CAR_Public/070426.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 26, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 82

                            Headlines


AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: Minn. Court Certifies Class of Borrowers
AOL LLC: Computer Buyers Allege Violation of Wash. Consumer Act
CALIFORNIA: Mental Health Dept. Told to Solve Staffing Problem
COBY ELECTRONICS: Recalls Boomboxes Posing Fire Hazard
DIEDRICH COFFEE: Faces Labor-Related Litigation in Calif. Courts

EDWARD D. JONES: July Hearing Set for "Enriquez" Settlement
EDWARD D. JONES: July 20 Hearing Set for "Spahn" Suit Settlement
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Mediation in Suit Over Legal Fees Set May
FLUSHING MANOR: Reaches $900T Settlement in Racial Bias Lawsuit
HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Md. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

HOUSEHOLD FINANCE: CAD2.5M Late-Payment Fees Suit Award Upheld
INDIAN TRUST: Oct. Trial Set to Determine Breaches in "Cobell"
IOBJECTSOLUTIONS INC: Recalls Lighted Trees Posing Fire Risks
KANSAS: WaterOne Sued Over Planned Reservoir in Subdivision
KEEFE BRUYETTE: Settlement Reached in Direct General IPO Lawsuit

LANDSTAR SYSTEM: OOIDA to Appeal Orders in Suit Over Chargebacks
MAINE: Court to Give Final OK to Strip-Search Suit Settlement
MEGA BRANDS: Expands Recall of Magnetic Building Sets for Kids
MICROSOFT CORP: Ia. Judge Okays $180M Antitrust Suit Settlement
MODTECH HOLDINGS: Still Faces Labor Violations Suit in Calif.

MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Female Financial Advisors' Suit for $70M
NEW YORK: Group of Women to Sue Former Divorce Judge Garson
NVIDIA CORP: Lawsuit Planned Over "Vista Ready" 8800 Card
OREGON: To Pay $14.5M to Settle Suit by Laid-Off Custodians
PHILIP MORRIS: Kans. "Lights" Lawsuit Denied Certification

RESMED: Recalls S8 Device After Electrical Failure Reports
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Calif. Court Bars Payment of Contingent Fees
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Court Disapproves Merger Suit Settlement
THORATEC CORP: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
TERAYON COMMS: Court Mulls Approval of $15M Securities Suit Deal

TERAYON COMMS: Seeks Dismissal of "Mongeli" Securities Suit
TJX COMPANIES: Banks to Sue Over Credit Card Security Lapse
TREX CO: Appeal Against Dismissal of Va. Securities Suit Nixed
UNITED STATES: Cold War Veterans Sue Over EEOICPA Violations
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Faces Mich. Lawsuit Over OnStar Software


* Research and Markets Introduces Guide to Class Actions


                            *********


AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: Minn. Court Certifies Class of Borrowers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota granted class-
action status to a lawsuit against Ameriquest Mortgage Co. that
accuses it of abusive and fraudulent lending practices, Thomas
Lee of The Minnesota Star Tribune reports.

The recent ruling by Judge Lloyd Zimmerman will now allow
plaintiffs in the case to represent about 22,000 Minnesotans who
borrowed money from the subprime lender from 1999 to the
present.

The suit was filed back in 2005, and named as plaintiffs Luke
and Tracy Ricci, and Terry Baumgartner.  Gordon Rudd of
Zimmerman Reed represented plaintiffs in the litigation.

In general, the allegations in the lawsuit are similar to
Ameriquest practices uncovered by former Minnesota Attorney
General Mike Hatch in a previous investigation, which are:

      -- pressuring low-income borrowers into unfavorable high-
         interest loans;
    
      -- inflated appraisals;

      -- encouraging borrowers not to read loan documents; and

      -- concealing or switching loan terms in the final closing
         documents.

Ms. Baumgartner herself claims that Ameriquest forged her
signature on tax and other documents, rushed her through the
closing process and misled her into believing that her interest
rate was 6.75 percent, when instead it was an adjustable rate of
9.5 percent.

Additionally, the Riccis, who were seeking to consolidate debt
by refinancing their mortgage, allege that Ameriquest inflated
the appraisal on their home and failed to disclose that their
loan had an adjustable rate and several prepayment penalties and
fees.  As a result, the couple claims that they were unable to
sell their home when they wanted to in 2003.

Commenting on the recent ruling, Ameriquest spokesman Chris
Orlando told The Minneapolis Star Tribune that the company plans
to appeal the decision.  He maintains, "The ruling dealt with an
untested area of law and should be reviewed by an appellate
court."

For more details, contact Gordon Rudd of Zimmerman Reed, PLLP,
651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-
341-0400, E-mail: jgr@zimmreed.com, Web site:
http://www.zimmreed.com.


AOL LLC: Computer Buyers Allege Violation of Wash. Consumer Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
AOL LLC has been slapped with a class-action complaint in the
Superior Court of the state of Washington in and for the County
of King asserting claims for violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and the Washington unsolicited
goods statute, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges AOL is harassing and unjustly profiting
from people who buy new computers and violating state laws by
charging for AOL online service even if people don't want it and
never used it.

Lead plaintiff Ron Loewen claims that as part of AOL's efforts
to expand its customer base, AOL has entered into agreements
with various retailers of personal computers, such as Dell Inc.
and CompUSA, to offer trial subscriptions to AOL's service as
promotional incentive to purchasers of new computers.  

Pursuant to these agreements, purchasers of new computers were
signed up for an AOL account upon purchase of the computer.  At
the end of the trial period, AOL began charging these consumers
a fee for the account unless the consumer affirmatively canceled
that AOL service prior to the end of the trial period.  
Consumers were charged fees even if they never logged on to or
used the AOL accounts that were established for them or took any
other step to open or utilize such accounts.

The proposed class consists of all Washington State residents
who, during the three years preceding the date of the complaint,
have paid AOL for charges in connection with an AOL internet
access service account that was established in connection with
the consumer's purchase of a new computer from one of AOL's
retail partners and who never logged on to or used the account.

Questions of law and fact allegedly common to the class include:

     (a) whether AOL engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or
         practices by imposing an affirmative duty to consumers
         to cancel trial accounts and by charging consumers who
         did not cancel such accounts even when the consumers
         never logged on to  or used the accounts;

     (b) whether AOL provided unsolicited services to plaintiff
         and the other class members within the meaning of the
         Washington unsolicited goods statute, RCW 19.56.020 et
         seq., and collected and sought to collect payments for
         such services; and

     (c) whether AOL was unjustly enriched through the conduct
         complained of.

Plaintiffs and the class pray for the following relief:

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

     -- a declaration that defendant has violated the Washington
        Consumer Protection Act and the unsolicited statute by
        charging class members for AOL accounts that were
        established in connection with the purchase of a new
        computer from one of AOL's retail partners and that the
        class members never accessed or used and by imposing on
        class members an affirmative duty to cancel the account
        to avoid such charges;

     -- an order enjoining AOL from engaging in the conduct
        complained of;

     -- compensatory damages on behalf of plaintiffs and the
        class in an amount to be proven at trial;

     -- treble damages under RCW 19.86.090 on behalf of the
        plaintiffs and the class in an amount to be proven at
        trial;

     -- return or refund of all amounts paid by the plaintiffs
        and the class members to AOL;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as provided by RCW
        19.86.090 or otherwise available under the law;

     -- prejudgment interest; and

     -- such other relief as the court may deem just and
        equitable.

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

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

The suit is "Ron Loewen et al. v. AOL, LLC, Case No. 07-2-12923-
5SEA," filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in
and for the County of King.

Representing plaintiffs are Adam J. Berger and Scott M. Kane,
both of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, 500 Central Building, 810
Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone: (206) 622-8000, Fax:
(206) 682-2305.


CALIFORNIA: Mental Health Dept. Told to Solve Staffing Problem
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton of the Eastern District
of California ordered the state's Department of Mental Health to
submit a more comprehensive plan to solve staffing shortage in
California's mental hospitals by next month, Lee Romney and
Scott Gold of the Los Angeles Times report.

State mental hospital workers are leaving for higher-paying jobs
with the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.  In February, Judge Karlton ordered state mental
health officials to produce a plan that would stem the exodus
that has left the state hospitals short of staff, jeopardizing
patient safety.

In March, the state governor and the Department of Mental Health
authorized raises for existing staff through the end of June,
and will seek to extend the increases through the next budget
year.  But lawyers who are representing mentally ill prisoners
in a class action found the measures inadequate.  They said the
raises, which would apply only to existing workers and not new
recruits, would not bring hospital salaries to the level of
those at prisons.

The state has until May 21 to submit an improved plan.


COBY ELECTRONICS: Recalls Boomboxes Posing Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------
Coby Electronics Corp., of Maspeth, New York, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 13,800 Coby-Brand USB/MP3/CD Boomboxes.

The company said that when left plugged into an electrical
outlet and the off switch is not firmly in place, these
boomboxes can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

Coby Electronics has received 18 reports of these boomboxes
overheating resulting in three reports of minor property damage.
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Coby boombox is a portable CD/MP3 player with an
AM/FM radio.  The USB feature allows it to be connected to a
computer.  The boombox is primarily white with silver-colored
speakers.  The word "COBY" is written on the front and "DIGITAL"
is written on the top.  The model number, "MP-CD475" also is
written on the top.

The recalled units have serial numbers, located on the rear of
the unit beneath the AC power cord plug-in outlet, in the
following range limits:

     -- 0736000001 through 0736005000
     -- 0816000001 through 0816005300
     -- 0826000001 through 0826003500

These recalled boomboxes were manufactured in China and are
being sold at discount, toy and office supply stores nationwide
from August 2006 through December 2006 for between $20 and $50.

Picture of recalled boomboxes:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07165.jpg

Consumers are advised to unplug these boomboxes immediately, and
contact the firm for information on returning the recalled units
and receiving a refund.

For additional information, call Coby Electronics at (800) 524-
9219 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.cobyusa.com


DIEDRICH COFFEE: Faces Labor-Related Litigation in Calif. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diedrich Coffee, Inc. is facing two class actions filed in
California over allegations that it violated labor-related laws,
the company said at its April 23, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 7, 2007.

On Sept. 21, 2006, a purported class action complaint entitled,
"Jason Reid, Kimberly Cornia, et al. v. Diedrich Coffee, et
al.," was filed against the company in U.S. District Court
Central District of California by two former employees, who
worked in the positions of team member and shift manager.

