CAR_Public/070430.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 30, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 84

                            Headlines


ACCREDITED HOME: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set May 15
ALABAMA: Death Row Inmates Challenge Limit on Appeals Funding
AMISUB HILTON: Continues to Face S.C. Suit on Heart Procedures
AVENTIS INC: U.K. Plaintiffs Appeal Products Suit Dismissal
AVENTIS PHARMA: Plaintiffs Appeal DDAVP Tablets Suit Dismissal

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Counsel Appointed in Mo. Modified Rice Case
DENDRITE INT'L: Named Defendant in CEGEDIM Merger Litigation
DYNEX CAPITAL: Court Mulls Appeal on Securities Suit's Dismissal
FREMONT GENERAL: Faces ERISA Suit in Calif. Over Stock Purchases
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Court Okays $63.8 Million Paxil Suit Settlement

HERTZ CORP: Appeals Court Order in Tex. Suit Over Service Charge
HERTZ CORP: Discovery Continues in Okla. Consumer Suit Over FSC
HERTZ CORP: Service Charge Lawsuit in New Mexico Dismissed
HERTZ CORP: Wants Nevada Service Charge Litigation Dismissed
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Tenn. Lawsuit Over Front-Loading Washers

MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces N.Y. Lawsuits Over Microsoft Deal
NEW CENTURY: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif.
NEW CENTURY: Ind. Court Mulls Approval of FCRA Suit Settlement
NEW CENTURY: Indiana Court Dismisses Loan Fee Fraud Litigation
NEW CENTURY: Fourth Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Wage Suit

NEW CENTURY: Parties Mutually Settle California FCRA Litigation
NEW CENTURY: Parties Want Forrest Calif. FCRA Suit Dismissed
PET FOOD: Richard Hurwitz Files Suit Over Tainted Pet Food
RAMP CORP: Court Sets June 29 to Hear on $2MM Settlement Deal
ROY MOFFITT: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations

SANOFI-AVENTIS: Subsidiaries Still Face Mass. AWP Litigation
SANOFI-SYNTHELABO: Faces Plavix Consumer Fraud Suit in N.J.
SANOFI-SYNTHELABO: Still Faces Ambien Product Litigation in N.Y.
SANOFI PASTEUR: Still Faces Mercury Personal Injury Suits
SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Overtime Non-Payment Lawsuit in Kansas

STONEGATE SENIOR: Two Workers File FLSA Violations Suit in Tex.
TJX COS: Faces Privacy Violation Suit in British Columbia
TJX COS: Faces "Churchman" Security Breach Lawsuit in Alberta
TJX COS: Faces "Churchman" Security Breach Suit in Manitoba
TJX COS: Faces "Copithorn" Privacy Breach Suit in Saskatchewan

TJX COS: Faces "Howick" Security Breach Lawsuit in Quebec
TJX COS: Faces "Wong" Security Breach Lawsuit in Ontario
TRUSTREET PROPERTIES: Faces Md. Suit Over General Electric Deal
UNITED PARCEL: Ninth Circuit Orders Rehearing of "Bates" Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Pilots File Calif. Suit on Retirement Age Rule

USANA HEALTH: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set May 25
VIRGINIA: PHP Files $1B Anti-Spam Suit, Seeks Spammers' Identity
WATCHGUARD TECH: Amended Complaint in Wash. Fraud Suit Filed
WORKSTREAM INC: Anticipates 2008 Trial for N.Y. Securities Suit

* Fraudulent Settlement Notices Distributed in Oklahoma


                            *********


ACCREDITED HOME: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set May 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announced a May 15, 2007 as the
deadline for request to be a lead plaintiff in the shareholder
lawsuit it filed on behalf of all persons and institutions who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Accredited
Home Lenders Holding Co. between November 1, 2005 and March 12,
2007.

The law firm, representing shareholders of Accredited Home,
charges Accredited and certain of the company's executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws (Class
Action Reporter, April 13, 2007).

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the company's financial performance caused
Accredited's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

Accredited and its subsidiaries operate as a mortgage banking
company in the U.S. and Canada, which originates, finances,
securitizes, services and sells "non-prime" or "sub-prime"
mortgage loans secured by residential real estate.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
knew but failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
company's financial well-being, business relationships, and
prospects, including that:

      (1) the company was improperly accounting for loan losses
          as conditions in the sub-prime industry deteriorated;

      (2) as a result, the company's financial statements were
          materially misstated;

      (3) the company's underwriting guidelines were not
          adequately restrictive for borrowers in the sub-prime
          loan market;

      (4) the company would be forced to further tighten its
          underwriting guidelines which would have a material
          impact on its future loan production;

      (5) the company was operating without effective risk
          management policies and procedures in place;

      (6) the company lacked adequate internal and financial
          controls; and

      (7) for the foregoing reasons, the company's statements
          about its financial well-being and future business
          prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when
          made.

On Feb. 14, 2007, Accredited reported its financial and
operating results for the fourth quarter and year ended Dec. 31,
2006, emphasizing that it had "continued to increase reserve
balances" by increasing the company's total reserves by
$42 million for the quarter, and was maintaining "strong
liquidity."

On March 12, 2007, Accredited shocked investors when the company
revealed that its cash resources had effectively been depleted,
and that the company was now forced to explore strategic options
for continued survival.

The company further revealed for the first time that it had been
forced to pay approximately $190 million in margin calls since
Jan. 1, 2007, one-third of which had been received prior to the
company's Feb. 14, 2007 announcement.  The company further
revealed that it was forced to seek financial waivers and
extensions of the covenants it had made with its financial
lenders.

As a result of this news, analysts predicted that the company
could face liquidation and possible bankruptcy, causing
Accredited shares to decline $7.43 per share, or 65 percent, to
close on March 13, 2007 at $3.97 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

For more information, contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP -- http://www.glancylaw.com-- 1801  
Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067,
by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224 or
by e-mail: info@glancylaw.com


ALABAMA: Death Row Inmates Challenge Limit on Appeals Funding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery-based Equal Justice Initiative is asking the U.S.
Supreme Court to review a ruling regarding the state's funding
of appeals in indigent prisoner's suits, The Associated Press
reports.

The request for review came in a suit, seeking class-action
status, filed on behalf of death row prisoners.  Plaintiffs are
asking a Supreme Court to review a decision reached by the 11th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2002 that said Alabama's death
row inmates weren't guaranteed legal aid for second round of
appeals under federal law.  Equal Justice Initiative said
Alabama is the only state that has that law.

Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama filed the suit in 2001.  
Plaintiffs include six current death row inmates who sued Prison
Commissioner Richard Allen and Gov. Bob Riley.

"[T]he appeal hinges on the argument that Alabama violates the
Sixth and Eighth Amendments because it is impossible for inmates
to do work necessary on their appeals without legal assistance,"
Associated Press reported, quoting Equal Justice Initiative
executive director, Bryan Stevenson.


AMISUB HILTON: Continues to Face S.C. Suit on Heart Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMISUB Hilton Head, Inc. and Tenet Physician Services Hilton
Head, Inc. remain as defendants in a purported federal class
action stemming from heart procedures done at Hilton Head
Regional Medical Center.

