrowers to take out a Capital One EZD credit card by claiming
the customers are approved for a $500 line of credit, but issue
only a $200 line of credit to them.

Plaintiffs bring this action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure on behalf of all residents of the State of
Texas who:

     (1) who were solicited by Capital One by mail and/or
         telephone;

     (2) who were marketed by Capital One for a Capital One
         "secured" credit card;

     (3) who received a "secured" credit card; and

     (4) whose "security deposit" was charged to the credit
         card.

The class period for such action relates back to the filing of a
putative class action in Arkansas, on Feb. 6, 2002, and
continues to the present.

Lead plaintiff Raul Martinez claims Capital One further
diminishes its customers' credit by demanding a $49 security
deposit and $39 "annual membership."

"Thus, before the cardholder even learns her line of credit she
has consumed 44 percent of it.  If the consumer wishes to cancel
the card once learning the terms, Capital One refuses until the
$88 is paid.  If the consumer refuses to pay the $88, Capital
One charges monthly late fees that can far exceed the $200 line
of credit," the complaint states.

The complaint further states that once a cardholder has exceeded
her $200 line of credit, rather than raise the line or refuse to
extend additional credit, Capital One routinely opens a second
account for the same consumer with its own $200 line of credit
and its own $49 security deposit and $39 annual membership.

As a result of this practice, Capital One is allegedly able to
double the fee income it receives from a single cardholder.

The suit raises the questions of:

     (a) whether the consumers who were offered credit cards
         with security deposits charged to the initial credit
         card balances were targeted or identified by Capital
         One as subprime borrowers and marketed in the same
         manner;

     (b) whether the uniform mailings, telemarketing sales
         scripts and contracts used by Capital One personnel or
         third party marketers when marketing the "virtual
         deposit secured" credit cards were false or deceptive;

     (c) whether material facts were omitted, suppressed or
         concealed by Defendants in connection with the
         marketing and sale of the "virtual deposit secured"
         credit card;

     (d) whether the acts and practices of Capital One
         constitute deceptive acts and practices;

     (e) whether Defendants engaged in deceptive acts and
         practices by the use of "up to" marketing in which a
         consumer is offered a credit card with a line of credit
         "up to" $500 when Capital One knew, by pre-screening
         the consumers, that they would receive at best a $200
         line of credit;

     (f) whether Defendants wrongfully mis-characterized fees or
         charges as "security deposit(s);"

     (g) whether Defendants engaged in false and deceptive acts
         and practices by telling the consumer that they were
         offering the consumer a $200 line of credit when in
         fact that line of credit was largely consumed by
         security deposits and other charges;

     (h) whether Plaintiffs and class members suffered economic
         damages as a proximate result of the alleged deceptive
         acts and practices of Defendants and the amount of such
         damages;

     (i) whether Defendants engaged in deceptive acts and
         practices;

     (j) whether Defendants and were unjustly enriched by the
         deceptive acts and practices; and

     (k) whether Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive
         damages.

Plaintiffs pray:

     -- that the Court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that Plaintiffs are
        proper class representatives, and that the best
        practicable notice of this action be given to members of
        the Class represented by Plaintiffs;

     -- that judgment be entered against Defendants and in favor
        of Plaintiffs and the Class on Counts One and Two as
        alleged in this Complaint, including awards of actual,
        compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be
        determined at trial, said damage awards in no event in
        excess of $74,900 per Class Member;

     -- that judgment be entered imposing interest on damages,
        litigation costs and attorneys' fees against the
        Defendants; and

     -- for all other and further relief as thus Court may deem
        necessary and appropriate.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1dc5

The suit is "Martinez et al. v. Capital One Bank et al., Case
No. 7:07-cv-00086," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, under Judge Randy Crane.

Representing plaintiffs is Carlos Omar Escobar of Magallanes &
Hinojosa, 1713 Boca Chica Blvd., Brownsville, TX 78520, Phone:
956-544-6571, Fax: 956-544-4290, E-mail: carlos@maghilaw.com.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Sets Up $600M Reserve for Ohio Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. has established a $600 million reserve
associated with a consolidated securities class action filed
against the company and certain of its officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The reserve represents the company's current estimate to reach a
mediated settlement with counsel for the class.

The decision to establish the reserve will result in an after-
tax charge to third-quarter earnings of approximately $384
million.

The company said negotiations are ongoing and it can make no
assurance that the matter will be resolved through mediation.

The company recorded the litigation reserve as a Special Item,
which it does not include when determining Non-GAAP earnings
from continuing operations.  The company provides guidance based
on Non-GAAP earnings per share.

Cardinal Health said the reserve is unrelated to the agreement-
in-principle it previously reached with the staff of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                        Case Background

Since July 2, 2004, purported purchasers of the company's
securities have filed 10 purported class action complaints.  
They named the company and certain of its officers and
directors, asserting claims under the federal securities laws.   

These cases include:  

      -- "Gerald Burger v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case  
         No. 04 CV 575,"

      -- "Todd Fener v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
         04 CV 579,"  

      -- "E. Miles Senn v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case  
         No. 04 CV 597,"

      -- "David Kim v. Cardinal Health, Inc., Case No. 04 CV  
          598,"  

      -- "Arace Brothers v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case  
         No. 04 CV 604,"  

      -- "John Hessian v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case  
         No. 04 CV 635,"  

      -- "Constance Matthews Living Trust v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 636,"

      -- "Mariss Partners, LLP v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,  
         Case No. 04 CV 849,"  

      -- "The State of New Jersey v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et  
         al., Case No. 04 CV 831,"  

      -- "First New York Securities, LLC v. Cardinal Health,  
         Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 911"  

The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to be
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities
during various periods beginning as early as Oct. 24, 2000 and
ending as late as July 26, 2004.

The suits allege, among others, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a)
of the U.S. Exchange Act by issuing a series of false and/or
misleading statements concerning the company's financial
results, prospects and condition.

Certain of the complaints also allege violations of Section 11
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming
material misstatements or omissions in prospectuses issued by
the company in connection with its acquisition of Bindley
Western Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor in 2003.

The alleged misstatements relate to the company's accounting for
recoveries relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin
manufacturers, and to classification of revenue in the company's
Pharmaceutical Distribution business as either operating revenue
or revenue from bulk deliveries to customer warehouses, and
other accounting and business model transition issues, including
reserve accounting.

The alleged misstatements are claimed to have caused an
artificial inflation in the company's stock price during the
proposed class period.

The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable
relief against the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.  
On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions
were consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal
Health, Inc. Federal Securities Litigation."  On Jan. 26, 2005,
the court appointed the Pension Fund Group as lead plaintiff in
this consolidated action.

On April 22, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint naming the company, certain current and former
officers and employees and the company's external auditors as
defendants.  The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.

On March 27, 2006, the court granted a motion to dismiss with
respect to the company's external auditors and a former officer
and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the company and
the other individual defendants.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the parties stipulated that the case could
proceed as a class action with a class comprised of all persons
other than company officers or directors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's stock during the class period.

Discovery is proceeding, according to the company's Feb. 8, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006 (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 14, 2007).

The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-575," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, (New York, NY), 10  
         E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800-217-1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;
  
     (2) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, (San  
         Diego, CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza,  
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com; and

     (3) John R. Climaco, Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox &  
         Garofoli LPA - 1, 1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 900,  
         Cleveland, OH 44115-1891, Phone: 216-621-8484, Fax:  
         216-771-1632, E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com.  

Representing the company are John M. Newman, Jr., Geoffrey J.  
Ritts of Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue, North Point, 901 Lakeside  
Ave, Cleveland, OH 44114-1190, Phone: 216-586-3939, E-mail:  
jmnewman@jonesday.com or gjritts@jonesday.com.



CHATTEM INC: Seeks Summary Judgment in Calif. False Ad Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chattanooga, Tenn.-based company Chattem Inc. is seeking summary
judgment in a suit filed over its marketing of Bullfrog sun care
products.

A putative class action was filed against the company in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles on Feb. 11, 2004, relating to the labeling, advertising,
promotion and sale of Bullfrog suncare products.  

The company filed an answer to this lawsuit on June 28, 2004.   
An amended complaint was filed March 29, 2006, pursuant to a
court order formally consolidating this lawsuit with eight
existing lawsuits involving other manufacturers of sunscreen
products into a coordinated proceeding in California state
court.

The amended lawsuit seeks class certification of all persons who
purchased the company's Bullfrog sun care products in California
during a four-year period prior to Feb. 11, 2004.  

The amended lawsuit seeks restitution and/or disgorgement of
profits, actual damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages and
attorneys fees and costs arising out of alleged deceptive,
untrue or misleading advertising and breach of warranty,
fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations, in connection with
the manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of
Bullfrog products in California.  

The company filed an answer to the lawsuit in April 2006, and it
is vigorously defending this lawsuit.  It filed a motion for
summary judgment on or about Nov. 22, 2006.  An April 18, 2007
hearing was set.


CONSUMERINFO.COM INC: July Hearing Set in CROA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on July 31, 2007 at 10 a.m. for the
settlement of a suit "Browning v. Yahoo! Inc."