A second similar purported class action complaint entitled,
"Deborah Willems, et al. v. Diedrich Coffee, et al.," was filed
in Orange County, California Superior Court on Feb. 2, 2007, on
behalf of another former employee who worked in the position of
general manager.

These cases currently involve the issue of whether employees and
former employees who worked in California stores during
specified time periods were deprived of overtime pay, 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 in
the purported class.

Diedrich Coffee, Inc. on the Net: http://www.diedrich.com/.


EDWARD D. JONES: July Hearing Set for "Enriquez" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri
will hold a fairness hearing on July 20, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "Enriquez v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., et al., Civ. No. 042-00126."  

The hearing will be held before Judge Margaret M. Neill in the
Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Civil Courts
Building, 10 North Tucker Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63101-2044.

The settlement covers any current or former Edward D. Jones
customers who purchased or otherwise acquired shares, units or
like interests or who held shares, units or like interests in
any mutual funds (Preferred Funds) offered by:

     * American Mutual Funds,
     * Federated Funds,
     * Putnam Funds,
     * Goldman Sachs Funds,
     * Hartford Funds,
     * Lord Abbett Funds, or
     * Van Kampen Funds,

between Jan. 1, 1999, and Dec. 31, 2004, inclusive, through
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., acting as broker or with Edward
Jones & Co., L.P., listed as broker/dealer of record.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
on or before June 11, 2007.

                        Case Background

The suit, "Enriquez, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et
al." was filed in the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis,
Missouri on January 2004.  

It alleges that the company breached fiduciary duties to its
customers by receiving revenue sharing payments in exchange for
the mere holding of mutual fund shares under management without
making a disclosure to those customers.

In addition, the suit alleges that the company was unjustly
enriched by the receipt of revenue sharing associated with those
customers' mutual fund shares held under management.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Edward Jones Revenue Sharing Litigation Settlement,
         Settlement Administrator, Post Office Box 66995, St.
         Louis, MO  63166-6995, Phone: (866) 735-2324, Web site:
         http://www.edwardjones.com;and

     (2) Matthew J. Zevin, Esq. of Stanley, Mandel & Iola,
         L.L.P., 550 West C Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: 1-619-235-5306, E-mail:
         mzevin@smi-law.com.


EDWARD D. JONES: July 20 Hearing Set for "Spahn" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
will hold a fairness hearing on July 20, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "Spahn v. Edward D. Jones
& Co., et al., Civ. No. 4:04cv00086."

The hearing will be held before Judge Henry E. Autry in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Thomas F.
Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, 111 South Tenth Street, St. Louis, MO
63102-1116.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
on or before June 11, 2007.

                        Settlement Terms

Under a preliminary settlement agreement submitted by the
plaintiffs, current and former customers would receive an
average of $22 in cash and credits, and plaintiffs' attorneys
would split about $38 million in fees.  The preliminary
agreement was filed Oct. 31, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
15, 2006).

Additionally, under that agreement, the brokerage also agreed to
disclose on its Web site information on the payments from the
mutual fund groups, which were called preferred mutual fund
families.

A proposed notice to class members in the filing noted that
plaintiffs' attorneys would seek a cash fee of 30 percent of the
total of the value of the cash and credit settlement.  Eleven
plaintiffs' law firms are listed on court filings and likely
would split the fees.  

                        Case Background

"Spahn" along with five other companion cases filed in January
or February 2004, were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 21, 2006).

The amended and consolidated complaint alleges that the
brokerage violated Sections 10(b), 12(2), and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by
failing to adequately disclose its revenue sharing arrangements
to customers.

Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of any current or former
Edward D. Jones customers who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares, units or like interests or who held shares, units or
like interests in any mutual funds (Preferred Funds) offered by:

     * American Mutual Funds,
     * Federated Funds,
     * Putnam Funds,
     * Goldman Sachs Funds,
     * Hartford Funds,
     * Lord Abbett Funds, or
     * Van Kampen Funds

between Jan. 1, 1999, and Dec. 31, 2004, inclusive, through
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., acting as broker or with Edward
Jones & Co., L.P., listed as broker/dealer of record.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Edward Jones Revenue Sharing Litigation Settlement,
         Settlement Administrator, Post Office Box 66995, St.
         Louis, MO  63166-6995, Phone: (866) 735-2324, Web site:
         http://www.edwardjones.com;and  

     (2) Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. of Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth
         Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212)
         682-3025, Fax: (212) 682-3010, E-mail:
         racocelli@weisslurie.com.


FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Mediation in Suit Over Legal Fees Set May
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit accusing former fen-phen lawyers of defrauding
plaintiffs in the settlement of the suit will go to mediation on
May 16 and 17, according to Shelly Whitehead of the Kentucky
Post.

More than 400 former fen-phen plaintiffs are suing their former
attorneys:

      -- William Gallion,
      -- Melbourne Mills,
      -- Shirley Cunningham, Jr., and
      -- Stanley Chesley

accusing them of taking more money from the settlement than what
they agreed to give them.

The attorneys sued American Home Products Corp., maker of the
diet drug fen-phen, and won the $200 million settlement in 2001
for the former plaintiffs.

Senior Judge William Wehr had ruled that Messrs. Gallion, Mills
and Ms. Cunningham violated their fiduciary duty to their
clients by taking more than half the proceeds from the
settlement.  They and others involved in the case received about
$105 million, while the clients only received $74 million.

Part of the $200 million settlement was placed in the Kentucky
Fund for Healthy Living, a non-profit that paid Messrs. Gallion,
Mills and Ms. Cunningham more than $60,000 a year for serving as
its directors.

The fund gave about $1.5 million to hospitals and other non-
profits for various health-care related projects.  However,
according to court records, much of that money was given after
questions were raised about the legitimacy of the fund.

Lawyer Angela M. Ford sued the lawyers on behalf of their former
clients in 2004, arguing that they took about $64 million more
from their clients than they should have received.  

Recently, Senior Judge William Wehr ruled that Mr. Chesley got
more than $20 million in legal fees.

Judge Wehr said in the April 4 ruling that the plaintiffs will
be entitled to damages against Messrs. Mills, Gallion and Ms.
Cunningham, but that it will be up to a jury to decide if Mr.
Chesley defrauded the clients.

The parties have agreed on a mediation.  But if they fail to
resolve the issue, the case will go to trial, and a jury will
determine how much money the attorneys must return to the
original plaintiffs.  Ms. Ford already filed a motion to change
the venue of the case from Boone County, Ky., to Lexington
should that happen.  

Judge Wehr scheduled another hearing for May 31 at the
Burlington courthouse to determine what, if any, progress has
been made during mediation and how the case will proceed,
according to Ms. Whitehead.

"It is going to be extraordinarily costly to transport everyone
to Boone County," Ms. Ford said, "and for that reason we're
asking to have the jury trial in Fayette County."

Of the four attorneys named as defendants in the suit, only
Cincinnati-based Stan Chesley lives near Boone County.  The
other three all live and practice in or around Lexington.
Likewise, Ms. Ford said, none of the plaintiffs lives in
Northern Kentucky, according to the report.

Judge Wehr refused to rule on her motion.

For more details, contact Angela M. Ford, Chevy Chase Plaza, 836
Euclid Avenue, Suite 311, Lexington, Kentucky 40502, (Fayette
County), Phone: 859-268-2923, Fax: 859-268-9141, Web site:
http://www.angelafordlaw.com.


FLUSHING MANOR: Reaches $900T Settlement in Racial Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flushing Manor Geriatric Center Inc. settled for $900,000, a
federal class action that accuses it of discriminating against
29 current and former employees because of their race and
national origin.

The suit was filed on Sept. 29, 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission against the Queens-based
nursing home, which is goes by the name William O. Benenson
Rehabilitation Pavilion.

In general, the suit claims violations of race and national-
origin protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  It
specifically claims that the defendant permitted some managers
and residents there to taunt Jamaican and Haitian workers with
racial slurs and subjected them to stricter supervision and
harsher discipline as well as retaliation (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 7, 2005).  

The suit also contended that the facility's managers prohibited
Haitian workers from speaking in their native Creole even as
other non-English speaking groups were allowed to converse in
their native languages.

It stated that the employees had complained to management in
2002, 2003 and 2004 about discrimination, "without any effective
remedy."

Court records show that most of plaintiffs -- originally
composed of just five workers, but later grew to 29 that are all
covered by the settlement -- worked as certified nursing
assistants or attendants, and their work included serving food,
changing sheets, and transporting patients.

In reaching the settlement, Marc S. Wenger of Jackson Lewis,
which is representing the nursing home maintains that his client
opted to settle the case in order to avoid costly litigation.  
Mr. Wenger also added that his client denies the allegations.

Besides the settlement money, which includes compensatory
damages and back pay, a consent decree will also require
Flushing Manor to provide anti-discrimination training for its
employees and to hire a human-resources professional to
implement and oversee anti-bias policies.

The suit is "U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (U.S.
EEOC) v. William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Nina Gershon
with referral to Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is Sunu P. Chandy of Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 33 Whitehall Street, 5th
Flr., New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212-336-3706, E-mail:
sunu.chandy@eeoc.gov.

Representing the defendants is Marc Steven Wenger of Jackson
Lewis, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 410, Melville, NY
11747, Phone: (631) 247-0404, Fax: (631) 247-0417, E-mail:
wengerm@jacksonlewis.com.


HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Md. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. confirmed that on March 16, 2007,
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Southern
Division granted Hanger's motion to dismiss with prejudice a
consolidated class action previously brought against it and
certain of its directors and officers, and that the 30-day
period permitted for an appeal or motion for reconsideration had
passed without the filing of any appeal or motion.

Between June 22, 2004 and July 1, 2004, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the company, four in
the Eastern District of New York and one in the Eastern District
of Virginia:

     -- "Twist Partners v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et
         al., No. 1:04-cv-02585 (filed 06/22/2004, E.D.N.Y);"

     -- "Shapiro v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
         1:04-cv-02681 (filed 06/28/2004, E.D.N.Y.);"

     -- "Imperato v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., No. 1:04-      
         cv-02736 (filed 06/30/2004, E.D.N.Y.);"

     -- "Walters v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
         1:04-cv-02826 (filed 07/01/2004, E.D.N.Y.); and

     -- "Browne v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
         1:04-cv-715 (filed 06/23/2004, E.D. Va.)."

The complaints asserted that the company's reported revenues
were inflated through certain billing improprieties at one of
the company's facilities.