The suit was originally filed in Beaufort County, but was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on Feb. 7, 2007.  

Identified as plaintiffs in the suit are Robert J. Dema, Edward
M. Finn and Joyce E. Gadson, all former patients of the hospital
who received cardiac catheterizations.

The suit was filed on behalf of all South Carolinians who
received unauthorized or unnecessary catheterizations in non-
emergency situations at Hilton Head Regional, according to a
report by The Island Packet.

The suit is "Dema et al v. Tenet Physician Services Hilton Head
Inc et al., Case No. 9:07-cv-00374-PMD," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina under Judge
Patrick Michael Duffy.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John Phillip Algar of Mark C. Tanenbaum Law Office, 241
         East Bay St., Charleston, SC 29401, Phone: 843-577-5100
         Fax: 843-722-4888, E-mail: john@tanenbaumlaw.com; and

     (2) Michael Joseph Brickman of Richardson Patrick Westbrook
         and Brickman, P.O. Box 879, Charleston, SC 29402,
         Phone: 843-727-6520, Fax: 843-727-3103, E-mail:
         mbrickman@rpwb.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) E. Douglas Pratt-Thomas of Pratt-Thomas Pearce Epting
         and Walker, P.O. Box 22247, Charleston, SC 29413-2247,
         Phone: 843-727-2212, Fax: 843-805-6527, E-mail:
         dpt@wiselaw.com; and

    (ii) Brian R. Stimson of Alston and Bird, One Atlantic
         Center, 1201 W. Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-
         3424, Phone: 404-881-7000, E-mail: bstimson@alston.com.


AVENTIS INC: U.K. Plaintiffs Appeal Products Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is
mulling the appeal with regards to the dismissal of blood
products litigation against Aventis, Inc., and several others.

On June 2, 2003 a purported worldwide class action was filed
against current and former Group affiliates Armour
Pharmaceutical Co., Aventis Behring and Aventis Inc. and against
three other U.S. plasma fractionators, on behalf of a purported
class of foreign and national plaintiffs alleging infection with
HIV and/or hepatitis C from 1978-1990.

This action is pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  Ninety-three additional
individual and class action complaints have been filed in
various jurisdictions, but have all been successfully removed to
the Northern District of Illinois.

In the aggregate, the various plaintiffs' counsel represents
approximately 3,000 putative class members.  

On March 3, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois denied plaintiffs' requests to certify
class actions with respect to the cases before it.

However, to the extent plaintiffs chose to proceed with
individual claims, most of the approximately 3,000 plaintiffs'
cases are expected to remain before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois because of shared questions of
fact.

In June 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss claims
brought by U.K. plaintiffs arguing that the U.S. is not the
proper forum.

On Jan. 5, 2006, the U.S. District Court granted the defendants'
motion in the lead case, dismissing certain U.K. plaintiffs and
indicating that the decision would apply to some 300 additional
U.K. plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs have appealed this decision and oral argument was
heard on Sept. 13, 2006, according to Sanofi-Aventis' April 3,
2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


AVENTIS PHARMA: Plaintiffs Appeal DDAVP Tablets Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed purported class actions against Aventis
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (API), a Sanofi-Aventis subsidiary, with
regards to DDAVP tablets.

Subsequent to the decision of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in February 2005 holding the
patent rights at issue in the DDAVP tablet litigation to be
unenforceable as a result of inequitable conduct, eight putative
class actions have been filed claiming injury as a result of
Ferring B.V. and Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s alleged scheme
to monopolize the market for DDAVP tablets in violation of the
Sherman Act and the antitrust and deceptive trade practices
statutes of several states.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the court dismissed these claims for:

      -- failure to support the requisite finding of fraud,
         noting the difference between inequitable conduct and
         fraud,

      -- lack of standing, and

      -- absence of detailed allegations against API.

Plaintiffs are seeking further recourse against the decision to
dismiss, according to Sanofi-Aventis' April 3, 2007 Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Counsel Appointed in Mo. Modified Rice Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam J. Levitt, Esq., a partner at Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLC, was appointed Plaintiffs' Designated Co-Lead
and Co-Interim Class Counsel on April 18, 2007, in a case
brought on behalf of U.S. rice farmers and others, based upon
damages they sustained resulting from the contamination of the
U.S. rice supply with unapproved, genetically-modified rice seed
traits developed and tested by Bayer CropScience LP and related
entities.

The contamination of the U.S. rice supply - with not less than
two distinct genetically modified rice traits, LLRICE601 and
LLRICE 604 - has caused significant economic damages to U.S.
rice producers and has substantially diminished their ability to
cultivate, market, or otherwise distribute their rice crops.

These actions seek to hold Bayer, the developer of these
genetically modified rice traits, accountable for the market
losses and other economic and related damages they have caused
U.S. rice producers.

In addition to the rice producer actions, a small subset of
cases in this consolidated, multidistrict litigation seek
damages that this rice supply contamination caused to rice
mills, rice exporters, and others.

In making the appointment, Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri concluded
that the prevailing leadership group "best meets the needs of
all plaintiffs. . . . (and) most closely meets the `private
ordering' concept, because it has support of the larger number
of plaintiffs and lawyers involved."

Judge Perry further recognized that "the members of this group
have been involved in the litigation consistently and
cooperatively since the beginning.  They also have the resources
necessary to represent the plaintiffs and to coordinate the
activities that will be necessary for the prosecution of this
litigation."

This case is captioned "In re Genetically Modified Rice
Litigation, Master Docket No. 4:06MD1811 CDP," pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

For more details, contact Adam J. Levitt, of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Phone: (312) 984-0000, E-mail:
levitt@whafh.com, Web site: http://www.whafh.com.


DENDRITE INT'L: Named Defendant in CEGEDIM Merger Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Dendrite International, Inc. was named as a defendant in a
purported class action over CEGEDIM S.A.'s pending acquisition
of the company, according to the company's April 2, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On or about March 13, 2007, plaintiff Albert Oldham commenced a
purported class action against Dendrite, its directors and
Cegedim alleging that Cegedim's pending acquisition of Dendrite
is unfair to Dendrite's shareholders, and purporting to assert
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty.

The lawsuit is captioned, "Albert Oldham v. Dendrite
International, Inc., et al."  It asks the court to:

      -- declare that the action is properly maintainable as a
         class action, and certify the named plaintiff as class
         representative and its counsel as class counsel;

      -- declare and decree that the merger agreement between
         Dendrite and entities affiliated with CEGEDIM was
         entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the
         members of the Board and is therefore unlawful and
         unenforceable;
    
      -- rescind and invalidate the merger agreement;

      -- enjoin Dendrite and the Board from consummating the
         merger unless and until procedures are implemented to
         obtain the highest possible price for the shareholders;

      -- direct the Board to exercise its fiduciary duties to
         obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of
         the shareholders and in which the highest possible
         price is obtained;

      -- impose a constructive trust on any benefits improperly
         received by the Board as a result of wrongful conduct;
         and

      -- award plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this
         action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
         fees.

Dendrite International, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.dendrite.com/


DYNEX CAPITAL: Court Mulls Appeal on Securities Suit's Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule
on appeal regarding the dismissal of the securities fraud class
action against Dynex Capital, Inc. and its subsidiary MERIT
Securities Corp.