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose,
California, in Courtroom 2.  Deadline to file for exclusion or
objection is May 15, 2007.

The class consists of natural persons in the U.S. who entered
into an agreement over the Internet with:

     -- ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. or any Experian Entity to
        purchase any

        * Credit Check or Credit Check Monitoring (which were
          formerly known as CreditCheck Monitoring Service),
        * Credit Manager (including Yahoo! Credit Manager),
        * Triple Alert or Triple Advantage credit monitoring
          product (and/or any credit score sold on a website
          also selling any of the foregoing credit-monitoring
          products) between June 17, 1998 and Dec. 27, 2006; and

     -- paid ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. or any Experian Entity for
        the credit monitoring product (and/or such a credit
        score) but did not later obtain complete refunds from
        any source of the full amount paid for the credit
        monitoring product (and/or credit score).

"Experian Entity" and "Experian Entities" refer to "Experian
North American, Inc. and to any company that is a subsidiary,
parent, corporate affiliate, or division of Experian North
America, Inc., and shall also include Credit Expert, L.L.C."

The lawsuit was filed claiming that, because of the way
Defendants advertised their credit scores and credit-monitoring
products and because of certain information about credit that
was contained on Defendants' websites, Defendants were required
to comply with a federal statute known as the Credit Repair
Organizations Act, and also making claims for unjust enrichment,
constructive trust, and conspiracy.

Defendants deny that they did anything wrong.  The parties have
agreed to this settlement to resolve this lawsuit without a
trial and without Defendants' admitting liability.

The settlement on the Net: http://www.browningsettlement.com.


EPDM ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Fairness Hearing Set Next Month
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut will
hold a fairness hearing on May 9, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for a
proposed $21 million settlement of the matter, "In Re: Ethylene
Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
Case No. 3:03 MD 1542 (SRU)."

The court will hold the hearing at the Brien McMahon U.S.
Courthouse, 4th Floor, Courtroom No. 1, 915 Lafayette Boulevard,
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604.

Objections or exclusions were due April 13, 2007.  Deadline for
the submission of a proof of claim is on May 31, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons or entities that purchased
EPDM directly from any defendant listed below during the period
Jan. 1, 1997 to Dec. 31, 2001:  

      -- Bayer AG;

      -- Bayer Corp.;

      -- Bayer MaterialScience, LLC (f/k/a Bayer Polymers LLC);

      -- Crompton Corp., (n/k/a Chemtura Corp.);

      -- Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc., (n/k/a Chemtura USA
         Corp.);

      -- The Dow Chemical Co.;

      -- DuPont Dow Elastomers, LLC;

      -- DSM Elastomers B.V.;

      -- DSM Elastomers Europe B.V.;

      -- DSM Elastomers Americas, (formerly DSM Copolymer,
         Inc.);

      -- Exxon Mobil Chemical Corp.;

      -- Polimeri Europa S.p.A., (f/k/a Polimeri Europa Srl);

      -- Polimeri Europa Americas, Inc., (f/k/a EniChem
         Americas, Inc.); and

      -- Syndial S.p.A., (f/k/a Enichem S.p.A).

The $21 million settlement fund results from a settlement with
defendants Crompton Corp., now known as Chemtura Corp., and
Uniroyal Chemical Co., now known as Chemtura USA Corp.

                         Case Background

Beginning in March 2003, class action complaints alleging
violations of the federal antitrust laws by the major
manufacturers of EPDM were filed in multiple federal District
Courts.  

Motions were made to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to centralize the cases in a single court to promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.  

On Aug. 12, 2003, the JPML entered a transfer order centralizing
the cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  By order dated Sept. 11, 2003, the court appointed
class counsel as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs.  

The operative complaint in this action is the second
consolidated amended complaint, which was filed on July 1, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix or
maintain the prices of, and/or allocate markets for, EPDM sold
in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.  

It further alleges that, as part of the conspiracy, the
defendants agreed to limit the supply of EPDM and to allocate
markets and customers for the sale of EPDM.  

As a result of this conduct, the complaint alleges that members
of the class paid artificially inflated prices for EPDM and,
therefore, have suffered injury.  

The court has previously approved settlements reached by class
plaintiffs and the class with three groups of defendants:

      -- Dupont Dow Elastomers, LLC;  

      -- Polimeri Europa S.p.A., (f/k/a Enichem Americas, Inc.),
         and Syndial S.p.A.; and

      -- Bayer AG, Bayer Corp. and Bayer MaterialScience LLC,
         (f/k/a Bayer Polymers LLC).

By order dated June 29, 2005, the court approved class
plaintiffs' settlement with Dupont for the principal amount of
$25.4 million in cash.  

Under that settlement, Dupont is required to cooperate with
class counsel in their prosecution of claims against the
remaining Defendants.  

By order dated Dec. 13, 2005, the court approved class
plaintiffs' settlement with Syndial for the principal amount of
$3.17 million in cash.  

Under that settlement, Syndial is required to cooperate with
class counsel in their prosecution of claims against the
remaining defendants.  

By order dated Nov. 28, 2006, the court approved class
plaintiffs' settlement with Bayer for the principal amount of
$32 million.  

Under that settlement, Bayer is required to cooperate with class
counsel in their prosecution of claims against the remaining
defendants.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld
         & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
         Washington, D.C. 20005-3964, Phone: (202) 408-4600 or
         (888) 347-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, Web site:
         http://www.cmht.com;and

     (2) Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq. of Bolognese & Associates,
         LLC, One Penn Center, 1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 650,
         Philadelphia, PA  19103, Phone: 215-814-6750, E-mail:
         http://www.bolognese-law.com/.


GENERAL MOTORS: Suit by Cadillac DeVille Owners Decertified
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued an order
decertifying the class action, "Cole, et al. v. General Motors
Corp.," which was filed on behalf of Cadillac DeVille owners who
allege breach of express and implied warranties against the
company.

In decertifying the case, the 5th Circuit ruled that the
plaintiffs failed to meet the predominance requirement for class
certification, since they failed to undertake an extensive
analysis of variations in state law concerning their claims and
failed to consider how those variations impact predominance.

The 5th Circuit concluded that the lower court abused its
discretion in certifying the class action, and accordingly, its
ruling granting class certification is reversed.

Furthermore, the appellate court ruled that the case is to be
remanded for entry of an order denying class certification with
the costs being borne by plaintiffs.

                        Case Background

The suit was originally filed in Louisiana state court on Dec.
18, 2000 by:

      -- Beverly Cole;
      -- Anita S. Perkins; and
      -- Jewell P. Lowe.  

However, the case was later removed on Jan. 19, 2001 to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.  On Jan.
26, 2001, plaintiffs moved for class certification, which was
granted on Aug. 4, 2005.  The company opposed the ruling, and
appealed it to the 5th Circuit.

Generally, the suit focuses on a certain defect -- related to
motor vehicle safety -- that was discovered in the 200,000 1998
and 1999 model year Cadillac DeVilles that were manufactured and
sold by the company.  

The defect was with regards to the DeVilles' Side Impact Sensing
Modules (SISMs), which triggers inflation of the vehicle's side
impact air bags under certain conditions.  

The suit sought:

      -- for the return of the purchase or lease price, or,
         alternatively, for a reduction of the purchase or lease
         price, (i.e., the loss of the benefit of the bargain,
         or the difference between the value of the vehicle as
         delivered and the value it would have had if it had
         been delivered as warranted);

      -- for all other pecuniary and/or economic damages as
         permitted by the redhibition laws of the State of
         Louisiana and/or the comparable provisions of the
         Uniform Commercial Code;

      -- punitive damages, if permitted;
  
      -- interest at the legal rate from the date(s) of
         purchase, or alternatively, from the date of judicial
         demand, until paid; together with
     
      -- reasonable attorney's fees, and all costs.   

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's ruling is available at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1dd0

The suit is "Cole, et al. v. General Motors Corp., Case No.
6:01-cv-00123-RTH-MEM," on appeal from the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana under Judge Richard T.
Haik, Sr. with referral to Judge Mildred E. Methvin.

Representing the plaintiffs is Bob Forrest Wright of Domengeaux
Wright, et al., P.O. Box 3668, Lafayette, LA 70502-3668, Phone:
337-233-3033, Fax: 337-232-8213, E-mail: bobw@wrightroy.com.

Representing the defendants is Matthew J. Landreau of Bonner
Landreau & Kingrea, 350 N Alston St., Foley, AL 36535, Phone:
251-943-5727, Fax: 251-943-5738, E-mail:
mlandreau@blklawyers.com.


GLOBALSTAR INC: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Globalstar, Inc. is a defendant in several purported securities
fraud class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's April
2, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Feb. 9, 13, and 21, 2007, plaintiffs Ladmen Partners, Israel
Bollag and Margueritte Sherrard, respectively filed purported
class actions against the company, its chief executive officer
and its chief financial officer.

The actions allege that the company's registration statement
related to its initial public offering in November 2006
contained material misstatements and omissions.  

The actions cited a drop in the trading price of the company's
common stock that followed its filing, on Feb. 5, 2007, of a
current report of Form 8-K relating in part to changes in the
condition of the company's satellite constellation.