Plaintiffs in "Browne" subsequently dismissed their complaint
without prejudice, and the four remaining cases were
consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York as, "In re Hanger Orthopedic
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:04-cv-2585."

On Feb. 15, 2005, the lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Class Action filed a consolidated amended complaint.  
The amended complaint asserts that the company's reported
revenues were inflated through certain billing improprieties at
some of the company's facilities.

In addition, the amended complaint asserts that the company
violated the federal securities laws in connection with a
restatement announced by the company on Aug. 16, 2004, restating
certain of the company's financial statements during 2001
through the first quarter of 2004.

The amended complaint purports to allege violations of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by certain of the company's executives as
"controlling persons" of the company.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
transfer the consolidated securities class action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.

On June 12, 2006, a second consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed against the company in the District of
Maryland, "In re Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 8:06-cv-00579-AW."

The second amended complaint asserts that the company's reported
revenues were inflated through certain billing improprieties at
some of the company's facilities.

In addition, the second amended complaint asserts that the
company violated the federal securities laws in connection with
a restatement announced by the company on Aug. 16, 2004,
restating certain of the company's financial statements during
2001 through the first quarter of 2004.

The second amended complaint purports to allege violations of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the company's
executives as "controlling persons" of the company.

On Sept. 1, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss was fully
briefed and oral argument took place on Feb. 21.

"We are pleased that the Court has dismissed these actions and
confirmed our assertions that the claims were without merit,"
commented Ivan R. Sabel, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Hanger.

The suit is "In re Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 8:06-cv-00579-AW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge
Alexander Williams, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         and Robbins, LLP, 58 S. Service Rd., Ste. 200,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 16313677100, Fax:
         16313671173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) John Bucher Isbister of Tydings and Rosenberg, LLP, 100
         E. Pratt St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
         14107529714, Fax: 14107275460, E-mail:
         jisbister@tydingslaw.com.

Representing the company is James Christian Word of Latham and
Watkins, LLP, 11955 Freedom Dr., Ste. 500, Reston, VA 20190,
Phone: 17034565226, Fax: 17034591001, E-mail:
christian.word@lw.com.


HOUSEHOLD FINANCE: CAD2.5M Late-Payment Fees Suit Award Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling by a Superior Court
ordering Household Finance Corp. to reimburse 25,000 store
credit card holders CAD2.5 million for late-payment fees charged
between May 1996 and December 1999, Mike King of The Gazette
reports.

The settlement could reach nearly $5 million with interest and
other court costs, lawyer for the plaintiff, Jean-Pierre Fafard
of Montreal, said, according to Mr. King.  The award is the
largest exemplary damages ever in Quebec.  It will translate to
approximately $100 per plaintiff, Mr. Fafard said.

The suit was launched against the company by local consumer
group Option Consommateurs in 1999, alleging that the $10 late
payments charged by Household Finance's subsidiary Merchant
Retail Services Ltd. constituted unexpected surcharges that were
excessive and harsh.

In April 2003, Quebec Superior Court Justice Maurice Laramee
found that penalties were in violation of the province's
Consumer Protection Act because they weren't disclosed in
advance and made the real credit rate higher than advertised,
according to the report.  The Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the
ruling.  Last fall, the company challenged that ruling.

Jean-Pierre Fafard, (514) 937-2881 poste 232, E-mail:
jp.fafard@sfpavocats.ca.


INDIAN TRUST: Oct. Trial Set to Determine Breaches in "Cobell"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has set an
Oct. 10, 2007 trial in the suit, "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al.
v. Dirk Kempthorne."

The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m.  A prehearing conference is
set May 9, 2007 at 10 a.m.  At that conference, the court will
also hear argument on the government's pending motion to vacate
the consent order regarding IT security, according to a court
document.

Elouise Pepion Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe in
Montana, filed the class action on June 10, 1996 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

It seeks to force the federal government to account for billions
of dollars belonging to approximately 500,000 American Indians
and their heirs, and held in trust since 1887.

Specifically, the case involves royalties for farming, grazing,
mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.  
It dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break
up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160
acres to some individual Native Americans.

Back then, the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber,
grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds
for Indians and their survivors.

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

      -- to force the government to account for the money, and

      -- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

In late 1999, the defendants were found to be in breach of the
duties assigned to them by the Indian Trust Fund Management
Reform Act of 1994, including especially the duties to provide
adequate systems for accounting for trust fund balances, provide
periodic timely reconciliation to assure the accuracy of
accounts, and provide account holders with periodic statements
and balances.  The federal court ordered the defendants to come
into compliance with their obligations and to make quarterly
reports of their progress.

After seven years of trial, the orders that remain in effect
still require the government to produce an accounting for each
IIM account, to make quarterly reports of its progress toward
that goal, and to comply with a consent order regarding IT
security.  The details of the defendants' historic obligations
are still unresolved.  Also unresolved is the question of
whether statistical sampling will "satisfy fiduciary standards."

               Questions to be Resolved in Trial

The scheduled trial is set to resolve the questions of whether
the defendants cured (or are they curing) the breaches of their
fiduciary duty; the historical statements of account satisfy its
duties; unreasonably delayed the completion of the required
accounting; and there are other relief that should be ordered.

A copy of the order is available for free at:

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1de8

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
under Judge James Robertson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net;

     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com;

     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American
         Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org; and

     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:
         elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com.

Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-
0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov.


IOBJECTSOLUTIONS INC: Recalls Lighted Trees Posing Fire Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------
iObjectSolutions Inc., of Cumming, Georgia, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,200 pre-lit palm trees.

The company said if the electrical connectors are not fully
inserted, they can overheat and pose electric shock and fire
hazards.  There have been four reports of connectors
overheating.  No injuries or property damage have been reported.

The recall involves four sizes of pre-lit Palm trees:

     -- a 7-foot Lighted Palm and a 7-foot Lighted Palm Tree
        with Coconuts,
     -- a 5-foot Lighted Palm Tree with Coconuts,
     -- a 4.5-foot Lighted Palm Tree, and
     -- a 2.5-foot Lighted Palm Tree.

These palm trees are lit by rope lights.  The tree trunks have
golden-colored rope wrapped in a spiral.  The palm leaves are
lined along the edge with green rope lights.

These recalled pre-lit palm trees were manufactured in China and
are being sold by Christmas Lights Etc.'s Web site from August
2006 through March 2007 for prices ranging to about $48 for the
2.5-foot tree through about $150 for the 7-foot Palm with
Coconuts.

Pictures of recalled pre-lit palm trees:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07542a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07542b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these palm trees immediately
and contact the retailer to receive a free replacement.

For additional information, call Christmas Lights Etc. toll-free
at (866) 962-7382 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or email: CustomerService@christmaslightsetc.com.


KANSAS: WaterOne Sued Over Planned Reservoir in Subdivision
-----------------------------------------------------------
Residents in Highlands Creek, Johnson County have filed a class
action petition against the county's Water District No. 1 over
its plan to build an underground reservoir on undeveloped
property, Laura Uhlmansiek of The Kansas City Star reports.

Under the plan, eight acres of a future section of the Highlands
Creek subdivision at the northeast corner of Nall Avenue and
147th Street will be condemned.  The area was supposed to be
developed with 39 villas that would be part of the Highlands
Creek subdivision.

WaterOne officials have said the district must build additional
reservoirs to keep up with local development in the district,
which relies on reservoirs to store its water supply and
maintain water pressure to meet the demands of surrounding
residents.

However, residents say that action has decreased their property
values and increased their homes association dues because there
would be fewer homeowners to help pay the homes association dues
that help maintain the pool and other common areas.  The plan
would increase homeowners' dues by about 15 percent over the
life of the properties.

The suit was filed by residents Charles and Linda Mills, Don and
Laurel Donahoo, and Kenneth and Beth Nichols on behalf of about
170 homes in the subdivision.  It was filed in the Johnson
County District Court.

The petition also maintains that the pumping station and
reservoir will decrease their property values.  The residents
are seeking at least $75,000 in damages and litigation costs,
according to the report.

The general counsel for WaterOne is Eric Arner of Johnson Co.


KEEFE BRUYETTE: Settlement Reached in Direct General IPO Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a purported class action, "Jeffrey
H. Winokur v. Direct General, et al.," which names Keefe
Bruyette & Woods, Inc. as one of the defendants, according to
the company's March 30, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is seeking to recover losses allegedly caused by
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the August
2003 initial public offering of Direct General Corp. and in
connection with a follow-on offering In March 2004.

Direct General is a property casualty insurance company
specializing in automobile insurance.  The aggregate gross
proceeds from these offerings were approximately $300 million.  

Keefe was the lead underwriter of both the IPO and the follow-on
offering.   Keefe had a participation of 42.1% in the IPO and
53.0% in the follow-on offering.

Plaintiffs asserted claims against Keefe and the other
underwriters, among others, under the federal securities laws.

On March 2, 2007, the plaintiffs and defendants establishing
terms of settlement signed a memorandum of understanding.  

Under the agreement, Direct General Corp. will make payment of
all amounts paid in settlement by the underwriters and there
will be a complete release from further claims of liability and
no admission of liability or fault.

Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Inc. on the Net: http://www.kbw.com/.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: OOIDA to Appeal Orders in Suit Over Chargebacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), Inc.
will file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit in Atlanta, challenging a Florida federal judge's
rulings in a suit it filed against Landstar System Inc., Land
Line Magazine reports.

The case concerns Landstar's failure to provide truckers with
documentation about chargebacks.

OOIDa will ask for the restoration of class-action status to the
case, and argue that the failure to provide chargeback
documentation caused the drivers economic harm by hiding its
markups on chargeback items.

On Nov. 1, 2002, OOIDA and six individual independent
contractors who provide truck capacity to the company under
exclusive lease arrangement filed a purported class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the company.

On April 7, 2005, plaintiffs amended the complaint.  Claims are
currently pending against the following company entities:

      -- Landstar Inway, Inc.,  
      -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and  
      -- Landstar Ranger, Inc.  

On Aug. 30, 2005, the court granted a motion by plaintiffs to
certify the case as a class action.  The amended complaint
alleges that certain aspects of the company's motor carrier
leases and related practices violate certain federal leasing
regulations and seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount
of damages and attorney's fees.

The class was defined as "all owner-operators in the U.S. who,
after Nov. 1, 1998, and through the pendency of this proceeding,
had or have leases with Landstar Inway Inc., Landstar Ranger
Inc., or Landstar Ligon Inc. or their authorized agents or
business affiliates, that are subject to federal regulations
contained in Part 376, Code of Federal Regulations."