On Feb. 11, 2005, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws and various state
common law claims was filed against:

     -- Dynex Capital, Inc.,

     -- subsidiary MERIT Securities Corp.,

     -- Stephen J. Benedetti, the company's executive vice    
        president, and

     -- Thomas H. Potts, the company's former president and a
        former director.

The Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund filed the
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The lawsuit purported to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds,
which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans.  

On May 31, 2005, the Teamsters filed an amended class action
complaint.  The amended complaint dropped all state common law
claims but added federal securities claims related to the MERIT
Series 12 securitization financing bonds.  On July 15, 2005, the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  

On Feb. 10, 2006, the court dismissed the claims against Messrs.
Benedetti and Potts, but did not dismiss the claims against
Dynex and MERIT.  

The remaining defendants moved to certify an interlocutory
appeal of this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

On June 2, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion.  On
Sept. 14, 2006, the Second Circuit granted the defendants'
petition to accept the certified order for interlocutory appeal.

On March 2, 2007, the parties completed briefing in the Second
Circuit and are awaiting oral argument, according to the
company's April 2, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund
et al v. Dynex Capital, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01897-HB,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Harold Baer.

Representing the plaintiffs are Joel P. Laitman, Christopher
Lometti and Samuel P. Sporn, Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 19 Fulton
Street, Suite 406, New York, NY 10038, Phone: 212-964-0046, Fax:
212-267-8137, E-mail: chris@spornlaw.com.

Representing the company are Monica Shelton Call, Eric Harrison
Feiler, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Terence James Rasmussen and Joseph
John Saltarelli of Hunton & Williams, LLP, (Richmond VA), 951
East Byrd Street, Richmond, VA 23219, Phone: (804)-788-8632,
Fax: (804)-788-8218, E-mail: trasmussen@hunton.com or
jsaltarelli@hunton.com


FREMONT GENERAL: Faces ERISA Suit in Calif. Over Stock Purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fremont General Corp. was named as defendant a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, which alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Joel Rosenblatt of
Bloomberg reports.

A retiree, who claims corporate officers authorized the purchase
of Fremont stock for company pension funds as they dumped their
own shares, filed the suit, which seeks class-action status.

According to the complaint obtained by Bloomberg, executives
sold $16.5 million of their own shares from Jan. 1, 2003, to
April 24, 2007, while causing the company's retirement plan to
buy between $150 million and $210 million of the stock.

The complaint further stated that Fremont and its officers
caused company pension funds to buy shares though "they knew or
should've known that company stock was an imprudent investment
because of Fremont Investment & Loan's unsound underwriting,
risk management, and lending practices."  Fremont Investment &
Loan is a unit of Fremont General.

The complaint, "McCoy v. Fremont, Case No. 07-02693," is seeking
to recover millions of dollars in money lost in the funds when
the share prices fell this year.

Fremont General Corp. on the Net: http://www.fremontgeneral.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Court Okays $63.8 Million Paxil Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn approved a
$63.8 million settlement of a suit over GlaxoSmithKline plc's
anti-depressant drug Paxil, the St. Clair Record reports.

The suit accuses GlaxoSmithKline of promoting the drug for use
by children and adolescents while withholding negative
information about the medication's safety and effectiveness.  
The class consists of all U.S. residents who bought Paxil and
Paxil CR, a controlled-release version of the drug.  

Judge Mendelsohn approved on Oct. 6 and unsealed on Oct. 27 a
$63.8 million settlement of a suit over GlaxoSmithKline plc's
anti-depressant drug Paxil (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7,
2006).

But according to a Lawyers and Settlements report, since GSK's
original $63.8 million settlement with Korein Tillery and
Swedlow and Associates, lawyers who did a large amount of work
on similar class actions in Minnesota and California and their
clients, objected to the settlement as being unfair to the
consumers in the other classes and to their lawyers, whose
litigation efforts improved amendments to the terms of the
settlement and greatly contributed to the original settlement.

The firms who filed the objections argued that the settlement
proposal had a loophole that prevented adequate payment to a
considerable number of consumers.

One of the problems with the original settlement was the
perceived problem of reimbursement to consumers who could not
provide proper documentation.

They were only to receive $15, but under the new approved terms
consumers who cannot provide proof will receive $100. These
claims were also capped at $300,000 under the old terms, but the
objectioning team of lawyers were able to negotiate the removal
of that cap in addition to the increased payment.

This uncapping of the GSK settlement fund makes available more
payment to a larger portion of potential claimants thus making
the settlement more fair and GSK's overall payout more adequate.

Recently, the judge approved the settlement after competing
lawyers representing clients who objected to it changed portions
of the settlement.

Under the new settlement, anyone who purchased Paxil for someone
under 18 will get 100 percent of their out-of-pocket expenses
reimbursed if they have proof and file a claim by Aug. 31.

Anyone who does not have proof of purchase is still entitled to
receive up to $100 if the claim is supported by an affidavit
swearing that Paxil was purchased.

Lawyers and Settlements listed three of the most important terms
of the settlement:

     (1) the case was about documents showing that GSK had
         determined that Paxil failed to out- perform placebo
         for depressed minors yet GSK received money for selling
         Paxil to depressed minors;

     (2) the team of lawyers who negotiated the new terms worked
         in conjunction with watch dog group Public Citizen
         which was also making similar objections to theirs.
         Public Citizen was working on behalf of objectioner
         Bowman and PAL (Prescription Access Litigation); and

     (3) the new claim form for undocumented claimants to
         receive $100 will be posted on the website for the
         Paxil Pediatric Settlement at:

         http://www.paxilpediatricsettlement.com
         http://www.paxilprogress.org
         http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com

Class attorney Stephen Tillery also reached a settlement with
attorneys in a competing class action that will compensate
attorneys for the work they did. Judge Mendelsohn awarded Mr.
Tillery 26% of the total, or $16.8 million in attorneys' fees.

Mr. Tillery told the judge that he decided to settle the case
even though he thought he had at least a 75% chance to win the
case in a Madison County court.

Contact information for Mr. Tillery: Korein Tillery LLC -
http://www.carrkorein.com/-- Belleville, Illinois (St. Clair    
Co.).


HERTZ CORP: Appeals Court Order in Tex. Suit Over Service Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Corp. is appealing the class certification order issued by
the 214th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in
the case, "Jose M. Gomez, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corporation."

The suit purports to be a class action filed alternatively on
behalf of all persons who were charged a Fuel and Service Charge
(FSC) by the company or all Texas residents who were charged a
FSC by the company.  The complaint alleges that the FSC is an
unlawful penalty and that, therefore, it is void and
unenforceable.  

In response to various motions by the company, the plaintiff has
filed two amended complaints, which scaled back the putative
class from a nationwide class to a class of all Texas residents
who were charged a FSC by the company or by its Corpus Christi
Licensee.

A new cause of action was also added for conversion.  After some
limited discovery, the company filed a motion for summary
judgment in December 2004.  That motion was denied in January
2005.  The parties are engaged in more extensive discovery.

On August 3, 2006, a hearing was held on plaintiff's amended
motion for class certification with no decision rendered to
date.  