The actions seek recovery on behalf of a class of purchasers of
the company's common stock who purchased shares in the initial
public offering or traceable to that offering from Nov. 2, 2006
through Feb. 6, 2007.

The first identified complaint is "Ladmen Partners, Inc., et al.
v. Globalstar, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050,
         Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail:
         JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com

     (2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP, (New York, NY), 10
         E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         (Melville), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville,
         NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173; and

     (4) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, 2125 Oak Grove
         Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598, Phone:
         925.945.0200, Fax: 925.945.8792, E-mail:
         info@sbtklaw.com.


GRANDVIEW MEMORIAL: Accused of Swindling $4M from Trust Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson county resident Cecilia Means on behalf of herself and
thousands of Madison, Indiana residents, who paid money in trust
for burial services and merchandise to be provided upon their
death, filed a lawsuit in Superior Court in Marion County
Circuit over the loss of the money in a trust fund, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- River Valley Financial Bank, a wholly-owned subsidiary
        of River Valley Bancorp;
     -- The Friendship State Bank;
     -- Monroe Bank;
     -- National City Bank fka First America Bank Corp.;
     -- Carriage Cemetery Services, Inc. fka Carriage Funeral
        Services of Indiana, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
        Carriage Services, Inc.;
     -- Madison Funeral Service, Inc.; and
     -- Grandview Memorial Gardens, LLC.

During the period from 1992 to the present, defendants National
City Bank, River Valley National Bank, The Frienship State Bank
and Monroe Bank served as trustees of the cemetery trust fund.

The complaint alleges owners and operators of Carriage Cemetery
Services and Grandview Memorial Gardens swiped more than $4
million from "thousands" of people who deposited money as
advance payments for burial services.

Plaintiffs claim that when the monkey business came to light,
the cemetery office and its records were destroyed in an arson
on April 1.

They allege defendants did not deposit the money in trust
accounts at all, or deposited it and then withdrew it themselves
in return for bogus services they provided for funerals that
never took place.

The alleged frauds were revealed when a plaintiff sought trust
funds to buy a casket for her husband, only to be told she
already had bought that casket.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a class of all persons
who purchased burial services or burial merchandise to be
provided upon death at the Grandview Memorial Gardens cemetery.

The suit raises the questions of:

     (a) whether the Cemetery Owner Defendants failed to hold
         money in trust and failed to deposit trust funds into
         the cemetery trust fund;

     (b) whether the Cemetery Owner Defendants improperly
         withdrew funds from the cemetery trust fund in
         violation of Indiana law;

     (c) whether the Cemetery Owner Defendants breached their
         pre-arrangement contracts with plaintiff and class
         members;

     (d) whether the Trustee Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to
         plaintiff and class members;

     (e) whether the Trustee Defendants breached their fiduciary
         duty to plaintiff and class members;

     (f) whether the Cemetery Owner Defendants participated in
         what they knew or should have known was a breach of
         fiduciary duty to plaintiff and class members;

     (g) whether defendants violated Indiana law regarding the
         sale of burial services and merchandise in advance of
         need; and

     (h) the type and amount of relief to which class members
         are entitled.

Plaintiff prays:

     -- that the court enter judgment against trustee defendants
        in favor of the plaintiff and the class members
        requiring them to provide an accounting of the Grandview
        Pre-Arrangement Trust Fund for the period from 1992 to
        the present, and to remedy any deficiency in the assets
        of the Grandview Pre-Arrangement Trust Fund;

     -- that the court enter judgment against Cemetery Owner
        Defendants and in favor of the plaintiff and class
        members in an amount equal to the greater of three times
        actual damages or $1,000 per class member per violation;

     -- that the court enter judgment against Cemetery Owner
        Defendants and in favor of the plaintiff and class
        members in an amount sufficient to compensate the
        plaintiff and the class members for damages caused by
        the breach of contract;

     -- that the court enter judgment against all defendants and
        in favor of the plaintiff and class members in an amount
        sufficient to compensate the plaintiff and class members
        for the damages caused by the negligence per se of all
        defendants;

     -- that the court enter judgment against all defendants and
        in favor of the plaintiff and class members in an amount
        sufficient to compensate the plaintiff and class members
        for the damages caused by the breaches of fiduciary
        duties owed by defendants; and

    -- for an award for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees,
       the costs of this action and for other relief as the
       court finds just and proper;

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1dc7

Representing plaintiffs are Irwin B. Levin, Richard E. Shevitz
and Vess A. Miller, all of Cohen & Malad, LLP, One Indiana
Square, Ste. 1400, Indianapolis, IN 46204, Phone: (317) 636-
6481, Fax: (317) 636-2593.


HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Candies with Undeclared Nuts
---------------------------------------------------
Harry & David Operations Corp., of Medford, Oregon, is recalling
approximately 2000 boxes of candies because they may contain
undeclared nuts, including peanuts, almonds, pecans, walnuts and
cashews.

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

Harry & David is recalling all lot codes of these products:

     -- Dark Chocolate Clusters The Ultimate Walnut Cherry
        Caramel Indulgence candies in green and cream striped
        boxes (260);

     -- Dark Chocolate Clusters The Ultimate Peanut & Peanut
        Butter Indulgence in red and cream striped boxes (275);

     -- Dark Chocolate Clusters The Ultimate Pecan Cranberry
        Caramel Indulgence in dark red and cream striped boxes
        (270);

     -- Whole Almond Confection in brown and white striped boxes
        (595);

     -- Whole Cashew Confection in dark red and cream striped
        boxes (575).

These products are in: 6 oz. paperboard boxes with a folded over
top.  The boxes are striped in several color variations.

Sales of these products have ceased.  The candies were produced
and packaged by a third party vendor and distributed throughout
the U.S. through Harry and David Stores beginning March 2007.

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

The recall was initiated after it was determined that the
products may contain undeclared nuts, including peanuts,
almonds, walnuts, pecans and cashews.  Harry and David has
informed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of its action and
is fully cooperating with the agency.  Investigation into the
cause is ongoing.

Consumers are requested to return product to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions about the
recalled product may phone the Customer Service division at 800-
233-1101, 24 hours a day.


HEALTHMARKETS INC: Mediation in Tex. Securities Suit Fails
----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated securities fraud class action against
HealthMarkets, Inc., formerly known as UICI, failed to reach a
resolution in the case under a mediation in January.

In May and June 2004, the company and certain current and former
officers and directors of the company were named as defendants
in four separate class actions filed in federal court in Texas
arising out of the company's announcement in July 2003 of a
shortfall in the type and amount of collateral supporting
securitized student loan financing facilities of Academic
Management Services Corp., (AMS) formerly a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the company until its disposition in November
2003.

On Oct. 18, 2004, the four separate cases were consolidated as a
single action under, "In re HealthMarkets Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3-04-CV-1149-P," in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

On May 27, 2005, plaintiffs on behalf of the purported class of
similarly situated individuals who purchased the company's
common stock during the period commencing Feb. 7, 2002 and
ending on July 21, 2003, filed a first amended consolidated
complaint alleging among other things that the company, AMS, the
company's former chief financial officer, the company's former
chief executive officer and AMS' former president failed to
disclose all material facts relating to the condition of AMS, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On July 11, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On Sept. 29, 2006, the court denied the
motion to dismiss the complaint.

On Jan. 10, 2007, the parties participated in a mediation of the
matter, but a resolution was not reached, according to the
company's April 2, 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 HealthMarkets Securities Litigation, Case No.
3-04-CV-1149-P," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division under Judge Jorge A.
Solis.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana
         St., Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-227-
         7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com;

     (2) Douglas R. Britton of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail:
         DougB@Lerachlaw.com; and

     (3) Eric G. Calhoun of Travis & Calhoun, 1000 Providence
         Towers East, 5001 Spring Valley Rd., Dallas, TX 75244,
         Phone: 972/934-4100, Fax: 972/934-4101, E-mail:
         eric@travislaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Ralph I. Miller and Robert R.
Summerhays of Weil Gotshal & Manges, 200 Crescent Court, Suite
300, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214/746-7756 and 214/746-7727,
Fax: 214/746-7700 and 214/746-7777, E-mail:
ralph.miller@weil.com and bob.summerhays@weil.com.


HORACE MANN: Accused of Laundering Motor Vehicle Titles in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Horace Mann Insurance Co. is facing a class-action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois
alleging violations of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act (MVICSA), the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed by Chandra L. French of Wakeman Ohio on April
20, 2007.  It was brought on behalf of a class of persons who at
any time from Feb. 20, 2001 to the present owned a motor vehicle
which Horace Mann:

      (a) had previously obtained ownership of in connection
          with paying its insured a "total loss" settlement; and

     (b) did not sign such vehicle's title as either transferor
         or transferee or provide all disclosures required by
         MVICSA upon such transfer of ownership.

The complaint accuses Horace Mann of placing totaled or severely
damaged autos back in the stream of commerce by laundering
titles.