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the company has violated
the federal regulations by:

      -- making undisclosed and/or undocumented reductions from  
         revenue derived from freight before calculating  
         compensation, thereby unlawfully reducing Plaintiffs'  
         compensation (Revenue Claim);

      -- making charge-backs to the plaintiffs' for certain  
         products or services that were in excess of sums  
         actually paid by the company for such products and  
         services (Charge-Back Margin Claim); and  

      -- failing to provide the plaintiffs with proper  
         disclosure with respect to the methodology for  
         calculating such charge-back amounts (Charge-Back  
         Disclosure Claim).

On Oct. 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
denied the defendants' petition for permission to file an
interlocutory appeal of the class-certification order.

In May 2006, plaintiffs served defendants with a report,
prepared by their consultant, asserting that as a result of the
alleged violations by the defendants of the federal leasing
regulations, class members suffered damages, excluding interest,
during the period ending April 30, 2006 of approximately $39.1
million in the aggregate (Plaintiffs' Report).

Plaintiffs allege that the damages of the class members will
continue to accrue through the pendency of this litigation and
the amended complaint also asserts alternative damage theories,
including claims for equitable relief.  Defendants had no role
in preparing the Plaintiffs' Report.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the defendants filed a motion, which is
pending, asking that the court bifurcate the proceedings such
that only common issues of law would be decided on a classwide
basis and any remaining issues of fact, including whether any
class member can prove liability or damages, would be tried on
an individualized basis.

On Oct. 6, 2006, the court issued a summary judgment ruling
which found, among other things, that:

      -- the lease agreements of the defendants (as defined
         below) literally complied with the requirements of
         Section 376.12(d) of the applicable federal leasing
         regulations in regards to provisions relating to
         reductions to revenue derived from freight upon which
         BCO Independent Contractors' compensation is
         calculated;

      -- charge-back amounts which include fees and profits to
         the motor carrier are not unlawful under Section
         376.12(h); and

      -- the defendants had violated 376.12(h) of the
         regulations by failing to provide access to documents
         to determine the validity of certain charges.

On Jan. 12, 2007, the court ruled that the monetary remedy
available to the plaintiffs would be limited to damages
sustained as a result of the violation and rejected plaintiffs'
request for equitable relief in the form of restitution or
disgorgement.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the court ordered the decertification of the
class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of determining
remedies.

On Jan. 18, 2007, in response to a motion filed by the
defendants following the presentation by the plaintiffs of their
case in chief, the court granted judgment as a matter of law in
favor of the defendants and stated that the plaintiffs had
failed to present evidence that any of the plaintiffs had
sustained damages as a result of any violation of the applicable
federal leasing regulations.

On that date, the court also ruled that access to documents
describing a third party vendor's charges to determine the
validity of charge-back amounts under 376.12(h) was not required
under defendants' current lease with respect to programs where
the lease contains a price to a BCO Independent Contractor
(independent contractors who provide truck capacity to the
Company under exclusive lease arrangements) that is not
calculated on the basis of a third party vendor's charge to the
defendants.

According to the Land Line Magazine report, Paul D. Cullen Sr.,
OOIDA's trial counsel said, in the appeal, the plaintiffs will
argue that the judge should have found Landstar's failure to
provide chargeback documentation caused the drivers economic
harm by hiding its markups on chargeback items.

Also in the appeal, OOIDA and the truckers will argue that the
court was wrong in its apparent finding that Landstar's
obligation to document the validity of such chargebacks could be
satisfied by identifying the amount of the chargeback on a
driver's settlement sheet.

OOIDA also wants class-action status restored to the case.

The suit is "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-
HLA-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Daniel E. Cohen, Daniel R. Unumb, Paul D. Cullen, Mary   
         Craine Lombardo, Joseph A. Black and Susan Van Bell of   
         The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite   
         300, Washington, DC 20007-3770, Phone: 202/944-8600 or   
         202/965-6100;   

     (2) Michael R. Freed of Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL,   
         Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110,   
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/366-1500, Fax:   
         904/366-1501, E-mail: mrfreed@bmdpl.com; and

     (3) Paul D. Cullen Sr. of The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, 1101
         30th Street N.W., Suite 300, P.O. Box 25806,
         Washington, DC 20007-3708, Phone: (202) 944-8600, Fax:  
         (202) 944-8611.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Daniel R. Barney of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light &
         Hanson, P.C., 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280, Washington, DC
         20036-5804, Phone: 202/783-5485, E-mail:  
         dbarney@scopelitis.com;

    (ii) Timothy W. Wiseman, Robert L. Browning and Gregory M.   
         Feary of Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C., 10
         W. Market St., Suite 1500, Indianapolis, IN 46204-
         2968, Phone: 317/637-1777, Fax: 317/687-2414; and  

   (iii) Andrew Tysen Duva and Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II of
         Holland & Knight, 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900,   
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/353-2000 or 904/353-  
         2000 Ext. 25454, Fax: 904/358-1872, E-mail:   
         lhamilton@hklaw.com.


MAINE: Court to Give Final OK to Strip-Search Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine is expected to
issue a final order approving a settlement of a protracted class
action against Knox County and Sheriff Dan Davey, who are being
accused of illegal strip-searching.

The final order approving the $3 million settlement is to be
issued by Judge Gene Carter by the end of the month.  In the
past, Judge Carter had given preliminary approval to a third
amended settlement proposal in the case.

The current settlement is calling for payouts of about $5,000
each for more than 350 people who were strip-searched illegally
at the Knox County Jail over an eight-year period.

The judge's final order will include a permanent injunction
ordering Knox County Jail personnel to not strip-search people
without a "reasonable suspicion" that they have weapons, illegal
drugs or other contraband, according to court documents obtained
by The Associated Press.

Under the settlement, each of the 366 members of the lawsuit
will receive about three times the amount given to members in a
similar class action against the York County Jail that was
settled in 2005.  In that case, 1,350 people were paid $1,670
each.

An estimated 7,500 to 8,000 people who were charged with
nonviolent misdemeanors and strip-searched at the Rockland jail
between Nov. 19, 1996, and Dec. 31, 2004, were eligible to join
the Knox County lawsuit.

Of the 366 people who will be compensated, 67 will not receive
their awards directly, Robert Stolt, an Augusta attorney
representing the plaintiffs told The Associated Press.  Instead,
those awards will go to the Department of Health and Human
Services to pay off back child support.

The settlement includes payment of about $900,000 to the two
legal firms representing the plaintiffs.  Knox County will pay
$375,000 of the damages, with the remainder covered by
insurance.

                      The Rockland Lawsuit

In the original suit, Laurie Tardiff, represented by attorneys
Dale F. Thistle, Robert J. Stolt and Sumner Lipman, alleges that
her civil and constitutional rights were violated when she was
strip-searched by a female officer at the Rockland jail after
being arrested on a felony charge of tampering with a witness.  
That charge and a charge of violating conditions of release, a
misdemeanor, later were dismissed (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
22, 2006).

Judge Carter certified the lawsuit in 2003 as a class action.  
People charged with nonviolent misdemeanors who were strip-
searched at the Rockland jail between Nov. 19, 1996, and Dec.
31, 2004 were made eligible to join the suit.

The class was decertified in September, allowing Ms. Tardiff to
proceed to trial as an individual to determine liability, but
the court also requested that the parties attempt to reach an
out of court settlement.

In early Oct. 2, the parties reached a $3 million settlement
under which Ms. Tardiff was supposed to receive a $50,000 bonus
payment.  The settlement was to be presented for approval to the
court on the same month.  

But before it could happen, Ms. Tardiff sent a letter to Judges
Carter and George Singal, the mediator in the settlement stating
that she was backing off, asking for $500,000 instead.  Ms.
Tardiff then hired attorney William D. Robitzek at Lewiston law
firm Berman & Simmons and opted out of the class.  

Parties agreed to substitute Ms. Tardiff with a new class
representative, Dale Dare, and filed an amended settlement on
Oct. 24, 2006.

Judge Carter, however, refused to approve the amended settlement
because it did not provide two opportunities for all potential
class members to opt out, and because the language of the
injunction left out a stipulation regarding parties' rights to
appeal.  The most recent amended settlement states that by
signing the agreement, all parties waive rights to appeal.

Judge Carter has found that the third final settlement agreement
has met federal law requirements, and the injunction language
satisfactory.

The suit is "Dare v. Knox County, et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-
00251-GC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine under Judge Gene Carter with referral to Judge David M.
Cohen.

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Sumner H. Lipman at Lipman, Katz & Mckee, P.O. Box
         1051, Augusta, ME 04332-1051, Phone: 207-622-3711, E-
         mail: slipman@lipmankatzmckee.com; and

     (2) Dale F. Thistle at the Law Office of Dale F. Thistle
         103 Main Street, P.O. Box 160, Newport, ME 04953,
         Phone: (207) 368-7755, E-mail: dthistle@verizon.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Peter t. Marchesi of Wheeler & Arey, P.A., 27 Temple
         Street, P.O. BOX 376, Waterville, ME 04901, Phone: 873-
         7771, E-mail: pbear@wheelerlegal.com; and

     (2) John J. Wall, III of Monaghan Leahy, LLP, P.O. BOX 7046
         DTS, Portland, ME 04112-7046, Phone: 774-3906, E-mail:
         jwall@monaghanleahy.com.


MEGA BRANDS: Expands Recall of Magnetic Building Sets for Kids
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mega Brands America, Inc., the new owner of Rose Art Industries,
Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, expanded the recall of Magnetix Magnetic Building
Sets.

The company said additional serious injuries to children
reported following the March 31, 2006 recall announcement,
prompted them to announce an expanded recall, which involves
more than 4 million units of the building sets.

The recall includes all sets, except newer Magnetix sets sold
since March 31, 2006, that are age-labeled 6+ and sets that
contain the following caution label:

     "CAUTION: Do not ingest or inhale magnets.
      Attraction of magnets in the body may cause
      serious injury and require immediate medical care."

Mega Brands advises that sets currently at retail better retain
magnets due to improved quality control, material and design
changes.  These products are not included in the recall.

To date, CPSC and Mega Brands are aware of one death, one
aspiration and 27 intestinal injuries.  Emergency surgical
intervention was needed in all but one case.  At least 1,500
incidents of magnets separating from the building pieces have
been reported.