After the hearing, the plaintiff filed a fifth amended petition
seeking to further refine the putative class as including all
Texas residents who were charges a Fuel and Service Charge, or
"FSC," in Texas after Feb. 6, 2000.

In October 2006, the judge entered a class certification order,
which certified a class of all Texas residents who were charged
an FSC in Texas after Feb. 6, 2000.  

The company is appealing this order, according to the company's
March 30, 2006 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


HERTZ CORP: Discovery Continues in Okla. Consumer Suit Over FSC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action filed against Hertz Corp.
in the District Court in and for Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma, styled, "Keith Kochner, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corporation."

The suit purports to be a class action, this time on behalf of
Oklahoma residents who rented from the company and incurred the
company's Fuel and Service Charge (FSC).  The petition alleges
that the imposition of the FSC is a breach of contract and
amounts to an unconscionable penalty or liquidated damages in
violation of Article 2A of the Oklahoma Uniform Commercial Code.
In March 2005, the trial court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the action but also granted the plaintiff the right to
re-plead.

In April 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
petition, alleging that the company's FSC violates the Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act and that the company have been unjustly
enriched, and again alleging that the company's FSC is
unconscionable under Article 2A of the Oklahoma Uniform
Commercial Code.

In May 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
class action petition.  In October 2005, the court granted the
company's motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiff to file a
second amended complaint by the end of October, which the
plaintiff did.  A third amended complaint was filed in November
2005 and the company answered the complaint.  Discovery has now
commenced, according to the company's March 30, 2006 10-k filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


HERTZ CORP: Service Charge Lawsuit in New Mexico Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Janelle Johnson, who proposed to represent all New Mexico
residents who rented vehicles from The Hertz Corp. and who were
charged a Fuel and Service Charge, has dismissed the case.

The case, which was initially filed on December 13, 2005 in the
Second Judicial District Court of the County of Bernalillo, New
Mexico, purports to be a class action, on behalf of all New
Mexico residents who rented from the company and who were
charged a FSC.  

The complaint alleges that the FSC is unconscionable as a matter
of law under pertinent sections of the New Mexico Uniform
Commercial Code and that, under New Mexico common law, the
collection of FSC does not constitute valid liquidated damages,
but rather is a void penalty.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, with the return of all
FSC paid or the difference between the FSC and its actual cost.

In the alternative, the plaintiff requests that the court
exercise its equitable jurisdiction and order the company to
cease and desist from the company's unlawful conduct and to
modify the company's lease provisions to conform with applicable
provisions of New Mexico statutory and common law.

The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.  The
company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico and, in lieu of an answer, filed a motion
to dismiss.

In November 2006, the judge granted the company's motion to
dismiss the liquidated damages claim and the substantive
unconscionability claim but did not grant our motion to dismiss
the procedural unconscionability claim or the claim for
equitable relief.  Plaintiff then amended her complaint to
replead the unconscionability claim and to add a fraudulent
misrepresentation claim.  

In December 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and, in January 2007, the court quickly
dismissed the new fraud claim and reaffirmed the dismissal of
the substantive unconscionability claim.  In February 2007, the
plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.


HERTZ CORP: Wants Nevada Service Charge Litigation Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corp. has filed a motion to dismiss a Fuel and Service
Charge suit filed against the company in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada.

On January 10, 2007, Marlena Guerra, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corp. was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada.

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of all
individuals and business entities who rented vehicles at Las
Vegas McCarran International Airport and were charged a FSC.

The complaint alleged that those customers who paid the FSC were
fraudulently charged a surcharge required for fuel in violation
of Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The plaintiff also
alleged the FSC violates the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code, or
"UCC," since it is unconscionable and operates as an unlawful
liquidated damages provision.

Finally, the plaintiff claimed that the company breached its own
rental agreement-which the plaintiff claims to have been
modified so as not to violate Nevada law-by charging the FSC,
since such charges violate the UCC and/or the prohibition
against fuel surcharges.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including the return
of all FSC paid or the difference between the FSC and its actual
costs, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  In
March 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

The suit is "Guerra v. Hertz Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00023-PMP-
GWF," filed in the U.S. District Court of Nevada under Judge
Philip M. Pro with referral to George W Foley, Jr.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Denise Barton at Morris Pickering & Peterson, 900 Bank
         Of America Plaza, 300 S. Fourth Street, Las Vegas, NV
         89101-(702) 474-9400, Fax: (702) 474-9422, E-mail:
         bkv@morrislawgroup.com,dab@morrislawgroup.com; and

     (2) Peter S. Hecker at Heller Ehrman, LLP, 333 Bush Street
         San Francisco, CA 94104, 415 772-6000.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard L. Kellner at Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP, 350
         South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: (213)
         217-5000, Fax: (213) 217-5010, E-mail:
         RLK@KBKLAWYERS.COM; and

     (2) Austin Tighe at Feazell & Tighe LLP, 6300 Bridgepoint
         1, Suite 220, Austin, TX 78730, U.S., Phone: (512) 372-
         8100, Fax: (512) 372-8140, E-mail:
         austin@feazell-tighe.com.


LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Tenn. Lawsuit Over Front-Loading Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------
LG Electronics USA, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, alleging that it sold a defective front-loading
washing machine, the WM0642HW, washer and/or other front load
washer manufactured by the company, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The claims asserted in the complaint are premised on breach of
express and implied warranties and violations of the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint alleges thousands of the WM0642HW washers and/or
other front load washers manufactured by LG possess a serious,
common defect.

The suit contends that due to a defective design, a pool of
water remains in the lower portion of the outer tub of the
washer, in the pump area and/or behind the rubber gasket inside
the door. This remaining water causes a moldy, mildew-like or
musty odor to emanate from the washer, often resulting in
clothes that must be re-washed.

This action seeks compensation, for members of the Class for the
financial and other costs incurred by them as a result of their
purchase of appliances with the aforementioned defect.

Lead plaintiff, Shellie Thomas, brings this action on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all Tennessee residents who own an LG
WM0642HW Washer or other front load washer manufactured and/or
distributed by LG pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Questions of law and fact common to the members of Class
include:

     (a) whether Defendant's front load washers are defective in
         that they are subject to repeatedly breaking down with
         normal use; do not drain properly and incubate the
         growth of mold and mildew; do not clean clothes
         effectively; and are not suitable for use as home
         washing machines;

     (b) whether Defendant was negligent in the design and sale
         of front load washers;

     (c) whether Defendant knew or should have known that its
         front load washers are not dependable and are not
         suitable for use as home washing machines, and
         otherwise are not as warranted and represented by
         Defendant;

     (d) whether Defendant knew or should have known of the  
         unreliable nature of its front load washers;

     (e) whether Defendant concealed from and/or failed to
         disclose to Plaintiff and the class the true
         reliability of its front load washers;

     (f) whether the facts omitted and/or otherwise not
         disclosed by Defendant to Plaintiff and the class are
         material facts;

     (g) whether Defendant intentionally concealed or omitted to
         disclose the true nature of its front load washers for
         the purpose of inducing Plaintiff and the class to
         purchase them;

     (h) whether Defendant engaged in unfair competition and/or
         unfair or deceptive acts and/or practices when it
         failed or omitted to disclose either through its
         advertising, warranties and other express
         representations, the true nature of its front load
         washers;