According to the complaint, MVICSA requires motor vehicles
transferors to make written disclosures on the title upon
transfer of ownership.  It requires both transferor and
transferee to sign the title upon conveyance as well, so that
the chain of title shows all owners.

But when Horace Mann declares a vehicle a "total loss" and
acquires it from its insured, it allegedly does not comply with
MVICSA's chain of title disclosures requirements.  Instead,
after it pays the prior owner a "total loss" settlement, rather
than transferring the vehicle to its name, as it is required to
do, Horace Mann allegedly skips title by delivering the title to
a complicit middleman, which ostensibly takes the title directly
from the prior owner.

This artifice conceals Horace Mann's place in the chain of
title, thereby "laundering" the title, deliberately evading
MVICSA, and hiding evidence of the car's total loss history, the
complaint states.  The existence of an automobile insurance
company in the chain of title could put ultimate purchasers on
notice that the vehicle had been severely damaged.

Ultimately, the total loss vehicle is allegedly reintroduced to
the retail market, typically in another state, using the
"laundered" certificate of title to hide Horace Mann's place in
the chain of title in the vehicle's total loss history.

By this scheme, Horace Mann allegedly knowingly places into the
stream of commerce severely damaged, potentially unsafe cars,
which are eventually purchased at inflated market values by
unwitting consumers.

The suit seeks to enjoin this "illegal" and dangerous scheme,
obtain damages for those affected and obtain declaration that
Horace Mann's conduct violates applicable law.

Plaintiffs requests relief as follows:

     -- for an order certifying this case as a class action;

     -- for an order finding and declaring that Horace Mann's
        acts and practices as challenged in the complaint are
        unlawful as alleged;

     -- for an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining
        Horace Mann from engaging in the practices challenged in
        the complaint;

     -- for an order of restitution and/or disgorgement in an
        amount to be determined at trial, which amount is at
        least equal to all sums collected by Horace Mann in
        connection with its title laundering scheme;

     -- for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined
        at trial, at a minimum of $ 1,500 per class member
        pursuant to MVICSA;

     -- for statutory damages as provided by MVICSA, as an
        alternative to other damage remedies;

     -- for punitive damages as permitted by law;

     -- for pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by
        law;

     -- for an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses
        incurred in the investigation, filing and prosecution of
        this action pursuant to MVICSA, the Illinois Consumer
        Fraud Act, and/or any other applicable provision of law;
        and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        just and proper.

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

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

The suit is "French v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., Case No. 3:07-
cv-03102-RM-BGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois under Judge Richard Mills, with
referral to Judge Byron G. Cudmore.

Representing plaintiffs is O. Randolph Bragg of Horwitz Horwitz
& Associates, Suite 900, 25 E. Washington St., Chicago, IL
60602, Phone: (312) 372-8822, Fax: 372-1673, E-mail:
Rand@horwitzlaw.com.


INDEPENDENT TRADING: Recalls Kids' Sweatshirts with Drawstrings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Trading Co. of San Clemente, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 1,200 Life is good children's sweatshirts.

The company said the garments have a drawstring through the
hood, posing a strangulation hazard to children.  In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.  
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled sweatshirts have "LIFE IS GOOD" written on the
front in sewn-on letters.  They were sold in children sizes
small (6-8), medium (10) and large (12) with drawstrings through
the hood.  Sweatshirt colors include dark and light blue.

These recalled children's sweatshirts were manufactured in China
and are being sold at http://www.RedEnvelope.comfrom March 2006  
through March 2007 for about $35.

Pictures of the recalled children's sweatshirts:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07158a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07158b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings from
the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard.  Consumers can get
information about returning the sweatshirts for a full refund by
contacting RedEnvelope Inc.

For additional information, call RedEnvelope Inc. toll-free at
(877) 733-3683 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.RedEnvelope.com


INFOSONICS CORP: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A June 15, 2007 hearing is set for a motion by InfoSonics Corp.
to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.

Six securities actions, originally filed between June and July
2006, were recently consolidated as "In Re: InfoSonics Corp.
Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231."

Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14, 2007,
which assert claims for violation of section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and associated Rule 10b-5, 20(a) and 20A in
connection with the company's restatement announced June 12,
2006 and allegedly false and/or misleading statements and
accounting related to the company's distribution agreement with
VK Corp.  

The suit seeks a declaration that their action is a proper class
action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), unspecified damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert
witness fees, other costs, and other unspecified relief.  

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period Feb. 6, 2006 to Aug. 9, 2006.  

Defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on the grounds, among others, that the
plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead violations of the
securities laws.   Their response to the consolidated complaint
was due April 10, 2007.  The motions are to be heard on June 15,
2007.  

As of this time, the court has not set a date for trial or
completion of discovery, according to the company's April 2,
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: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead
Case No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California under Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz
with referral to Judge William McCurine, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow
and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles,
CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150, Fax: (310) 201-9160, E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Kimberly Arouh Hicks of Latham
and Watkins, 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-
3375, Phone: (619) 236-1234, Fax: (619) 696-7419, E-mail:
kimberly.hicks@lw.com.


INTELSAT LTD: July 12 Hearing Set for D.C. ERISA Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
A July 12, 2007 fairness hearing is scheduled for the proposed
settlement in a class action against Intelsat, Ltd., which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
and alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Initially, two putative class action complaints that were filed
against the company and Intelsat Global Service Corp. in 2004
were consolidated into a single case.  

Certain named plaintiffs who are U.S. retirees, spouses of
retirees or surviving spouses of deceased retirees brought the
suit.

The complaint, which was amended several times, arose out of a
resolution adopted by the governing body of the International
Telecommunications Satellite Organization, referred to as the
IGO, prior to privatization regarding medical benefits for
retirees and their dependents.

The plaintiffs allege that Intelsat wrongfully modified health
plan terms to deny coverage to surviving spouses and dependents
of deceased Intelsat retirees, thereby breaching the fiduciary
duty obligations of ERISA, and the "contract" represented by the
IGO resolution.

It is the company's position that the IGO resolution does not
create obligations that are enforceable against Intelsat, Ltd.
or Intelsat Global Service Corp.

On March 13, 2007, the company and counsel for the majority of
the named plaintiffs signed a settlement agreement, which was
filed on that same date under a joint motion to certify class
for settlement purposes only, preliminarily approve the
agreement of settlement of consolidated ERISA class action, and
approve the form and manner of notice, referred to as the Joint
Motion.

The settlement agreement nullifies all potential obligations
under the pre-privatization IGO resolution, including, most
significantly, the obligation to establish a trust to fund
lifetime retiree medical benefits at 2001 levels for the
putative class members.

Instead, the company will provide to the retiree class certain
health benefits that are essentially the same as those currently
provided to active employees, the value of which, taken as a
whole, cannot be reduced or eliminated.

The retiree class members will have lifetime affordable health
care coverage, for which they will pay modest increases in
premiums, deductibles and co-pay amounts, such increases to be
capped in accordance with certain cost of living adjustment
provisions.

The settlement extends the obligation to provide the benefits to
transferees, affiliates and successors of Intelsat under certain
circumstances.  The company also will pay an award of attorneys'
fees of up to $200,000.  

At a March 14, 2007 status conference, the court granted counsel
for a small group of objecting named plaintiffs 10 days within
which to file an opposition to the joint motion.  

The court also set a tentative date of July 12, 2007 for a
fairness hearing on the proposed settlement agreement, according
to the company's April 2, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Morales, et al. v. Intelsat Global Service Corp.,
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01044-JR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marni E. Byrum, 2009 North 14th Street, Suite 600,
         Arlington, VA 22201, Phone: (703) 525-3877, Fax: (703)
         525-2252, E-mail: mebyrum@aol.com; and

     (2) Lawrence P. Postol of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 815
         Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC
         20006-4004, Phone: (202) 463-2400, E-mail:
         lpostol@seyfarth.com.

Representing the defendant in Andrew Gendron of Venable, LLP,
Two Hopkins Plaza, Suite 1800, Baltimore, MD 21201-2978, Phone:
(410) 244-7439, Fax: (410) 244-7742, E-mail:
agendron@venable.com.


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Investors Sue Over Alleged Misrepresentation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of International Coal Group filed a suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
accusing it of misleading investors about its operations when it
made an initial public offering of stock in late 2005, the
Associated Press reports.

The City of Ann Arbor (Mich.) Employees' Retirement System and
the Iron Workers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan accuses:

     -- the Scott Depot-based ICG,
     -- ICG Chairman Wilbur Ross Jr.,
     -- Chief Executive Ben Hatfield,
     -- several directors and
     -- the lead underwriters for the IPO:
        * UBS Investment Bank, and
        * Lehman Brothers

of making false claims in registration documents it filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission in November 2005 and
December 2005.

During that period, ICG acquired bankrupt Anker Coal Group and
underwent a reorganization, the lawsuit said.

According to the Associated Press, ICG's acquisition of Anker
included the Sago Mine in Upshur County, which it closed due to
poor market conditions.

Court documents show, ICG touted its ability to provide a
variety of steam and metallurgical coal and to capitalize on
market conditions.

The company also listed as strengths an experienced management
team and a focus on safety and environmental performance, the
lawsuit said.