Although the hazard was initially thought to be a problem
primarily for children younger than six, it has since been
learned that at least 10 injuries involved children between the
ages of 6 and 11 years old.

If a child swallows more than one tiny powerful magnet detached
from the plastic building pieces or one such magnet and a
metallic object, the objects can attract to each other inside
the intestines and cause perforations and/or blockage, which can
be fatal, if not treated immediately.

"CPSC is deeply concerned about the dangers that small, powerful
magnets can pose to children if swallowed," said CPSC Acting
Chairman Nancy Nord.  "In order for any product recall to be
effective in protecting consumers, we must significantly reduce
incidents and injuries from occurring after the recall is
announced."  Mega Brands has been cooperative in this expanded
recall.

These older sets, which were manufactured in China, contain up
to 250 plastic building pieces and 1/2-inch diameter steel
balls.  The building pieces include 1 1/2-inch squares, 1-inch
triangles, cylinder rods, flexors, connectors, x-tenders, and
curves and come in an assortment of colors such as metallic,
primary, translucent, and glow in the dark.

Mass merchants and other toy and arts and crafts stores sold the
sets nationwide for between $20 and $60, depending on the size
of the set.

Pictures of the recalled Magnetic Magnetix building sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07164a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07164b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled magnetic sets
immediately and contact Mega Brands for a comparable replacement
toy.  If consumers are uncertain as to whether their product is
being recalled, they can contact Mega Brands at (800) 779-7122
between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit:
http://www.megabrands.com

The CPSC is urging consumers to immediately report any incidents
of loose magnets to the CPSC Hotline at (800) 638-2772 or to the
CPSC Web site: http://www.cpsc.gov.


MICROSOFT CORP: Ia. Judge Okays $180M Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg has granted
preliminary approval to a $179,950,000 settlement of an
antitrust class action against Microsoft Corp. over certain
Microsoft software acquired by consumers, businesses and Iowa
state and local government entities for use in Iowa.

A final approval hearing is set Aug. 31, 2007.  Claims filing
deadline is Dec. 14, 2007.

Under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft will provide up to
$179,950,000 in cash payments to consumers and in vouchers to
volume licensees and/or Iowa state or local governmental
entities that can be used towards the purchase of computers,
peripheral computer hardware, and software.

Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.  The settlement also
applies to Iowa state and local governments that obtained
certain Microsoft software between July 1, 2002 and June 30,
2006, for use in Iowa, and not for resale.

The class action against Microsoft was filed by attorney Roxanne
Conlin of Des Moines.  In it, plaintiffs generally claim that
Microsoft harmed class members by:

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;      

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

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security      
         breaches.  
    
Plaintiffs claim Microsoft violated Iowa's antitrust laws by
monopolizing and unreasonably restraining trade in the markets
for Intel-compatible:

     (i) personal computer operating system software, and

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

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

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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


MODTECH HOLDINGS: Still Faces Labor Violations Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Modtech Holdings, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action alleging labor violations before the California Superior
Court for Alameda County.

On Jan. 25, 2006, TRICO Pipes, Aram Hodess, Micah Long and the
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No. 159 on behalf of those
persons the company employed on California public work projects
from Jan. 25, 2002 to the filing of the complaint, filed a class
action against the company and Bayside Solutions, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the company failed to pay these
individuals general prevailing wage rates, overtime rates, and
required rates for holiday work.  

It also alleges that the company failed to employ registered
apprentices, thereby denying such apprentices the opportunity to
earn wages.

Bayside Solutions is a temporary labor service used by the
company and TRICO Pipes is a joint labor management committee in
the plumbing and pipe fitting industry in Contra Costa County.

The complaint seeks restitution for all underpayments of wages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has not yet certified the class, according to the
Modtech Holdings' April 3, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

Modtech Holdings, Inc. on the Net: http://www.modtech.com/.


MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Female Financial Advisors' Suit for $70M
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, Sprenger & Lang, PLLC,
and Moody & Warner, P.C. announces a significant settlement with
Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. f/k/a Morgan Stanley DW Inc., on
behalf of approximately 2,700 female financial advisors and
registered financial advisor trainees employed at Morgan Stanley
at any time since Aug. 5, 2003.

Eight women from five states served as named plaintiffs in an
amended complaint recently filed.

The parties entered into a five-year settlement agreement that
is subject to court approval.  The settlement is valued at over
$70 million, starting with a lump sum payment by Morgan Stanley
of $46 million, which will likely accrue interest of over a
million dollars.

Morgan Stanley will make an additional, yet to be determined
payment to the Settlement Fund for the employer's share of
payroll taxes, The Settlement Fund will likely approach $50
million in total.  A Special Master is expected to determine the
allocation of monies among the female financial advisors.

The parties estimate that, in addition to the Settlement Fund,
the changes called for in the programmatic relief will increase
the earnings of female financial advisors by at least $16
million over five years and the diversity efforts by the company
over five years will cost an additional $7.5 million.

Among the highlights of the programmatic relief are:

     -- a new account distribution system;

     -- the appointment of independent external experts charged
        with developing innovative;

     -- novel programs impacting business and development
        opportunities for female financial advisors; and

     -- the appointment of an independent Diversity Monitor who
        will review account distribution data and other reports
        impacting fairness and equal opportunity in the
        brokerage house.

Mr. Sprenger explained, "a key feature of the settlement is the
creation of a new monitoring system to ensure that the
Settlement is carried out as intended."

The settlement was the result of two years of intensive
negotiations, including over 15 days of in-person mediation
sessions.

The purported class action was filed on June 22, 2006 and,
captioned, "Joanne August-Johnson et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW
Inc."  Plaintiffs, who seek damages in law and in equity, are:

      -- Cheryl Guistiniano,  
      -- Debra Shaw,
      -- Joanne August-Johnson,
      -- Laurie Blackburn, and
      -- Nancy Reeves

According to the complaint, the case arises out of the company's
alleged systematic discriminatory treatment of its female
financial advisors in violation of federal and applicable state
civil rights laws (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2006).

The suit was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

In a November court filing, Morgan Stanley denied all
allegations.

According to a Feb. 26 court document, the New York-based broker
dealer has filed a joint status report with the lead plaintiffs
saying a settlement has been reached and a "memorandum of
understanding" drafted (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 19, 2007).

Mr. Mehri hailed the settlement as a "milestone in the struggle
for gender equity in the brokerage industry.  Today begins a new
day at Morgan Stanley and could chart a new course for an
industry plagued by gender inequity."

He added, "Morgan Stanley deserves credit for working with us in
a collaborative, proactive way over the two years of
negotiations."

Co-Lead Counsel Steven Sprenger praised the women "for
courageously stepping forward to bring about change in one of
America's most powerful institutions."  He noted that
plaintiffs' counsel interviewed over 200 class members in 35
states and "the momentum behind the investigation became a
powerful engine for meaningful change."

Mr. Mehri declared that this is "one of the ten largest monetary
awards in a gender discrimination settlements in U.S. history."

He added, "most importantly, we anticipate that this settlement
will have an enduring impact on the way America's financial
institutions treat female financial advisors."

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

            http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d76.

The suit is "August-Johnson et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01142-RWR," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Richard W.
Roberts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

      (1) Cyrus Mehri of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, 1300 19th Street  
          NW, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202) 822-5100, E-
          mail: cmehri@findjustice.com; and  

      (2) Steven M. Sprenger of Sprenger & Lang, PLLC, 1400 I  
          Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005,  
          Phone: (202) 265-8010, Fax: (202) 332-6652, E-mail:
          ssprenger@sprengerlang.com.


NEW YORK: Group of Women to Sue Former Divorce Judge Garson
-----------------------------------------------------------
Women who lost divorce lawsuits before former state Supreme
Court Justice Gerald Garson are planning to file a class action
after the judge was found guilty of accepting bribes to "fix"
cases, Nancie L. Katz of the New York Daily News reports.

At least 25 other victims have contacted Frieda Hanimov, a
mother who began the probe into the former judge's corruption,
and they are seeking a lawyer for a class action, she said,
according to the report.

"All the damage is irreversible.  It's already done.  The kids
are taken.  They're brainwashed against the other party,"
Hanimov said.

Evidences of his connivance with lawyer Paul Siminovsky have
caught on video and audio through five months' of secret
surveillance.  He was arrested in March 2003.


NVIDIA CORP: Lawsuit Planned Over "Vista Ready" 8800 Card
---------------------------------------------------------
New York city-based investor and IT consultant, Dan Goldman, has
put-up a new Web site seeking support for a class action against
video card manufacturer Nvidia Corp. over Windows Vista
incompatibilities, InformationWeek reports.

The Web site gathers information to determine the viability for
a class action against nVidia and some of its manufacturing
partners for problems involving "Vista Ready Certified" products
on the Microsoft Vista operating system.

Mr. Goldman's website -- http://NvidiaClassAction.info-- asks  
consumers who purchased the high-end Nvidia 8800 card with the
intention of installing it on Windows Vista-equipped PCs to join
the proposed lawsuit.

Mr. Goldman claims he purchased a version of Nvidia's $700 card
sold by Asus International before Windows Vista was released for
sale to the public at the end of January.

After upgrading his computer to the new Microsoft operating
system in February, and installing Nvidia drivers that were
supposedly Vista compatible, "all hell broke loose," Mr. Goldman
said, according to the report.

He said his PC screen started to blank out intermittently and
constantly flash an inscrutable error message that read: "Video
driver nvlddmkm stopped responding and has recovered."

Mr. Goldman claimed Nvidia's drivers for Windows Vista caused
the problem and that the company ignored his requests for help.

Paul McDougall of InformationWeek said Mr. Goldman wants
payback.

"I'm entitled to damages I incurred as a result of Nvidia's
misleading marketing campaign, and so are a lot of other
people," Mr. Dougall quoted Mr. Goldman.

In February, Nvidia was slapped with a class action for false
advertising by not providing stable working drivers for
Microsoft Corp.'s newest operating system (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 6, 2007).


OREGON: To Pay $14.5M to Settle Suit by Laid-Off Custodians
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portland Public Schools board, which is involved in a
mediation to resolve a class action by custodians laid off in
2002, agreed to settle the suit for $14.5 million, according to
The Oregonian.

The suit was filed after the district hired Portland
Habilitation Center workers to replace its union custodians to
save money.  In 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the
district violated state labor law in doing so.

The settlement, which would benefit 280 custodians, was reached
in a mediation led by Edward Leavy, a senior judge on the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  Under the agreement, each
custodian will receive approximately $37,000 (before taxes) in
back pay and other damages.  To date, the district has hired
back 124 of the custodians who were laid off, according to the
report.