     (i) whether Defendant represented that its front load
         washers had characteristics that they do not;

     (j) whether Defendant represented that its front load
         washers were of a particular standard, quality or grade
         when they were not;

     (k) whether Plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         compensatory damages, and the measure of such damages;

     (l) whether Defendant should be declared financially
         responsible for notifying all class members of the
         defective nature of its front load washers and for the
         costs and expenses of repair and replacement of all
         such washers; and

     (m) whether Defendant should be ordered to disgorge, for
         the benefit of the class, all or part of its ill-gotten
         profits received from the sale of its front load
         washers, and/or to make full restitution to Plaintiff
         and the class.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the members of the Class,
demand judgment against the defendant and pray as follows:

     -- a determination that this action is a proper class
        action maintainable pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- pre judgment and post -judgment interest;

     -- costs and disbursements incurred by plaintiff in
        connection with this action, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees; and

     -- such other and further relief as the Court deems
        appropriate.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:      
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e03

The suit is "Thomas v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Case No. 3:07-
cv-00444," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger, with
referral to Judge John S. Bryant.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick M. Barrett, III of the Barrett Law Office, 3319
         West End Avenue, Suite 600, Nashville, TN 37203, Phone:
         (615) 386-8391, E-mail:
         pmbarrett3@barrettlawoffice.com;

     (2) William Michael Hamilton of the Provost, Umphrey Law
         Firm, LLP, 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite 103-C,
         Nashville, TN 37215, Phone: (615) 242-0199, E-mail:
         mhamilton@provostumphrey.com; and

     (3) Andrea Elaine Phelan and Phillip Miller, both of
         Phillip Miller & Associates, 631 Woodland Street,
         Nashville, Tennessee 37206, Phone: (615) 356-2000, E-
         mail: andrea@seriousinjury.com.


MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces N.Y. Lawsuits Over Microsoft Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Medis Technologies, Ltd. is named defendant in class action
suits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York relating to its claim of a commercial sales
deal with Microsoft, reports say.

According to Mark Hachman of Extreme Tech, Medis claims it had
signed a deal with Microsoft to supply it with "Microsoft-
branded" fuel-cells.

Consequently, the news generated a lawsuit after Microsoft
claimed the "partnership" was little more than a supply of party
favors.

Earlier, the Rosen Law Firm filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Medis Technologies, Ltd. common stock, Medis
call options, and sellers of Medis put options during the period
from April 13, 2007 through and including April 17, 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, April 25, 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medis, denying the claims said, "Although Medis has not as yet
been served with any legal process, it has reviewed the
complaint as posted on the website of the plaintiff's law firm.
Medis believes that such complaint is wholly without merit and
will be vigorously contested."

"Medis reaffirmed the truthfulness of its April 13, 2007 press
release upon which the lawsuit was premised and further stated
that a third party article elaborating upon such press release
and cited in the plaintiff's complaint was materially inaccurate
and that Medis had so informed its author prior to the article's
publication and told him not to publish the article," the
company added.

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


NEW CENTURY: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Financial Corp. is a defendant in several purported
securities fraud class actions that were filed in California
federal court, according to New Century Alternative Mortgage
Loan Trust 2006-ALT1's April 2, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 2, 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another of these class actions has been brought on behalf of the
holders of the Company's Series B Preferred Stock.  

New Century Financial Corp. on the Net: http://www.ncen.com/


NEW CENTURY: Ind. Court Mulls Approval of FCRA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana is
considering granting preliminary approval to the purported class
action against New Century Mortgage Corp., alleging violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Perrie Bonner and Darrell Bruce filed the suit against the
company, and Home123 Corp. in April 2005.  It claimed the
company and Home123 accessed consumer credit reports without
authorization because the prescreened offers of credit did not
qualify as firm offers of credit.  

The proposed class consists of all persons in Indiana, Illinois
and Wisconsin who received the prescreened offers from April 20,
2003 to May 10, 2005.

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

In August 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The class size is limited to the Northern
District of Indiana.

On Dec. 13, 2006, the court heard oral argument in Indiana on
the parties' summary judgment motions.  

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

On March 12, 2007, this action settled on a class-wide basis
(Northern District of Indiana).  On March 16, 2007, the parties
moved for preliminary approval of the settlement.

The court has not yet ruled on the motion, according to New
Century Alternative Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-ALT1's April 2,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 2, 2007.

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

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

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


NEW CENTURY: Indiana Court Dismisses Loan Fee Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana has
approved the dismissal of a purported class action pending
against New Century Mortgage Corp. in relation to mortgage
loans.

The suit alleges that the company violated the Indiana High Cost
Loan Act by allegedly making loans with fees greater than
permitted by law unless certain disclosures are made.  

Patricia and Stephen Jeppesen filed the suit in October 2005 on
behalf of all persons who obtained a mortgage loan from the
company after Jan. 1, 2005 on their principal residence in
Indiana.  

A second claim in the complaint alleges that New Century
Mortgage improperly charged a document preparation fee.

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

In February 2007, the parties reached a settlement on an
individual basis.  On Feb. 14, 2007, the court entered an order
dismissing this case and approving the stipulation of dismissal,
according to New Century Alternative Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-
ALT1's April 2, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 2, 2007.

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

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

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


NEW CENTURY: Fourth Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in "Daniel J Rubio v. New Century Mortgage Corp. et
al.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California agreed to the filing of a fourth
amended complaint in the matter.

In March 2005, Daniel J. Rubio, a former employee of the company
filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Orange County,
California, alleging failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, and that the company engaged in
unfair business practices in violation of the California Labor
Code.  The complaint seeks recovery of unpaid wages, interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company was served on March 22, 2005.  The company filed a
motion to strike and demurrer to the complaint in May 2005.  On
July 8, 2005, the court overruled the demurrer and granted the
motion to strike.   

The amended complaint was filed in July 2005 and the company
filed its answer in August 2005.  In December 2005, the company
filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint, which was
granted in its favor, limiting the statute of limitations for
plaintiff's meal and rest period claims to one year.

The court reconsidered and reversed its ruling in May 2006.  A
second amended complaint was filed by plaintiff, adding a cause
of action for failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA.

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

In September 2006, the court granted New Century Mortgage's
motion to strike, limiting the statute of limitations for
plaintiff's meal and rest period claims to one year.

Plaintiff's third amended complaint was filed in October 2006.
In December 2006, the court granted New Century Mortgage's
motion to strike the punitive damages allegations from the
plaintiff's third amended complaint and denied New Century
Mortgage's motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action for
alleged wage statement violations.

In December 2006, the parties stipulated to plaintiff filing a
fourth amended complaint, adding plaintiffs John Hicks and David
Vizcarra, according to New Century Alternative Mortgage Loan
Trust 2006-ALT1's April 2, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 2, 2007.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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


NEW CENTURY: Parties Mutually Settle California FCRA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in "Pamela Phillips v. New Century Financial
Corporation et al." agreed to the dismissal of certain claims in
the matter against New Century Mortgage Corp., New Century TRS
Holdings, Inc. and Home123 Corp., alleging violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In July 2005, Pamela Phillips filed the suit, claiming that New
Century TRS, New Century Mortgage and Home123 accessed consumer
credit reports without authorization because the prescreened
offers of credit did not qualify as firm offers of credit.