These statements "were all false and misleading when made," the
lawsuit alleged.

"In fact, the company was suffering from serious shortfalls in
its maintenance and safety procedures, its mines were ill-
equipped (as were its miners), the Anker acquisition had been a
mistake, saddling the company with outmoded and dangerous mining
operations," the lawsuit said.

Also, ICG's top management team was distracted by the
reorganization and the stock offering, according to the lawsuit.

The suit is "City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, et
al. v. ICG, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00226," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
under Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark W. Carbone of Carbone & Blaydes, 2442 Kanawha
         Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304/342-
         3650, Fax: 304/342-3651, E-mail: wvjustice@aol.com;

     (2) William S. Lerach, Matthew P. Montgomery and Darren J.
         Robbins, all of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins, Suite 1900, 655 West Broadway, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: 619/231-1058, Fax: 619/231-7423; and

     (3) Steven F. White, Suite 908, 405 Capitol Street,
         Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304/720-1400, Fax:
         304/346-6731.


IOWA: Court Certifies Class in Traffic Camera-Ticketing Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scott County District Court in Iowa has ruled that a lawsuit
claiming that the city of Davenport's automated camera-ticketing
system violates state law can be a class action, The Associated
Press reports.

The ruling, which Davenport officials vowed to appeal, clears up
the question of whether the case can cover all drivers who
received camera-related tickets and whether drivers are entitled
to refunds of their fines.

In arguing against class certification, the city contended that
a class action would include thousands of people, however Judge
Gary McKenrick decided that wasn't sufficient to keep him from
certifying the case.  The judge pointed out that the lawsuit met
13 requirements needed for certification as a class action.

Back in December 2006, Judge McKenrick heard arguments from
attorneys claiming that the system contradicts state traffic
laws (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2007).  

Attorneys Richard A. Davidson and Cathy Cartee are representing
Monique Rhoden of Rock Island, Illinois, who received a ticket
from a camera while driving through Davenport, specifically at
the intersection of Kimberly Road and Harrison Ford.

Mr. Davidson contended that the system contradicts state law in
that state law requires criminal citations be issued to people
who speed or run a red light.  In contrast, the city issues the
tickets to the vehicles' owners instead of the drivers.  

Unlike a speeding or red light ticket issued by a law
enforcement officer, the camera-generated citations are
considered a civil infraction, not a criminal offense.  

The suit seeks the return of speeding fines previously
collected.  The city reportedly collected about $250,000 in
speeding fines last fiscal year.

The suit is "Monique D. Rhoden v. City of Davenport, Iowa, Case
No. 106960," filed in the Scott County District Court under
Judge Gary McKenrick.

For more details, contact Dick Davidson, 224 18th Street, Suite
500, Rock Island, Illinois 61201 (Rock Island Co.), Phone: 309-
786-1600, Fax: 309-786-1794.


LAMSON & SESSIONS: Recalls Electrical Outlets Posing Shock Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lamson & Sessions, of Cleveland, Ohio, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
100,000 Carlon Drop-In Floor Boxes.

The company said the recalled floor boxes are wired incorrectly
resulting in reverse polarity.  This poses a shock or
electrocution hazard to consumers.

Lamson & Sessions has received one report of an incident with
the recalled floor boxes.  No injuries have been reported.

The drop-in floor boxes are used to provide an extra electrical
outlet in the floor.  They were sold under the Carlon brand name
and have a brass finish cover approximately 3 1/2 inches in
diameter.  "Carlon" is stamped into the plastic above the
receptacle and the model number is located to the left of the
receptacle.  Model numbers E971FBDI and E971FBDIB are included
in this recall.

These recalled floor boxes were manufactured in China and are
being sold at homecenters, hardware retailers and electrical
distributors nationwide between January 2005 and March 2007 for
about $35.

Pictures of recalled floor boxes:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07159a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07159b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately unplug anything that is
plugged into the floor box and contact Lamson & Sessions to
determine if their floor box is included in the recall.  
Consumers with recalled units will receive a free repair.

For additional information, call Lamson & Sessions toll-free at
(866) 636-1531 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.lamson-home.com.


NEW CENTURY: New Plaintiffs Named in Suit by Retail Loan Officer
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hicks and David Vizcarra were added as new plaintiffs in a
suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California by a former retail loan officer of New Century
Financial Corp.

In March 2005, Daniel J. Rubio, a former retail loan officer of
New Century Mortgage, filed a class action complaint against New
Century Mortgage in the Superior Court of Orange County,
California.

The complaint alleges failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, and that New Century Mortgage
engaged in unfair business practices in violation of the
California Labor Code.  The complaint seeks recovery of unpaid
wages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  New Century
Mortgage filed a motion to strike and demurrer to the complaint
in May 2005.

On July 8, 2005, the court overruled the demurrer and granted
the motion to strike.  A First Amended Complaint was filed in
July 2005 and New Century Mortgage filed its answer in August
2005.  In December 2005, New Century Mortgage filed a motion to
strike portions of the complaint, which was granted in New
Century Mortgage's favor, limiting the statute of limitations
for plaintiff's meal and rest period claims to one year.

The court reconsidered and reversed its ruling in May 2006.  A
Second Amended Complaint was filed by plaintiff, adding a cause
of action for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

In July 2006, mediation occurred, followed by New Century
Mortgage's removal of the case to the U.S. District Court,
Central District of California in August 2006.

In September 2006, the court granted New Century Mortgage's
motion to strike, limiting the statute of limitations for
plaintiff's meal and rest period claims to one year.  
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint was filed in October 2006.

In December 2006, the Court granted New Century Mortgage's
motion to strike the punitive damages allegations from the
plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint and denied New Century
Mortgage's motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action for
alleged wage statement violations.  

In December 2006, the parties stipulated to plaintiff filing a
Fourth Amended Complaint adding plaintiffs John Hicks and David
Vizcarra.

The suit is "Daniel J Rubio v. New Century Mortgage Corp. et
al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00811-CJC-AJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Cormac
J. Carney with referral to Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kevin T. Barnes of Kevin T. Barnes Law Offices, 5670
         Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460, Los Angeles, CA 90036,
         Phone: 323-549-9100, E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com; and

     (2) James M. Trush of Trush Law Offices, 1920 Main Street,
         Suite 900, Irvine, CA 92614, Phone: 949-581-9090, E-
         mail: jtrush@earthlink.net.

Representing the defendants is Greg S. Labate of Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton, 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor, Costa Mesa,
CA 92626-1993, Phone: 714-513-5100, Fax: 714-513-5130.


NEW CENTURY: Enters Deal to Settle Ind. Privacy Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corp. settled a Multi-District Litigation
alleging it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by illegally
accessing consumer credit reports.

In April 2005, Perrie Bonner and Darrell Bruce filed a class
action against New Century Mortgage and Home123 Corp., an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the company in the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.

The suit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
claiming that New Century Mortgage and Home123 accessed consumer
credit reports without authorization because the prescreened
offers of credit did not qualify as firm offers of credit.

New Century Mortgage and Home 123 filed their answer to the
complaint on June 30, 2005.  In September 2005, plaintiffs filed
a motion for class certification and on Nov. 1, 2005, New
Century Mortgage and Home123 filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  The court never ruled on the motion for judgment on
the pleadings.

In August 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The class size is limited to the Northern
District of Indiana.  On Dec. 13, 2006, the court heard oral
argument in Indiana on the parties' summary judgment motions.

On March 9, 2007, the court ruled on the motion for summary
judgment that defendants' solicitation did not constitute a
"firm offer of credit", and ruled that plaintiff Bonner's claim
that the disclosure was not "clear and conspicuous" was moot.

On March 12, 2007, this action settled on a class-wide basis
(Northern District of Indiana).  On March 16, 2007, the parties
moved for preliminary approval of the settlement.  The court has
not yet ruled on the motion.

The suit is "Bonner et al. v. Home123 Corp. et al, Case No.  
2:05-cv-00146-PPS-APR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of Indiana under Judge Philip P. Simon.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Daniel A. Edelman, Jeremy P.  
Monteiro of Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, 120 S LaSalle  
Street Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-739-4200, Fax:  
312-419-0379, E-mail: CourtECL@aol.com or
jmonteiro@edcombs.com.   

Representing the company are Victoria R. Collado PHV, Lucia Nale  
PHV, Diane R. Sabol PHV of Mayer Brown Rowe and Maw LLP, 71 S  
Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-782-0600, Fax: 312-
701-7711, E-mail: vcollado@mayerbrownrowe.com,  
lnale@mayerbrownrowe.com, drsabol@mayerbrownrowe.com.


NEW CENTURY: Settles FCRA Violations Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
New Century Financial Corp. settled a class action filed in the
District Court, Central District of California alleging it
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by illegally accessing
consumer credit reports.

In July 2005, Pamela Phillips filed a class action against New
Century Financial, New Century Mortgage Corp. and Home123 Corp.
in the District Court, Central District of California.  
Plaintiff alleges violations of FCRA, claiming that the company,
New Century Mortgage and Home123 accessed consumer credit
reports without authorization because the prescreened offers of
credit did not qualify as firm offers of credit.