A draft notice to custodians says their attorneys will seek fees
of 25 percent of the settlement fund plus out-of-pocket costs
not to exceed $140,000.  Custodians with health care costs
totaling more than $15,000 from their lay-off through October
2006 also will be able to tap a $370,000 fund set up with the
settlement money.

Some $500,000 of the settlement will be paid as federal
employment taxes and $200,000 will be paid to outside attorneys.

The custodians should be paid by Sept. 1 once the settlement is
approved, according to Mark Griffin, the custodians' attorney.

The school district counsel is Jollee Faber Patterson.


PHILIP MORRIS: Kans. "Lights" Lawsuit Denied Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas denied a motion to certify a tobacco
case that sought damages not for personal injuries but for
misleading advertising under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act,
the Dan Margolies of the Kansas City Star reports.

In his ruling, the judge said that the act requires proof that
each would-be class member relied on the company's alleged
misrepresentations.

In 2005, Kansas City, Kansas resident Kristina L. Benedict and
Olathe resident Tammy Brown claimed in court that instead of
smoking cigarettes physically harming them, they said they were
duped into thinking that "light" cigarettes contained lower
levels of tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes (Class Action
Reporter, Jul. 28, 2005).  

Plaintiffs filed suit against Altria Group Inc. and Philip
Morris USA Inc.  They are seeking damages under the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act for what amounts to a claim of false
advertising.

Both are seeking damages for anyone who purchased Cambridge
Lights and Marlboro Lights in Kansas, which could run to
potentially millions of people, since those products were put on
the market decades ago.

Ms. Brown had argued that such an interpretation of the statute
would effectively gut its class-action provision.

But Judge O'Hara said that, while he was sensitive to that
concern, the language of the statute "requires individual
showings of reliance, even if the result is very few class
certifications in misrepresentation cases."

"If the statute is in need of revision (and it goes without
saying that nobody has suggested that K.S.A. Section 50-634
presents a model of good drafting)," he wrote, "the task
constitutionally must be performed by Kansas legislators, not a
federal judge."

Ms. Brown's attorney, Jim Wirken of The Wirken Law Group, said
Ms. Brown was reviewing her options, including whether to appeal
Judge O'Hara's decision.

The suit is "Benedict et al. v. Altria Group Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-02306-CM-JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas, under Judge Carlos Murguia, with
referral to Judge James P. O'Hara.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Christopher B. Wirken and James C. Wirken, both of The
         Wirken Law Group, 4740 Grand Boulevard, Suite 200,
         Kansas City, MO 64112-2254, Phone: 816-471-0330 x 102,
         Fax: 816-471-3044, E-mail: mail@wirkenlaw.com; and

     (2) Gerard V. Mantese and Mark C. Rossman, both of Mantese
         and Associates, PC, 1361 E. Big Beaver Road, Troy, MI
         48083, Phone: 248-457-9200, Fax: 248-457-9201, E-mail:
         gmantese@manteselaw.com or mrossman@manteselaw.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Jennifer L. Brown of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP-SF, 333
         Bush St. Suite #600, San Francisco, CA 94123, Phone:
         415-544-1900, Fax: 415-391-0281, E-mail:
         jbrown@shb.com;

     (2) J. Eugene Balloun, Gary R. Long, Nicholas Patrick
         Mizell and John K. Sherk, III, all of Shook, Hardy &
         Bacon L.L.P. -- Kansas City/Grand, 2555 Grand
         Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64108-2616, Phone: 816-474-
         6550, Fax: 816-421-2708 or 816-421-5547, E-mail:
         eballoun@shb.com or glong@shb.com or nmizell@shb.com or
         jsherk@shb.com;

     (3) Frances E. Bivens, Ross B. Galin and Guy M. Struve, all
         of Davis, Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington Avenue, New
         York, NY 10017, Phone: 214-450-4000, Fax: 212-450-3935
         or 212-450-5649 or 212-450-3192, E-mail: galin@dpw.com
         or struve@dpw.com; and

     (4) Brandon J.B. Boulware, Charles W. German and Jason M.
         Hans, all of Rouse Hendricks German May PC, One
         Petticoat Lane Bldg., 1010 Walnut St.-Ste. 400, Kansas
         City, MO 64106, Phone: 816-471-7700, Fax: 816-471-2221,
         E-mail: brandonb@rhgm.com or charleyg@rhgm.com or
         jasonh@rhgm.com.

  
RESMED: Recalls S8 Device After Electrical Failure Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
ResMed is conducting a worldwide voluntary recall of
approximately 300,000 of its early production S8 flow generators
used for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea.

In S8 devices manufactured between July 2004 and May 15, 2006,
there is a remote potential for a short circuit in the power
supply connector.

ResMed plans to work with its distribution partners globally to
provide a replacement device to patients who have an affected S8
flow generator.

Patients may continue to use their S8 flow generators until they
receive a replacement device.  As with any electrical device,
patients should make sure that it is placed on a hard clean
surface and that the area around the device is clear during use.
Patients should discontinue use of the device if there are any
signs of electrical failure such as intermittent power, cracking
sounds, sparking or charred smell.

Patients should not use supplemental oxygen with an affected
device; patients using supplemental oxygen should immediately
contact their home healthcare provider for a replacement.

The recall includes the following serial number ranges for all
S8 models:

          From                  To

          20040285613           20060269563
          20060275728           20060276751
          20060277160           20060277415
          20060281672           20060281991
          20060283424           20060283743
          20060284896           20060285445
          20060287568           20060290823
          20060292360           20060294694
          20060312361           20060312597
          20060318692           20060319459
          20060325074           20060327794
          20060330588           20060331043

ResMed voluntarily recalled the product after learning that in
rare instances -- less than two tenths of one percent (0.2%) --
a short circuit in the power supply connector, a component
supplied by a third party, has caused the devices to fail.  In
only seven cases worldwide, device failures have led to thermal
damage to the device, with a remote potential to ignite material
external to the device.  No significant property damage or
patient injury has been reported.

ResMed has advised the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and
other regulatory authorities of this action.  ResMed is
continuing to discuss this action with those authorities and
will finalize its proposed course of action after those
discussions are concluded.

ResMed's S8 flow generators are distributed through medical
equipment suppliers throughout the world.  Affected products can
be identified by the serial numbers on the bottom of each
device.

ResMed is working in close partnership with its distribution
partners and the medical community to ensure that patients are
fully aware of the replacement program and that patients who
have an affected device will receive a replacement S8 flow
generator.

Patients will be contacted as soon as possible to arrange for a
replacement device and are encouraged to visit
http://www.resmed.com/en-us/s8program/s8program.htmlfor more  
information.

Patients in the U.S. and Canada may also contact the ResMed S8
Replacement Call Center at 888-899-8991.

Contact information for patients in Latin America, Europe and
Asia Pacific is available at http://www.resmed.com/s8program.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use
of this product may be reported to the FDA's Med Watch Adverse
Event Reporting Program either online, by regular mail or by
fax.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Calif. Court Bars Payment of Contingent Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate District granted a motion by
The Sherwin-Williams Co. and the other defendants that sought to
bar payment of contingent fees to private attorneys in a
purported class action with regards to lead pigment in paints.

Initiated in March 2000, the named plaintiffs in the suit are
the County of Santa Clara, County of Santa Cruz, County of
Solano, County of Alameda, County of Kern, City and County of
San Francisco, San Francisco Housing Authority, San Francisco
Unified School District, City of Oakland, Oakland Housing
Authority, Oakland Redevelopment Agency and the Oakland Unified
School District.

The case purports to be a class action on behalf of all public
entities in the State of California except the state and its
agencies.  

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint asserts claims for fraud
and concealment, strict product liability/failure to warn,
strict product liability/design defect, negligence, negligent
breach of a special duty, public nuisance, private nuisance and
violations of California's Business and Professions Code.

Various asserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants
through pre-trial demurrers and motions to strike.

In October 2003, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment against the remaining counts on statute of
limitation grounds.

Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision and on March 3,
2006, the Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate District, reversed in
part the demurrers and summary judgment entered in favor of the
company and the other defendants.  

The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for abatement brought by the cities of Santa
Clara and Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco, and
reversed summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs' fraud claim
to the extent that the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
had made fraudulent statements or omissions minimizing the risks
of low-level exposure to lead.

The Court of Appeal further vacated the summary judgment holding
that statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims, and held that those claims had
not yet accrued because physical injury to the plaintiffs'
property had not been alleged.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for damages to the plaintiffs' properties, most
aspects of the fraud claim, the trespass claim and the unfair
business practice claim.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a fourth
amended complaint.

On April 4, 2007, the trial court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to bar payment of contingent fees to private
attorneys.

The Sherwin-Williams Co. on the Net:
http://www.sherwin-williams.com/.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Court Disapproves Merger Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New
Castle County disapproved a tentative settlement in a
consolidated class action filed against SS&C Technologies, Inc.
in relation to the company's 2005 merger agreement with The
Carlyle Group.

In connection with the definitive merger agreement that the
company signed on July 28, 2005 to be acquired by a corporation
affiliated with The Carlyle Group, two purported class actions
were filed against the company, each of its directors and --
with respect to a suit filed by Paulena Partners, LLC --
Sunshine Acquisition Corp., in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County.

The first lawsuit, "Paulena Partners, LLC v. SS&C Technologies,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1525-N (filed July 28, 2005)," purports
to state claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all of the
company's directors at the time of filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that

      -- the merger will benefit the company's management at the
         expense of the company's public stockholders;

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         inadequate and does not represent the best price
         available in the marketplace for the company; and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
         company's stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief), compensatory and/or rescissory damages
to the class and attorneys' fees and expenses, along with such
other relief as the court might find just and proper.

The second lawsuit, "Stephen Landen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 1541-N (filed Aug. 3, 2005)," purports to state
claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all of the company's
directors at the time of filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that

      -- the merger will benefit Mr. Stone and Carlyle at the
         expense of company public stockholders;

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         unfair and that the process by which the merger was
         approved was unfair; and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
         company stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief), compensatory and/or rescissory damages
to the class and costs and disbursements of the lawsuit,
including attorneys' and experts' fees, along with such other
relief as the court might find just and proper.