The case also alleges that certain disclosures were not made in
a clear and conspicuous manner.  The case also alleges that
certain disclosures were not made in a clear and conspicuous
manner.

The proposed class consists of all persons nationwide whose
consumer reports were obtained or used by the New Century
Entities in connection with a credit transaction not initiated
by the consumer and who did not receive a firm offer of credit
from the New Century Entities.  

A proposed sub-class consists of all persons whose consumer
reports were obtained or used by the New Century Entities in
connection with a credit transaction not initiated by them, and
who received a written solicitation to enter a credit
transaction which did not provide clear and conspicuous
disclosures as required by 15 U.S.C. section 1681m(d).  

The complaint seeks damages of not more than $1,000 for each
alleged violation, declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The company, New Century Mortgage and Home123 filed a motion to
dismiss certain claims in October 2005.  In November 2005, the
court granted the motion to dismiss, in part.

In early March 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, on its own motion, reversed its prior
ruling on the motion to dismiss citing the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in the "Murray v. GMAC
Mortgage Corp." case.

On Nov. 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification proposing that the class be limited to all
individuals throughout Harris County, Texas whose consumer
reports were obtained or used by New Century Mortgage or Home123
in connection with a credit transaction not initiated by them
and who received the same written solicitation to entered into a
credit transaction received by plaintiff. In late December 2006,
plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint to limit the class
size to Harris County, Texas.

On Jan. 22, 2007, the company, New Century Mortgage and Home123
filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

On Jan. 31, 2007, the company, New Century Mortgage and Home123
filed a Motion to Stay.  On Feb. 22, 2007, the court denied the
Motion to Stay.

On March 11, 2007, this action settled. The parties agreed to
dismissal with prejudice of individual claims and dismissal
without prejudice of claims of putative class members, according
to New Century Alternative Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-ALT1's April
2, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 2, 2007.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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

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


NEW CENTURY: Parties Want Forrest Calif. FCRA Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action, "Forrest v. New Century
Mortgage Corporation," are seeking for the dismissal of the
matter, which is pending in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California and alleges violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA).

The plaintiff, Mary Forrest, who filed the suit on January 2006,
is claiming that the originator accessed prescreened credit
reports without authorization, because the offers of credit
allegedly did not qualify as firm offers of credit.  

The proposed class consists of persons with Wisconsin addresses
to whom the originator sent a particular prescreened offer of
credit after Nov. 20, 2004.  

In February 2006, the company filed both its answer and a motion
to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

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

In July 2006, New Century Mortgage filed a Notice of Related
Case to consolidate this matter with the Phillips class action.

On March 11, 2007, this action settled.  On March 20, 2007, a
stipulation for dismissal of individual claims dismissed with
prejudice and claims of putative class members dismissed without
prejudice was filed with the court, according to New Century
Alternative Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-ALT1's April 2, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 2, 2007.

The suit is "Forrest v. New Century Mortgage Corporation, Case
No. 2:06-cv-00010-RTR, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge Rudolph T. Randa.

Representing the plaintiffs is John D. Blythin of Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP, 3620 E. Layton Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone:
414-482-8000, Fax: 414-482-8001, E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Sarah J. Friday of Kravit Hovel Krawczyk & Leverson,
         SC, 825 N. Jefferson St., 5th Fl., Milwaukee, WI 53202,        
         Phone: 414-271-7100, Fax: 414-271-81335, E-mail:
         sjf@kravitlaw.com; and

     (2) Bruce A. Friedman of Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan,
         LLP, 9th Tower, 1620 26th St., 4th Fl., Santa Monica,
         CA 90404-4060, Phone: 310-907-1000, Fax: 310-907-2000.


PET FOOD: Richard Hurwitz Files Suit Over Tainted Pet Food
----------------------------------------------------------
Boston law firm Wayne, Richard & Hurwitz LLP filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against pet food manufacturers for
supplying contaminated pet food that spawned an outbreak of pet
illnesses and deaths, The Region reports.

Filed on behalf of Megan Connerton and Kimberly Mello -- whose
cats suffered renal or kidney failure after eating the
contaminated food -- the lawsuit names these as defendants:

     -- Menu Foods Midwest Corporation  
     -- Menu Foods Income Fund  
     -- Menu Foods Limited  
     -- Menu Foods Inc.  
     -- Menu Foods Holdings, Inc.  
     -- The Iams Company  
     -- Nutro Products, Inc.  
     -- Target Corporation  
     -- ChemNutra Inc.  
     -- Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company
        Ltd.

The lawsuit alleges some deaths could have been avoided had the
companies alerted consumers sooner.

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

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

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

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

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

The suit is "Connerton et al v. Menu Foods Midwest Corporation
et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10797-DPW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Douglas P.
Woodlock.

Representing plaintiffs is Eugene R. Richard of Wayne, Richard &
Hurwitz, LLP, One Boston Place, Suite 3620, Boston, MA 02108,
Phone: 617-720-7870, Fax: 617-720-7877, E-mail:
generichard@wrhmlaw.com.


RAMP CORP: Court Sets June 29 to Hear on $2MM Settlement Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a hearing on June 29, 2007, at 3:00 p.m, to consider
the $2,075,000 settlement of the class action "In Re Ramp
Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:05-cv-
06521-DLC."

The class consists of all persons and entities who purchased
shares of Ramp Corporation a.k.a. Medix Resources, Inc. common
stock over the open market between December 18, 2002 and June 4,
2005, both dates inclusive.

The hearing will be at the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in the courtroom of the Honorable
Denise Cote.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is May 31, 2007.  
Deadline to file claims August 10, 2007.

In July 2005, Ramp Corporation was named defendant in a
shareholder class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities from April 14,2004 to May
20,2005 (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2005).

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading representations and omissions in
public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  

The complaint further alleges that on May 21, 2005, BDO Seidman
LLP resigned as the Company's auditor and advised the Company
that the Company's 2003 and 2004 audit reports were unreliable.  

It claims that as a result of such information, the Company
stated that is would not file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 on time, which led to its
defaulting on certain debentures.  

It is also alleged in the complaint that the Company's CEO
resigned and was suspended on May 22, 2005 because he may have
violated Company policies or the law when he received an
unspecified amount of cash as a gift in December 2003.

The complaint alleges that the Company filed for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy laws on June 2, 2005, and
that the American Stock Exchange notified it on June 6, 2005
that it was delisting the Company's stock.

It is alleged that when Seidman announced that it was resigning
and that the Company's financial statements were unreliable,
trading in the Company's stock was halted on May 23, 2005. At
the time, the Company's stock was trading at $1.25 per share.
When the Company's stock began trading again, it decreased in
price to $0.10 per share.