The case also alleges that certain disclosures were not made in
a clear and conspicuous manner.  The complaint seeks damages of
not more than $1,000 for each alleged violation, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  

The company, New Century Mortgage and Home123 filed a motion to
dismiss certain claims in October 2005.  In November 2005, the
court granted the motion to dismiss, in part.  In early March
2006, the court, on its own motion, reversed its prior ruling on
the motion to dismiss citing the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
recent decision in the "Murray v. GMAC Mortgage Corp." case.

On Nov. 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion for Class
Certification proposing that the class be limited to all
individuals throughout Harris County, Texas whose consumer
reports were obtained or used by New Century Mortgage or Home123
in connection with a credit transaction not initiated by them
and who received the same written solicitation to entered into a
credit transaction received by plaintiff.

In late December 2006, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint
to limit the class size to Harris County, Texas.  On Jan. 22,
2007, the company, New Century Mortgage and Home123 filed their
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

On Jan. 31, 2007, the company, New Century Mortgage and Home123
filed a Motion to Stay.  On Feb. 22, 2007, the court denied the
Motion to Stay.  On March 11, 2007, this action settled.  The
parties agreed to dismissal with prejudice of individual claims
and dismissal without prejudice of claims of putative class
members.

The suit is "Pamela Phillips v. New Century Financial Corp. et
al., Case No. 8:05-cv-00692-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge David
O. Carter.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

     (3) Nicholas A Siciliano or David Edward Weeks, Masry &
         Vititoe, 5707 Corsa Ave, 2nd Fl, Westlake Village, CA
          91362-0903, Phone: 818-991-8900

Representing the company are Daniel Alberstone, David Bryan
Dreyfus, Bruce A. Friedman, Pauline A. Massih, Alschuler
Grossman Stein and Kahan, Water Garden - North Tower, 1620 26th
Street, 4th Floor, Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060, Phone: 310-907-
1000, Fax: 310-907-2000.


NEW CENTURY: Settles Ind. Lawsuit Over "Excessive" Loan Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit "Jeppesen et al. v. New Century Mortgage
Corp. et al.," which alleges violations of the Indiana High Cost
Loan Act, reached a settlement on an individual basis.

In October 2005, Patricia and Stephen Jeppesen filed a class
action against New Century Mortgage in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Indiana.  Plaintiffs allege that New
Century Mortgage violated the Indiana High Cost Loan Act by
allegedly making loans with fees greater than permitted by law
unless certain disclosures are made.

The class is defined as all persons who obtained a mortgage loan
from New Century Mortgage after Jan. 1, 2005 on their principal
residence in Indiana.  A second claim in the complaint alleges
that New Century Mortgage improperly charged a document
preparation fee.  

On Jan. 12, 2007, the Office of the Attorney General, State of
Indiana, issued a no-action letter and, in response to a letter
dated Sept. 19, 2005 from plaintiff's counsel about alleged
violations of the Indiana Home Loan Practices Statute, concluded
its inquiry and declined to take any action against New Century
Mortgage.

In February 2007, the parties reached a settlement on an
individual basis.  On Feb. 14, 2007, the court entered an order
dismissing this case and approving the Stipulation of Dismissal.

The suit is "Jeppesen et al. v. New Century Mortgage Corp. et  
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00372-RL-PRC," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, under Judge Rudy  
Lozano.   

Representing the plaintiffs are Daniel A. Edelman and Heather A.  
Piccirilli, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, 120 S LaSalle  
Street Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60603, phone: 312-739-4200, Fax:  
312-419-0379, E-mail: CourtECL@aol.com or  
hpiccirilli@edcombs.com.   

Representing the company are Richard E Gottlieb and Arthur F.  
Radke, Dykema Gossett Rooks Pitts PLLC, 10 South Wacker Drive  
Suite 2300, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-627-2196, Fax: 312-
627-2302, E-mail: rgottlieb@dykema.com or aradke@dykema.com.


NEW CENTURY: Settles Calif. Credit Reporting Act Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corp. settled a suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Division alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In January 2006, Mary Forrest filed a class action against New
Century Mortgage in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division.  Plaintiff alleges
violations of FCRA, claiming that New Century Mortgage accessed
prescreened credit reports without authorization because the
offers of credit allegedly did not qualify as firm offers of
credit.  

The proposed class consists of persons with Wisconsin addresses
to whom New Century Mortgage sent a particular prescreened offer
of credit after Nov. 20, 2004.  In February 2006, New Century
Mortgage filed both its answer and a motion to transfer the case
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  

In June 2006, the court granted New Century Mortgage's motion to
transfer and ordered the case transferred from the U.S. District
Court in Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court, Central District
of California.

In July 2006, New Century Mortgage filed a Notice of Related
Case to consolidate this matter with the class action, "Pamela
Phillips v. New Century Financial Corp. et al., Case No. 8:05-
cv-00692-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  

On March 11, 2007, this action settled.  On March 20, 2007, a
stipulation for dismissal of individual claims dismissed with
prejudice and claims of putative class members dismissed without
prejudice was filed with the court.

The original suit is "Forrest v. New Century Mortgage Corp.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00010-RTR, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge Rudolph T. Randa.  
Representing the plaintiffs is John D. Blythin of Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP, 3620 E. Layton Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone:
414-482-8000, Fax: 414-482-8001, E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are, Sarah J. Friday of Kravit Hovel
Krawczyk & Leverson, SC, 825 N. Jefferson St., 5th Fl.,
Milwaukee, WI 53202, Phone: 414-271-7100, Fax: 414-271-81335, E-
mail: sjf@kravitlaw.com; and Bruce A. Friedman of Alschuler
Grossman Stein & Kahan, LLP, 9th Tower, 1620 26th St., 4th Fl.,
Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060, Phone: 310-907-1000, Fax: 310-907-
2000.


NEW CENTURY: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Financial Corp. is facing 18 securities fraud class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

On Feb. 8, 2007, Avi Gold filed a securities class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against New Century and certain of its directors and
officers (the Original Complaint).

The Original Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements and
failing to disclose material facts about the company, which
resulted in artificially inflated market prices of the company's
common stock.  The purported class period is between April 7,
2006 and Feb. 7, 2007.  

The Original Complaint seeks money damages in favor of its
purported class of purchasers of the company's securities, the
costs and expenses of the action and other relief that may be
granted by the court.

The company has also learned that 17 additional purported class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California between Feb. 8, 2007 and March 16, 2007.  

These complaints, some of which the company has not yet been
served with and which name the company and certain of its
officers and directors as defendants, present in large degree
the same legal and factual issues as the Original Complaint and
allege various class periods, the longest of which is from April
7, 2006 to March 2, 2007.

One of these class actions has been brought on behalf of the
holders of the company's 9.125% Series A Cumulative Redeemable
Preferred Stock (Series A Preferred Stock) and the holders of
the company's 9.75% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Series B Preferred Stock).  

Another of these class actions has been brought on behalf of the
holders of the company's Series B Preferred Stock.  The company
anticipates that similar actions on behalf of holders of the
company's common stock, Series A Preferred Stock and Series B
Preferred Stock may be filed in the future and does not
undertake any obligation to update this disclosure for any
similar or related claims that may be made in this regard.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Suit Over Ban on "Hidden City" Ticket Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in suits accusing Northwest Airlines Corp. of
monopoly by imposing restrictions prohibiting the sale of
"hidden city" tickets have voluntarily dismissed the litigation.

Northwest Airlines Corp. is a defendant in several purported
class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan over "hidden city" tickets.

The company is a defendant in an antitrust class action, "Chase
v. Northwest Airlines and Airline Reporting Corp., Case No. 96-
74711," which was filed on October 1996.  

The action purports to be brought on behalf of a class defined
as all persons who purchased tickets on certain routes into
Northwest's hubs at Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul and Memphis
from Oct. 11, 1992 to the present.  

The complaint alleges that Northwest's imposition of
restrictions prohibiting the sale of "hidden city" tickets
constitutes monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act.  It
seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages for the class, and
costs and attorneys' fees.  

The attorneys for the plaintiff in "Chase" filed three
additional class actions in the same court against other
airlines and Northwest with parallel allegations similar to
those in "Chase," including allegations that the defendant
airlines conspired to deter hidden city ticketing.  

These cases are:

      -- "Keystone Business Machines, Inc. v. U.S. Airways and
         Northwest Airlines (U.S. D.C. Eastern District of
         Michigan, Civ. Action No. 99-72474),"

      -- "BLT Contracting, Inc. v. U.S. Airways, Northwest
         Airlines and the Airline Reporting Corp. (U.S.
         D.C. Eastern District of Michigan, Civ. Action No. 99-
         72988)," and
     
      -- "Volk and Nitrogenous Industries Corp. v. U.S. Airways,
         Northwest Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and the Airline
         Reporting Corp. (U.S. D.C. Eastern District of
         Michigan, Civ. Action No. 99-72987).  

All three actions were assigned to the judge in the Chase
action.  