The two lawsuits were consolidated by order dated Aug. 31, 2005.  
On Oct. 18, 2005, the parties to the consolidated lawsuit
entered into a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which
the company agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its
stockholders in connection with their approval of the merger.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the
parties would enter into a settlement agreement, which the
parties executed on July 6, 2006.

The settlement agreement is subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to the stockholders of
SS&C.

The court held a hearing on Sept. 13, 2006, after which the
court requested supplemental briefing as to the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.  

Parties submitted such supplemental briefing on Sept. 27, 2006.

On Nov. 29, 2006, the court disapproved the proposed settlement,
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.

SS&C Technologies, Inc. on the Net: http://www.ssctech.com.


THORATEC CORP: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
approved the settlement of a consolidated securities class
action against Thoratec Corp. and certain of its officers.

On Aug. 3, 2004, a putative federal securities law class action,
"Johnson v. Thoratec Corp., et al." was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities between
April 28, 2004 and June 29, 2004.

Subsequent to the filing of the Johnson complaint, additional
complaints were filed in the same court alleging substantially
similar claims.  

On Nov. 24, 2004, the court entered an order consolidating the
various putative class action complaints into a single action,
"In re Thoratec Corp. Securities Litigation," and thereafter
entered an order appointing Craig Toby as lead plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.

On or about Jan. 18, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint.  

The consolidated complaint generally alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the company, its former
chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer, and
its Cardiovascular Division president based upon, among other
things, alleged false statements about the company's expected
sales and the market for HeartMate as a Destination Therapy
treatment.

The consolidated complaint seeks to recover unspecified damages
on behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly traded
securities during the putative class period.  

On March 4, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint and that motion currently is pending.  On May 11,
2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss.  

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the parties proceeded
to mediation.  As the result of the mediation, the parties have
executed and delivered stipulations of settlement pursuant to
which they release the named defendants in these actions from
all pending actions in exchange for a total of $3.4 million, in
the securities class action.  

These stipulations -- filed with the applicable courts -- were
approved on Nov. 17, 2006.  They have subsequently become final
and non-appealable, according to the company's April 3, 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 Thoratec Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:04-cv-03168-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick J. Coughlin and Jeffrey
W. Lawrence of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP, 100 Pine, Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111,
Phone: 415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, Email: patc@mwbhl.com or
jeffreyl@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the company is Michael B. Smith of Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, 1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
650-849-5338, Fax: 650-849-5038, Email: mbsmith@gibsondunn.com.


TERAYON COMMS: Court Mulls Approval of $15M Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a $15 million settlement of a securities
fraud suit filed against Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.

Beginning in April 2000, several plaintiffs filed class actions
in federal court against the company and certain of the
company's officers and directors.  

Later that year, the cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California as "In re
Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation."  The
Court then appointed lead plaintiffs who filed an amended
complaint.

In 2001, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a new
complaint.  

In 2002, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss that
complaint, which, like the earlier complaints, alleged that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material information regarding the company's
technology.

On Feb. 24, 2003, the Court certified a plaintiff class
consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities between Nov. 15, 1999 and April 11, 2000.  

On Sept. 8, 2003, the court heard defendants' motion to
disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the
definition of the plaintiff class.

On Sept. 10, 2003, the Court issued an order vacating the
hearing date for the parties' summary judgment motions, and, on
Sept. 22, 2003, the court issued another order staying all
discovery until further notice and vacating the trial date,
which had been scheduled for Nov. 4, 2003.  

On Feb. 23, 2004, the Court issued an order disqualifying two of
the lead plaintiffs and ordered discovery, which was conducted.

In February 2006, the company mediated the case with plaintiffs'
counsel.  As part of the mediation, the company reached a
settlement of $15.0 million.  

After this mediation, the company's insurance carriers agreed to
tender their remaining limits of coverage, and the company
contributed approximately $2.2 million to the settlement.  

On March 17, 2006, the company, along with plaintiffs' counsel,
submitted the settlement to the Court and the shareholder class
for approval.  

The Court held a hearing to review the settlement of the
shareholder litigation on Sept. 25, 2006.  The court has not
approved the settlement.

The company reported no development in the settlement in its
March 30, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.terayon.com/.


TERAYON COMMS: Seeks Dismissal of "Mongeli" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The new lead plaintiff in a securities suit pending against
Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California added Ernst & Young as
defendant in an amended complaint.

On June 23, 2006, a putative class action was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by I.B.L. Investments Ltd. purportedly on behalf of
all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
Oct. 28, 2004 and March 1, 2006.

Zaki Rakib, Jerry D. Chase, Mark Richman and Edward Lopez are
named as individual defendants.  The lawsuit focuses on the
company's March 1, 2006 announcement of the restatement of
financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2004, and for
the four quarters of 2004 and the first two quarters of 2005.

On Nov. 8, 2006, Adrian G. Mongeli was appointed lead plaintiff
in the case, replacing I.B.L. Investments Ltd.  On Jan. 8, 2007,
Mongeli filed an amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased the company's common stock between June
28, 2001 and March 1, 2006.

The amended complaint adds as defendants:

     * Ernst & Young,
     * Ray Fritz,
     * Carol Lustenader,
     * Matthew Miller,
     * Shlomo Rakib,
     * Doug Sabella,
     * Christopher Schaepe,
     * Mark Slaven,
     * Lewis Solomon,
     * Howard W. Speaks,
     * Arthur T. Taylor, and
     * David Woodro.

The amended complaint incorporates the prior allegations and
includes new allegations relating to the restatement of the
Company's consolidated historical financial statements as
reported in the Company's Form 10-K filed on Dec. 29, 2006.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages, interest, costs and any
other relief deemed proper by the court.

On March 9, 2007, Terayon and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  That motion is to be
heard on June 5, 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.

The suit is "Adrian G. Mongeli, et al. v. Terayon Communication
Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-03936-MJJ," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing Mr. Mongeli is Michael David Braun at Braun Law
Group, P.C., 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles,
CA 90025, Phone: 310-442-7755, Fax: (310) 442-7756, E-mail:
service@braunlawgroup.com.  


TJX COMPANIES: Banks to Sue Over Credit Card Security Lapse
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Bankers Association is filing a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against Framingham, Mass.-based TJX Cos. Inc. over a credit and
debit card data breach in which more than 45 million cards may
have been compromised.

The suit will seek to recover damages in the "tens of millions
of dollars," and the Connecticut Bankers Assoc., the Maine
Assoc. of Community Banks, and individual banks, are joining the
MBA as co-plaintiffs.

The three bankers associations represent nearly 300 banks. Thus
far, the "named" plaintiffs in the class action include:

     -- Saugusbank, Saugus, Mass.;
     -- Eagle Bank, Everett, Mass.; and
     -- Collinsville Savings Society, Collinsville, Conn.

More bankers associations and many more individual banks are
expected to join the list from across the country as the case
progresses.

As a result of the TJX data breach, which was first disclosed in
mid January, there have been dramatic costs to financial
institutions in the effort to protect cardholders.  The MBA is
filing this lawsuit to protect customer privacy and data
security for customer accounts.

"The MBA made a decision to file a class action because we
believe we are in the best position to achieve success for our
members and customers," said Daniel J. Forte, president and
chief executive of the MBA.

"With the possible exception of the banks from California that
could also decide to join us, our New England institutions have
had the most exposure to this massive data breach.  We believe
TJX has more stores in our region than anywhere else other than
California and, of course, it is headquartered here in
Massachusetts. Moreover, we have extensive knowledge and
experience with Massachusetts state law, which will likely be an
important factor in this litigation."

Local banks, as well as banks in other regions of the U.S., have
been acting to protect customers who had card data compromised
after doing business with TJX stores including:

     -- TJMaxx,
     -- Marshalls,
     -- Winners,
     -- HomeGoods,
     -- TKMaxx,
     -- AJWright, and
     -- HomeSense.

Recently, TJX reported that cards and other personal information
may have been exposed going all the way back to 2003.

Cases of fraud due to the TJX breach have been reported from all
over the world.  At the time that the MBA is filing this
lawsuit, banks throughout New England continue to receive lists
of "hot" cards that have been exposed in the TJX data breach,
more than three months after TJX first disclosed it had a
problem.

Mr. Forte said the MBA and the other plaintiffs are not ready to
discuss the full extent of the bank losses because the damage is
still being done.  "Suffice to say," he said, "we will be
seeking to recover damages in the tens of millions of dollars."

Banks all across the nation re-issued debit cards as a result of
the TJX data breach.  Preliminary estimates of the costs vary
from institution to institution, up to $25 dollars per card.  
This alone would run into many millions of dollars for banks
throughout the country.  Moreover, when fraud occurs, banks
generally cover the entire fraud, replacing money in customer
accounts to protect their customers.

"Protecting consumers is our number one priority," said Lindsey
Pinkham, senior vice president of the Connecticut Bankers
Association.  "However, retail data breaches are getting larger
and more frequent and we cannot continue to absorb the costs."

The MBA's Forte also said he has great confidence this lawsuit
will achieve success even though lawsuits brought by other banks
as a result of a similar breach by BJ's Wholesale Club several
years ago have achieved mixed results.

"There are significant differences between this case and prior
data breach lawsuits such as the BJ's cases in Pennsylvania," he
said.  "We think we have an advantage trying the case here in
Massachusetts; when the BJ's cases were argued in Pennsylvania,
the plaintiffs did not include an unfair trade practices
statutory claim, and Massachusetts law allows these claims.

"In fact," added Mr. Forte, "an unfair trade practice claim was
asserted by the FTC and a fine was levied in the BJ's case.

In addition, we will seek to prove that TJX is responsible for
negligent misrepresentation. Among other things, the company
represented that it was safeguarding and disposing of cardholder
data. These representations were not true and showed a lack of
reasonable care and were both unfair trade practices and
negligent misrepresentation under Massachusetts law.

In one of the ongoing BJ's cases, unlike in Pennsylvania, a
motion to dismiss brought by BJ's was denied in Massachusetts
and the case is still proceeding here.

"We believe the litigation ultimately will serve to better
protect consumers," added Mr. Forte.  "If we're successful
against TJX, the nation's major retailers will finally wake up
to the fact that not protecting consumer data is an unfair trade
practice and that investment in data management systems to
protect consumers and shield consumers against fraud and
identity theft is required."

The Massachusetts Bankers Association represents 207 commercial,
savings and co-operative banks and savings and loan institutions
in Massachusetts and elsewhere in New England.

The Connecticut Bankers Association represents over 64 financial
institutions conducting banking operations in the State of
Connecticut and elsewhere in New England.