At the June 29 hearing, the Court will consider:

     (a) whether this Action satisfies the applicable
         prerequisites for class action treatment under Rule 23
         of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     (b) whether the terms of the proposed settlement, which,
         among other things, provides for the creation of a
         Settlement Fund in the amount of $2,075,000, are fair,
         reasonable and adequate, and should be approved by the
         Court;

     (c) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement
         Fund to the Settlement Class Members is fair and
         reasonable and should be approved by the Court;

     (d) whether the Order and Final Judgment as provided under
         the Stipulation should be entered, dismissing the
         Action on the merits and with prejudice, and to
         determine whether the release of the Released Claims by
         the Settlement Class Members of the Released Parties,
         as set forth in the Stipulation, should be ordered;

     (e) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of
         attorneys' fees not to exceed 33-1/3% of the Settlement
         Fund, and reimbursement of expenses not to exceed
         $65,000, should be approved; and

     (f) such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Court may adjourn or continue the hearing on the Settlement
without further notice to the Settlement Class Members.

The suit is "In Re Ramp Corporation Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:05-cv-06521-DLC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Denise L. Cote.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gregory Bradley Linkh and Jacqueline Sailer, both of
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Ste.,
         801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 682-1818, Fax:
         (212) 682-1892, E-mail: glinkh@murrayfrank.com or
         jsailer@murrayfrank.com;

     (2) Jeffrey S. Abraham of Abraham & Associates, One Penn
         Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)
         279-5050, Fax: (212) 279-3655;

     (3) Lawrence Donald Levit of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky
         LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: (212)-279-5050, Fax: (212)-279-3655, E-mail:
         llevit@aftlaw.com; and

     (4) Eric James Belfi of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100
         Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         (212) 907-0790, Fax: (212) 883-7579, E-mail:
         ebelfi@labaton.com.

Representing defendants is Marc R. Rosen of Kleinberg,
Kaplan,Wolff & Cohen,P.C., 551 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10176,
Phone: (212) 752-9700, Fax: (212)-980-5192, E-mail:
mrosen@kkwc.com.


ROY MOFFITT: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roy Moffitt Customized Fueling, Inc. has been named in a class-
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas alleging Labor Code violations,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52
Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., brought
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees owed to lead plaintiff Kelly Machauer.

Ms. Machauer claims she worked in defendants' offices in
Cypress, Texas since Aug. 15, 2004 and consistently worked 50-65
hours per week.

She further alleged that there was never any understanding,
written or verbal, between her and her employers regarding a
fluctuating work week, nor did her employers make any attempt to
modify her work week by changing it to a variable work week of
fluctuating work week as permitted by a partial exemption under
the FLSA and corresponding regulations.

The complaint alleges that defendants did not make a good faith
effort to comply with the overtime provisions contained within
the FLSA.

The complaint further alleges that based on the foregoing,
defendants violated the FLSA by failing to compensate plaintiff
at a rate of one and a half times her hourly wages for time
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, contrary to the
requirements of Section 7 of 29 U.S.C. Section 207.

Plaintiff asks the court:

     -- to hold the defendants jointly and severally liable for
        violations of the FLSA;

     -- that plaintiff be awarded all overtime wages owed;

     -- that she be awarded liquidated damages in an amount
        equal to all unpaid overtime wages; and

     -- that she be awarded her attorney's fees and costs for
        all other legal and injunctive relief that court deems
        necessary and proper.

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

The suit is "Machauer v. Roy Moffitt Customized Fueling, Inc. et
al, Case No. 4:07-cv-01392," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.

Representing plaintiffs is Douglas Burton Welmaker of Cowan &
Lemmon LLP, 3355 West Alabama, Ste 880, Houston, TX 77098,
Phone: 713-961-1222, Fax: 713-961-1234, E-mail:
dougwelmaker2000@yahoo.com.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Subsidiaries Still Face Mass. AWP Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Sanofi-Aventis remain defendants in
class actions that were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts in regards to the Average
Whole Price of certain drug products.

Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. (API), a Sanofi-Aventis subsidiary,
is a defendant in several U.S. lawsuits seeking damages on
behalf of multiple putative classes of individuals and entities
that allegedly overpaid for certain pharmaceuticals as a result
of the AWP pricing issue.

Aventis Behring and Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc. are also defendants
in some of these cases.  

Cases filed in state and federal courts have been or are in the
process of being consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts along with similar cases pending
against other pharmaceutical companies.

These suits allege violations of federal anti-racketeering
(RICO) and state unfair trade, unfair competition, consumer
protection and false claim statutes.

Plaintiffs initially also sued Together Rx, the discount drug
program in which API and several other pharmaceutical companies
participate that is designed to provide needy senior citizens
with lower cost pharmaceuticals.  

Plaintiffs alleged the Together Rx program violated federal
antitrust laws and RICO, and constituted a conspiracy under
civil laws.

In June 2005, following discovery, plaintiffs agreed to drop
their claims against Together Rx and the member companies, and
have filed an amended complaint reflecting this agreement.

By order entered on Jan. 30, 2006, the court granted in part
plaintiffs' motion for class certification against five
designated manufacturer defendants (not including API or Aventis
Behring) in a ruling certifying a class action of Medicare
beneficiaries in approximately 41 states and class actions of
Medicare beneficiaries' insurers and of non-Medicare third-party
payers and consumers geographically limited to Massachusetts.

A similar motion for class certification against defendants
including API and Aventis Behring was filed, briefed and argued
according to Sanofi-Aventis' April 3, 2007 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.


SANOFI-SYNTHELABO: Faces Plavix Consumer Fraud Suit in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc. is a defendant in a putative class
action over the Plavix drug, which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged
violations, inter alia, of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The plaintiff claims that as a result of defendants' conduct, it
and other similarly situated entities were forced to provide
prescription reimbursement benefits for Plavix, which they
assert has little excess benefit in some class of patients and
has excessive risk in others.

The proposed class action seeks unspecified statutory,
compensatory, and punitive damages, according to Sanofi-Aventis'
April 3, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


SANOFI-SYNTHELABO: Still Faces Ambien Product Litigation in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Sanofi-Aventis,
faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York over its Ambien (Stilnox)
product.

The suit was filed in March 2006, and is seeking unspecified
damages for harm allegedly caused by claimed product side
effects.

The proposed class action lawsuit seeks to represent persons
using Ambien(R) nationwide since 2000 and who claim injuries as
a result of that use.

Three of the four putative class representatives withdrew as
class representatives and voluntarily dismissed their claims,
according to Sanofi-Aventis' April 3, 2007 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.


SANOFI PASTEUR: Still Faces Mercury Personal Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi Pasteur, Inc. has been a defendant since early 2001 in
lawsuits filed in several federal and state courts in the U.S.
alleging that serious personal injuries resulted from the
presence of mercury in the preservative thimerosal, trace
amounts of which are contained in vaccines manufactured by the
company.

Currently, there are 287 such cases pending.  Several of the
cases seek certification to proceed as class actions, according
to Sanofi-Aventis' April 3, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Overtime Non-Payment Lawsuit in Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Bruner, a former employee at the Sprint Nextel
Corporation call center in Oklahoma City and in Texas, filed
suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas, KTEN reports.

Ms. Bruner claims the company didn't pay its call center
employees overtime. She further claims Sprint Nextel didn't
allow call center employees to record their work time.

The complaint says Sprint provided the workers with time sheets
showing they worked for 40 hours a week even if they worked
more.