On Aug. 21, 2006, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
litigation against Northwest and the other defendants and on
Aug. 25, 2006, the plaintiffs withdrew their proof of claim,
according to the company's March 16, 2007 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Northwest Airlines Corp. on the Net: http://www.nwa.com/.


ODIMO INC: Discovery Proceeds in Fla. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against Odimo, Inc. in the Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

In January 2006, the company was served with a complaint, which
was a consolidation of two previously served complaints.  The
consolidated complaint names the company, Alan Lipton, the
company's former chief executive officer and president and
current chairman of the board of directors and Amerisa Kornblum,
the company's current chief executive officer and chief
financial officer.

The suit was brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock in or traceable to its
initial public offering.

It generally alleges that the company and the other defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 due to allegedly false and misleading statements in public
disclosures in connection with the company's initial public
offering regarding the impact to the company's operations of
advertising expenses.

The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in
part.  They have also filed an answer to the complaint and have
exchanged initial discovery and interrogatories with the
plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, which
has not yet been heard.  

Discovery has only proceeded through the very preliminary
stages, according to the company's April 2, 2007 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.   

Odimo, Inc. on the Net: http://www.odimo.com/.


OMEGA FLEX: Ark. Court Okays Settlement in Suit Over CSST
---------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Clark County, Arkansas gave final approval
to the settlement of a purported national class action against
four manufacturers of corrugated stainless steel tubing,
including Omega Flex, Inc.

Four individual residents of Arkansas and an individual Texas
resident filed the suit in the Circuit Court of Clark County,
Arkansas on Nov. 15, 2004.  The company was sued as the
manufacturer of TracPipe brand corrugated stainless steel
tubing.

The complaint proposes a national class action on behalf of all
owners of installed corrugated stainless steel tubing.  The
tubing is alleged to be defective because it is more susceptible
to failure from near-lightning strikes than traditional black
iron pipe and because the manufacturers allegedly failed to warn
customers regarding this.

On Sept. 5, 2006, the company entered into a stipulation and
settlement agreement with the class representatives and class
counsel, to settle and resolve the allegations brought forth in
the lawsuit.

The court gave final approval to the settlement agreement on
Feb. 1, 2007, according to the company's April 2, 2007 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.   

Omega Flex, Inc. on the Net: http://www.omegaflex.com/.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paincare Holdings, Inc. moved to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action filed against in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, according to the company's
April 2, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On March 21, 2006, Roy Thomas Mould filed a complaint under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the company, as well as the company's chief
executive officer and chief financial officer.  

The complaint is "Mould v. PainCare Holdings, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-CV-00362-JA-DAB."  Mr. Mould alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the
company's financial statements, which appear to relate
principally to the Paincare Holdings' previously announced
intention to restate certain past financial statements.

Ten additional complaints were filed shortly afterward before
the same court, which recite similar allegations.  

Lead counsel was selected, a consolidated complaint was filed,
the company moved to dismiss, and oral argument on the motion
was held on Jan. 17, 2007 before the Magistrate Judge, and the
company is awaiting the issuance of the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation.

In the consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages and purports to represent a class of
shareholders who purchased the company's common stock from March
24, 2003 and March 15, 2006.

The suit is "Mould v. Paincare Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
6:06-cv-00362-JA-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge John Antoon II with
referral to Judge David A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kenneth J. Vianale of Vianale &
Vianale, LLP, 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112, Boca Raton, FL 33431,
Phone: 561/392-4750, ext. 107, Fax: 561/392-4775, E-mail:
e-file@vianalelaw.com.

Representing the company is Bruce J. Berman of McDermott, Will &
Emery, 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2200, Miami, FL 33131-4336,
Phone: 305/358-3500, Fax: 305/347-6500, E-mail: bberman@mwe.com.


RAM ENERGY: Okla. Court Certifies Class in Landowner's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Woods County, Oklahoma granted class-
action status to the lawsuit, "Sacket v. Great Plains Pipeline
Co., et al., Case No. CJ-2002-70," which names RAM Energy
Resources, Inc. as one of the defendants.

RAM Energy, together with certain of its subsidiaries and
affiliates were named as defendants in the putative class
action.

The suit was filed by a landowner, who is alleging that the
royalty payments to landowners for oil and natural gas produced
from wells connected to a RAM Energy subsidiary's natural gas,
oil and saltwater pipeline system in Woods, Alfalfa and Major
Counties, Oklahoma, were calculated on a price that was lower
than the price at which the production from the related wells
was resold by the subsidiary.  

RAM Energy and its subsidiaries sold their interests in the
affected leases effective Dec. 1, 2001.

Plaintiff filed the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
himself and all other royalty owners under leases held by any of
the defendants upon which wells were connected to the system.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages for breach of contract,
tortious breach of implied covenants and breach of fiduciary
duty, together with an accounting, imposition of a constructive
trust, a permanent injunction, punitive damages and recovery of
litigation costs and fees.

The company believes that a fair and proper accounting was made
to the royalty owners for production from the affected leases.
It has filed a response denying the allegations made by the
plaintiff.

On Jan. 11, 2007, the court entered an order certifying the
plaintiff's proposed class, according to the company's April 2,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

RAM Energy Resources, Inc. on the Net: http://www.ramenergy.com.


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Calif. Labor Lawsuit for $7.5M
-----------------------------------------------------------
A California court is considering giving final approval to the
$7.5M settlement of a class action against Rubio's Restaurants,
Inc. that relates to how the company classified certain
employees under California overtime laws.

During 2001, two similar class actions were filed against the
company.  These lawsuits were consolidated into one action.

The consolidated action involves the issue of whether current
and former employees in the general manager and assistant
manager positions who worked in the company's California
restaurants during specified time periods were misclassified as
exempt and deprived of overtime pay.  It also asserts claims for
alleged missed meal and rest breaks.  

In addition to unpaid overtime, these cases seek to recover
waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other
types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees
that these former employees purport to represent.

On March 19, 2007, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the class action representatives to settle the
consolidated action.  

Although the company denies the allegations underlying the
consolidated action, it has agreed to the proposed settlement to
avoid significant legal fees, other expenses and management time
that would have to be devoted to pursue a victory in litigation.

The settlement, which is subject to final documentation and
court approval, provides for a settlement payment of $7.5
million in the aggregate (including attorneys' fees and costs,
fees for administering the settlement and any employer taxes).

Under the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed to
cooperate to obtain court approval of the settlement.  

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
March 23, 2007, and the parties expect the court will make its
final decision in mid-2007, 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.

Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. on the Net: http://www.rubios.com/.


SEPRACOR INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Mass. Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a consolidated securities class actions
filed against Sepracor, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and a current director in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The company and several of its officers were named as defendants
in several class action complaints which have been filed on
behalf of certain persons who purchased the company's common
stock and/or debt securities during different time periods,
beginning on various dates, the earliest being May 17, 1999, and
all ending on March 6, 2002.

These complaints allege violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Primarily, they allege that the defendants made certain
materially false and misleading statements relating to the
testing, safety and likelihood of approval of tecastemizole by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In both the debt purchasers' action and equity purchasers'
action, the court has granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  

In late February 2006, two corrected and amended consolidated
complaints were filed, one on behalf of the purchasers of the
company common stock and the other on behalf of the purchasers
of the company's debt securities.

The amended complaints were for:

      -- "In re: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
         02-12235-MEL," (Debt Purchasers Action); and

      -- "In re: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
         02-12338-MEL," (Equity Purchasers Action).

The cases were brought on behalf of all persons and entities who
either purchased any of the 5%, 5.75% or 7% convertible debt
securities of the company, or purchased the common stock or call
options or who sold put options of the company on the open
market, between May 17, 1999 and March 6, 2002.

These corrected and amended consolidated complaints reiterate
the allegations contained in the previously filed complaints.
The parties are engaged in discovery.

The company reported no development in the matter in its March
1, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

A copy of the Debt Purchasers lawsuit is available at:

          http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9e7

A copy of the Equity Purchasers lawsuit is available at:

          http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9e8

For more details, contact:

     (1) Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City
         Group, Inc., Notice Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6372,
         Merrick, New York 11566-9000, Phone: (800) 916-5305.

     (2) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53
         State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,
         Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com.

     (3) Michael R. Dube Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr,
         LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-526-
         6420, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
         michael.dube@wilmerhale.com.


SPEAR & JACKSON: May Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
will hold a fairness hearing on May 11, 2007, at 11:30 a.m. for
the proposed $775,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Spear &
Jackson Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-80375-CIV-
MIDDLEBROOKS/JOHNSON."

The settlement covers persons or entities that purchased common
stock of Spear & Jackson, Inc. during the period between Feb. 1,
2002 and April 15, 2004.

The settlement hearing will be held before Judge Linnea R.
Johnson, U.S. Magistrate Judge, at the Southern District of
Florida, West Palm Beach Division, 701 Clematis Street, 3rd
Floor, Courtroom 6, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before April 27, 2007.  Proof of claim forms must be
submitted by July 13, 2007.

                        Case Background

Defendants in the case are Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis
Crowley, and Sherb & Co. LLP.  The lead plaintiffs are Charles
J. Rozenas, First Mirage Inc., Profit Concepts Ltd., Generation
Capital Associates, American Merchant Press, Inc., and Faye
Morgenstern, Trustee of Morningstar Trust.