The Maine Association of Community Banks represents 23 Maine-
based financial institutions.

Representing the New England plaintiffs in the new class action
is Tyler Cooper, 185 Asylum Street, CityPlace I, 35th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3488, Phone: 860.725.6200 (Office Phone),
Fax: 860.278.3802, Web site: http://www.tylercooper.com/


TREX CO: Appeal Against Dismissal of Va. Securities Suit Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit pending against Trex Co.
Inc. before the U.S. Court of Appeals for 4th Circuit
voluntarily dismissed their appeal.  

Commencing on July 8, 2005, two lawsuits, both of which sought
certification as a class action, were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Virginia naming as defendants:

     -- the company;
     -- Robert G. Matheny, a director and the former chairman
        and chief executive officer; and
     -- Paul D. Fletcher, senior vice president and chief
        financial officer.

Following agreement by the plaintiffs and the defendants that
the two lawsuits should be consolidated, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  

The complaints principally allege that the company, Mr. Matheny
and Mr. Fletcher violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of and Rule
10b-5 under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among
other things, making false and misleading public statements
concerning the company's operating and financial results and
expectations.

The complaints also allege that certain directors of the Company
sold shares of the company's common stock at artificially
inflated prices.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
damages.  

On Feb. 28, 2006, the company filed a motion to have the
consolidated class action complaint dismissed with prejudice for
failure to state a claim.  On Oct. 6, 2006, the court granted
the company's motion to dismiss the claim.

On Nov. 2, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the 4th Circuit.   

On Jan. 3, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an Agreement of Voluntary
Dismissal of their Appeal, 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 "Mehigan, et al. v. Trex Co., Inc. et al., Case No.
5:05-cv-00047-gec-bwc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Virginia under Judge Glen E. Conrad with
referral to Judge B. Waugh Crigler.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric Lechtzin of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP,
         280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-
         667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
         elechtzin@sbclasslaw.com; and

     (2) Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue
         of the Stars, los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-
         9150, Fax: 310-201-9160.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Christian J. Mixter, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20004, Phone: 202-739-5073, Fax: 739-
         3001, and

    (ii) Marc J. Sonnenfeld of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1701
         Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921, Phone: 215-
         963-5572, Fax: 215-963-5001, E-mail:
         msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com.


UNITED STATES: Cold War Veterans Sue Over EEOICPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Holland & Hart LLP attorney Greg Piche filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf
of seriously ill former uranium miners and nuclear weapons
workers throughout the country who (allegedly) are having their
doctor's orders ignored and their medical benefits reduced by
the U.S. Department of Labor.

The plaintiffs became ill after working on the country's nuclear
weapons arsenal and now most are dying from their work related
exposure to toxic materials.

"It's unconscionable for these injured Cold War veterans, who
have already qualified for this congressionally mandated care,
to be treated in this reckless and arbitrary manner.  These
workers and families are not seeking monetary damages, they just
want the health care restored that their doctors have ordered as
being necessary for their conditions" said Mr. Piche  

The suit is asking a judge to stop the Department of Labor, who
oversees the program, from disregarding the medical directives.

"Recently we've seen the Labor Department arbitrarily reduce the
amount of care ordered by our patients' doctors.  At the same
time the Department has made patients and their families wait
for up to 7 months to have their care approved.  For many of
these seriously ill and elderly patients, care delayed is in
fact care denied, with life threatening consequences," said Greg
Austin, President of Professional Case Management, the in-home
nursing agency that provides skilled nursing care to these
former nuclear workers.

In 2000, Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) with the purpose of
establishing a program to provide for "timely, uniform, and
adequate compensation of covered employees," including medical
benefits for nuclear weapons workers and uranium miners, millers
and haulers who developed serious and often terminal illnesses
as a result of their employment in the U.S. nuclear weapons
industry.

To date, the government has acknowledged that over 21,000
uranium and nuclear weapons workers throughout the country have
been injured as a result of their exposure to radiation or other
toxic substances as they produced the weapon's grade uranium and
related materials required for the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The suit is "Montano et al. v. Chao et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00735-EWN-MEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, under Judge Edward W. Nottingham, with
referral to Judge Michael E. Hegarty.

Representing plaintiffs is Gregory R. Piche of Holland & Hart,
LLP-Denver, P.O. Box 8749, 555 17th Street, #3200 Denver, CO
80201-8749, Phone: 303-295-8000, Fax: 295-8261, E-mail:
gpiche@hollandhart.com.


VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Faces Mich. Lawsuit Over OnStar Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VWOA) is facing a class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan due to its alleged failure to provide warranty service
for VWOAs with factory-installed analog only OnStar telematic
equipment, a CourtHouse News Service report said.

OnStar is an in-vehicle telecommunication device that provides
automatic crash notification to emergency responders, stolen
vehicle location, remote door unlock and remote diagnostics in
the event problems with airbags, anti-lock brakes or other
systems.  VWOA sold factory installed OnStar systens as optional
equipment on 2004 VWOA Passat and other VWOA models.

Lead plaintiff David Busch purchased a new 2004 VWOA Passat on
or about Mar. 9, 2004, from an authorized dealer.  His vehicle
included OnStar telematic equipment as a factory installed
option, which cost him $899.

According to the complaint, at that time of purchase, VWOA
expressly represented and warranted that plaintiff's vehicle was
covered by a "New Vehicle Warranty" for a period of four years
or 50,000 miles which ever occurs first.

Further, VWOA represented and warranted that the New Vehicle
Warranty covered "any repair to correct manufacturer's defect in
material or workmanship", that the warranty would be honored by
any authorized VWOA dealer in the U.S., and that repairs or
replacements would be made "free of charge."

By a letter dated Feb. 26, 2007, VWOA advised plaintiff that his
OnStar equipment would not function after Dec. 31, 2007 because
of its analog-only design and that it would not repair or
replace the OnStar equipment to function on a digital cellular
service.

VWOA directly and through its dealer network refuses to repair
and/or replace the OnStar equipment in plaintiff's vehicle so
that it will operate on digital cellular networks, the lawsuit
contends.

Solely as a result of VWOA's conduct, it is alleged that:

     (a) plaintiff will incur costs and expenses to replace
         and/or repair the analog OnStar equipment in his
         vehicle to function with digital cellular service; and

     (b) plaintiff will suffer insignificant depreciation and
         the loss of value of his vehicle due to the
         nonfunctional analog OnStar equipment.

Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
persons and entities in the U.S. who own or lease VWOA motor
vehicles equipped with analog only OnStar equipment.

Questions raised are:

     (i) did VWOA breach its express warranties?

    (ii) did VWOA breach its implied warranties of
         merchantability?

   (iii) did VWOA breach its implied warranties of fitness for
         particular purpose?

    (iv) did VWOA violate the Michigan Consumer Protection Act?         

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all class members,
request judgment in their favor and against VWOA, and requests
the following relief:

     -- certification of the plaintiff class, the appointment of
        plaintiff as the class representative, and the
        appointment of plaintiff's counsel as class counsel;

     -- compensatory damages for the class to be determined at
        trial, together with interest and costs;

     -- exemplary damages and reasonable attorney's fees
        pursuant to the Michigan Consumer Protection Act; and

     -- such other relief as may be just, necessary or
        appropriate.

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

          http://bankrupt.com/misc/Volkswagen.pdf

The suit is "Busch v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., Case No.
2:07-cv-11759-LPZ-DAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, under Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff
with referral to Judge Donald A. Scheer.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marc H. Edelson of Hoffman & Edelson, 45 W. Court
         Street, Doylestown, PA 18901, Phone: 215-230-8043; and

     (2) Marc L. Newman and E. Powell Miller, both of The Miller
         Law Firm (Rochester), 950 W. University Drive, Suite
         300, Rochester, MI 48307, Phone: 248-841-2200, Fax:
         248-652-2852, E-mail: mln@millerlawpc.com or
         epm@millerlawpc.com.


* Research and Markets Introduces Guide to Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Research and Markets added "Best Practices for Class Action
Litigation: Leading Lawyers on Evaluating Risk, Gathering Key
Facts, and Overseeing Settlements and Negotiations (Inside the
Minds)" to its offering.

Best Practices for Class Action Litigation is an authoritative,
insider's perspective on representing a company embroiled in a
class action.  Featuring partners and shareholders from some of
the nation's leading law firms, these experts guide the reader
through the key stages and steps involved in overseeing a class
action, emphasizing the ability of an attorney to help their
clients weigh their options and select the best course of
action.

The authors discuss the challenges facing attorneys in class
action representation matters, including the impact of laws such
as the Federal Arbitration Act and the Class Action Fairness
Act.  From analyzing the client's objective and developing a
persuasive presentation to strategies for deciding on settlement
or negotiation and guiding dispute resolution, these top laywers
examine how class actions come about, how to avoid them, and how
to best approach them once they occur.

The different niches represented and the breadth of perspectives
presented enable readers to get inside some of the great legal
minds of today, as these experienced lawyers offer up their
thoughts around the keys to navigating this constantly-changing
area of law.

Inside the Minds provides readers with proven business
intelligence from C-Level executives (Chairman, CEO, CFO, CMO,
Partner) from the world's most respected companies nation-wide,
rather than third-party accounts from unknown authors and
analysts.  

Each chapter is comparable to an essay/thought leadership piece
and is a future-oriented look at where an industry, profession,
or topic is headed and the most important issues for the future.  
Through an exhaustive selection process, each author was hand-
picked by the Inside the Minds editorial board to author a
chapter.

Chapters Include:

     -- Daniel P. Shapiro, Partner, Goldberg Kohn - "The Unique
        Aspects of Class Action Litigation";

     -- Drew H. Campbell, Chair, Litigation Department, Bricker
        & Eckler LLP - "The Mechanics of Class Action
        Litigation";

     -- Gregory D. Call, Partner and Chair, Litigation
        Department, Folger Levin & Kahn LLP - "The Strategic
        Litigator: Class Actions";

     -- Kevin D. Gordon, Director and Shareholder, Crowe &
        Dunlevy - "A Step-by-Step Look at the Process";

     -- Pete Schenkkan, Shareholder, Graves, Dougherty, Hearon &
        Moody PC - "Defending Proposed Class Actions";

     -- Robert S. Hackleman, Shareholder and Chair, Litigation
        Department, Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart PA - "Helping the
        Client Make the Right Decisions";

Research and Markets on the Net:
http://www.researchandmarkets.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  * * *