The settlement arises out of numerous actions that, on or after
April 20, 2004, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against Spear & Jackson and certain
of its former officers and directors and affiliates:

      -- "Lee v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., William Fletcher, and
         Dennis Crowley, Case No. 04-80375;"

      -- "Jacobus v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley,
         William Fletcher, Joseph Piscitelli, PNC Tools Holdings
         LLC, and Sherb & Co., LLP, Case No. 04-80393;"

      -- "O'Dell v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., William Fletcher, and
         Dennis Crowley, Case No. 04-80404;"

      -- "Friedman v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley,
         William Fletcher, and Sherb & Co., LLP, Case No. 04-
         80409;" and

      -- "Rodriguez v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley,
         and William Fletcher, Case No. 04-80419."

These cases were consolidated for all purposes by an order dated
May 18, 2004.  Subsequently, on Nov. 2, 2004, the court affirmed
the appointment of:

     -- the "High Capital Funding Group composed of:
        * Charles J. Rozenas,
        * First Mirage Inc.,
        * Profit Concepts Ltd.,
        * Generation Capital Associates and American Merchant
          Press, Inc.; and

     -- Faye Morgenstern, Trustee of Morningstar Trust

as lead plaintiffs pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     * Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP;
     * Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP; and
     * the Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C.

as co-lead counsel pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the
Exchange Act.

On Feb. 4, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder naming as
defendants Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley, William
Fletcher, and Sherb & Co., LLP.  

The consolidated complaint alleges defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions in press releases, public
statements, and public filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission concerning Spear & Jackson.  

The consolidated complaint further alleges that these
misrepresentations and omissions began on Jan. 30, 2002 and
artificially inflated Spear & Jackson's stock price until the
truth was revealed on April 16, 2004, when the artificial
inflation was removed and Spear & Jackson's shareholders were
damaged.

For more details, contact Spear & Jackson/Celebrity Settlements
c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC, P.O. Box 24684, West Palm
Beach, FL 33416, Phone: 1-877-567-4296, E-mail:
SJCelebrityInfo@CompleteClaimSolutions.com, Web site:
http://www.spearjacksoncelebritysettlements.com/.


TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: $24.5M Settlement with Desert Orchid Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted
final approval of a $24.5 million settlement of the class action
"Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects, et
al., Case No. 8:02-cv-00553-JFB-TDT," the Class Action Law
Monitor reports.

The district court granted final approval of the settlement,
finding that it was fair, reasonable and adequate given the fact
that the settlement was free from collusion and that a higher
settlement risked insolvency for the defendant.

It also granted the plaintiffs' counsel's request for attorneys'
fees, finding that the fee was reasonable in light of the
settlement amount and hours spent on the litigation.

                       Case Background

In November 2002, two class action complaints were filed against
the company and certain individuals alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Pursuant to a court order, the two complaints were consolidated
as "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc., et al.," with Genesee County Employees' Retirement System
designated as lead plaintiff.  The court appointed Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- as lead  
counsel.

On March 22, 2005, the court issued an order certifying the
class.

In the litigation, Genesee County generally alleged that
Transaction Systems and certain of its former executives, during
the class period, prematurely recognized millions of dollars of
revenue from certain software licensing arrangements and issued
annual and quarterly financial statements that did not conform
with generally accepted accounting principles, in violation of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In November 2006, the signed a Stipulation of Settlement, on
behalf of its client to settle the suit for $24.5 million in
cash (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006).

The proposed settlement will resolve claims brought by Genesee
County, as lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of persons and
entities that purchased the common stock of Transaction Systems
Architects, Inc. between Jan. 21, 1999 and Nov. 19, 2002.

The Genesee County Employees' Retirement System is a multiple-
employer public pension plan that provides retirement and
survivor benefits for general and police, roads, mental health,
sanitation, library and other employees of Genesee County and
its various offices, boards, and department, and employees,
embracing the City of Flint and environs.

The Retirement System is overseen by an elected and appointed
nine-member Board of Retirement Commissioners, and presently
holds more than $473 million in assets on behalf of
approximately 2,800 beneficiaries.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1739

Transaction Systems Architects, Inc. Securities Class Action on
the net: http://www.completeclaimsolutions.com./tsa/index.html

The suit is "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems
Architects, et al., Case No. 8:02-cv-00553-JFB-TDT," filed in
the U.S. District Court in Nebraska under Judge Joseph F.
Bataillon.


WILTON INDUSTRIES: Recalls Candy Melts Over Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilton Industries of Woodridge, Ill. is recalling Wilton Premium
Dark Cocoa Candy Melts, Wilton Dark Cocoa Candy Melts And Wilton
Dark Cocoa Mint Flavored Candy Melts because they may contain
undeclared milk.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.  The recall includes all production
codes.

These products were distributed nationwide and in Canada through
retail stores and directly to customers.

The Wilton Premium Dark Cocoa Candy Melts comes in 12 ounce
plastic packaging.  Wilton Dark Cocoa Candy Melts and Wilton
Dark Cocoa Mint Flavored Candy Melts come in 14 ounce plastic
packaging. 3 allergic reactions have been reported to date in
connection with this problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the milk-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of milk.  Wilton is working with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration to correct the problem.

Consumers who have purchased packages of Premium Dark Cocoa
Candy Melts, Dark Cocoa Candy Melts and Dark Cocoa Mint Flavored
Candy Melts are urged to return them to Wilton Industries,
Attention Returns Department, 1125 West Taylor Road, Romeoville,
IL 60446 for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
contact Wilton Industries at 1-866-255-9237.


* Oklahoma Senate Passes Litigation Restriction Bill to Governor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoma State Senate passed on to the governor amendments
made by the state House of Representatives to Senate Bill 507, a
comprehensive lawsuit restriction bill.

The legislation was previously passed in the Senate as a measure
that would have offered liability to volunteers providing
transportation services as part of their volunteer work, as well
as liability to firearms manufacturers from lawsuits.

Sen. Cliff Branan, R-Oklahoma City; Sen. Owen Laughlin, R-
Woodward; Sen. James Williamson, R-Tulsa; Rep. Rob Johnson, R-
Kingfisher; and Rep. Daniel Sullivan, R-Tulsa, are the authors
of the bill.

With House changes, the main elements of S.B. 507 would be to:

      -- prevent frivolous lawsuits and require the loser to pay
         attorney fees and costs;

      -- reform class actions and attorney fees in class
         actions;           
  
      -- place limits on product liability actions;
   
      -- eliminate joint and several liability for defendants
         less than 50 percent at fault;

      -- enact $300,000 cap on non-economic damages; and
    
      -- Require reduction of damage awards by percentage of
         responsibility of a settling party.

Supporters of S.B. 507 believe that the bill and changes made to
it would help the state attract business and reduce a company's
legal risks.   They also believe that the number of frivolous
lawsuits filed in the state will be alleviated.

However, opponents argued that the changes could also strip away
the rights of royalty owners and other groups.  The state's oil
and gas royalty owners specifically pointed out that the change
would remove accountability and give energy firms unprecedented
protection when they are accused of cheating royalty owners.

Gov. Brad Henry has five days to decide whether to veto the
bill.  He said he is in the process of reviewing the lengthy
measure.

In a press release, the governor stated that "Equal access to
the justice system is one of the most important and basic rights
granted to our citizens under the U.S. Constitution and the
Oklahoma Constitution.  It is critical that any reform measure
preserve or strengthen that basic right as it attempts to reduce
costs associated with the system."


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Medis Technologies, Ltd. common stock, Medis call
options, and sellers of Medis put options during the period from
April 13, 2007 through and including April 17, 2007.

The complaint charges that Medis and certain of its present
officers and senior management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially
false and misleading statements about certain "Commercial Sales"
it claimed to have made to Microsoft.

The Complaint alleges that on April 13, 2007 the company issued
a press release announcing that it has begun "commercial sales"
of its 24/7 fuel cell Power Packs to Microsoft and that the
first shipment of Power Packs were made that day.

This announcement caused the company's stock to dramatically
rise on April 13, 2007. Co. CEO and Chairman Robert K. Lifton
stated the moment was "historic."

Later that day, the company issued additional information about
the Microsoft deal through its business development manager
Andrew Udis, as reported by the publication Inside Greentech.

Mr. Udis indicated that the products were "branded" by
Microsoft, that the products would be sold around the world by
Microsoft, and that the ultimate unit commitment was expected to
be in the "millions."

On April 17, 2007, after market close, it was reported by
certain media outlets that according to a Microsoft
spokesperson, Microsoft only purchased a "small amount" of
Medis' products, the products were not Microsoft branded, that
Microsoft had no intention to sell them to consumers but rather
distribute them free at an upcoming event. Nor did Microsoft
have any plans for development of the product.

The Complaint alleges that these subsequent adverse disclosures
concerning Medis' purported deal with Microsoft caused the
company's stock to fall.

For more information, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip
Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, Phone: 866-767-3653 (toll
free), E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com,
Website: http://www.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  * * *