The suit is "Bruner v. Sprint/United Management Company et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-02164-KHV-DJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas, under Judge Kathryn H. Vratil,
with referral to Judge David J. Waxse.

Representing plaintiffs is George A. Hanson of Stueve Siegel
Hanson Woody LLP, 330 West 47th Street, Suite 250, Kansas City,
MO 64112, Phone: 816-714-7100 X115, Fax: 816-714-7101, E-mail:
hanson@sshwlaw.com.


STONEGATE SENIOR: Two Workers File FLSA Violations Suit in Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stonegate Senior Care, L.P., along with several others, was
named as a defendant in a purported federal class action
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  

Marcia Mitchell and Shayla L. Shead, both of whom worked at
Heritage Plaza Nursing Home and Rehab Center, filed the suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on
April 24, 2007.

Other defendants identified in the case are:

      -- Stonegate Senior Care Management L.P.;
      -- Horizon Health Corp.;
      -- Heritage SNF, L.P.;
      -- SGB GB L.L.C.;
      -- John F. Taylor;
      -- Denise Robinson; and
      -- Lorraine Murray.

Generally, the suit alleges that defendants ordered, directed,
required, suffered, and permitted plaintiffs and others to work
in excess of 40 hours per week, without paying them at the
overtime rates required by FLSA.

In addition, the suit states that defendants paid plaintiffs a
daily or weekly wage without regard to the number of hours of
work, and without any compensation for the required overtime
rates.

According to the complaint, plaintiffs are seeking these forms
of relief:

      -- Compensation for all of their overtime hours in an     
         amount to be hereinafter determined;

      -- Liquidated damages equal to the overtime compensation      
         in accordance with FLSA or alternatively, prejudgment
         interest;

      -- Similar awards of overtime compensation and liquidated
         damages to all persons who shall hereafter file their
         written consents to become parties herein;

      -- Compensatory and liquidated damages to Ms. Mitchell for
         defendants retaliatory conduct;

      -- Attorneys' fees incurred herein;

      -- All costs incurred herein; and

      -- Any other relief as to which plaintiffs may show
         themselves justly entitled.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1e04

The suit is "Mitchell et al v. Stonegate Senior Care, L.P. et
al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00062-DF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District o Texas under Judge David Folsom.

Representing the plaintiffs is William B. Harrell, Attorney At
Law, 803 Pine Street, Texarkana, TX 75501, Phone: 903/793-1041,
Fax: 19037936449, E-mail: wbharrell@windstream.net


TJX COS: Faces Privacy Violation Suit in British Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------
TJX Cos. Inc. is facing a putative class action, "Ryley v. TJX
Cos., Inc., et al., Court File No. 07-0278," filed on Jan. 19,
2007 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada.

The plaintiff purports to represent a putative class of "all
individuals resident in British Columbia, or throughout Canada
and elsewhere, who have communicated confidential debit and
credit information to the [d]efendants in 2003, or between May
1, 2006 and December 31, 2006."

The complaint also names "Winners Apparel Inc." and "HomeSense
Inc." as defendants, and asserts claims for negligence, breach
of confidence and violation of privacy.  The plaintiff seeks
general and pecuniary damages, punitive damages, interest,
attorney's fees and costs.


TJX COS: Faces "Churchman" Security Breach Lawsuit in Alberta
-------------------------------------------------------------
The TJX Cos., Inc. is facing a putative class action,
"Churchman, et al. v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Court
File No. 0701-00964," filed in The Court of Queen's Bench,
Alberta, Canada, Churchman on Jan. 20, 2007.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a putative class of
"individuals who communicated to the [d]efendants confidential
information being their debit card numbers and credit card
numbers, expiry dates, and all of the information accessible to
someone in possession of those debit cards or credit cards."

The complaint also names "Winners Apparel Inc.," "Winners
Merchants International LP" and "HomeSense Inc." as defendants
and asserts claims for negligence, breach of confidence and
violation of privacy.

Plaintiffs seek general and special damages, punitive damages,
attorney's fees, interest and costs.


TJX COS: Faces "Churchman" Security Breach Suit in Manitoba
-----------------------------------------------------------
The TJX Companies, Inc. is facing a class action, "Churchman, et
al. v. The TJX Cos., Inc., et al., Court File No. 07-01-50449,"
filed in The Court of Queen's Bench, Manitoba, Canada on Jan.
31, 2007.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a putative class of "[a]ll
persons (including their estates, executors, or personal
representatives), corporations, and other entities, who have
communicated personal, debit card, or credit card information to
the [d]efendants in 2003, or between May 1, 2006 and December
31, 2006; which information was later stolen or released to
unauthorized third parties."

The complaint also names "Winners Apparel Inc.," "Winners
Merchants International LP" and "HomeSense Inc." as defendants
and asserts claims for negligence, breach of confidence and
violation of privacy.  Plaintiffs seek general and special
damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, interest and costs.


TJX COS: Faces "Copithorn" Privacy Breach Suit in Saskatchewan
--------------------------------------------------------------
TJX Cos., Inc. is facing a putative class action, "Copithorn v.
TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Court File No. 100," filed in The
Court of Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada on Jan. 22, 2007.

The plaintiff purports to represent a putative class of "all
individuals resident in Saskatchewan or throughout Canada and
elsewhere, who have communicated confidential debit and credit
information to the Defendants in 2003 or between May 1, 2006 and
December 31, 2006."

The complaint also names "Winners Apparel Inc." and "HomeSense
Inc." as defendants and asserts claims for negligence, breach of
confidence and violation of privacy.  The plaintiff seeks
general and pecuniary damages, punitive damages, interest,
attorney's fees and costs.


TJX COS: Faces "Howick" Security Breach Lawsuit in Quebec
---------------------------------------------------------
TJX Cos. Inc. is facing a putative class action, "Howick v. TJX
Cos., Inc., et al., Court File No. 06-000382-073" filed on Jan.
19, 2007 in the Quebec Superior Court, Canada.

The plaintiff purports to represent a putative class of "[a]ll
physical persons in Quebec and Canada and all legal persons in
Quebec and Canada who, during the 12-month period preceding this
Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action, had not
more than 50 employees under their direction or control, who
have communicated personal or confidential information to the
[r]espondents and have suffered damage as a result of the loss
or theft of this personal or confidential information."

The complaint also names "Winners Merchants International LP"
and "HomeSense Inc." as defendants.   The plaintiff seeks
general and special damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees,
interest and costs.


TJX COS: Faces "Wong" Security Breach Lawsuit in Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------
The TJX Cos., Inc. is facing a putative class action, "Wong, et
al. v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Court File No. CV-07-
0272-00," filed in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario,
Canada on Jan. 26, 2007.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a putative class of "[a]ll
persons (including their estates, executors, or personal
representatives), corporations, and other entities, who have
communicated personal, debit card, or credit card information to
the [d]efendants in 2003, or between May 1, 2006 and December
31, 2006; which information was later stolen or released to
unauthorized third parties."

The complaint also names "Winners Apparel Inc.," "Winners
Merchants International LP" and "HomeSense Inc." as defendants
and asserts claims for negligence, breach of confidence and
violation of privacy.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages,
interest, attorney's fees and costs.


TRUSTREET PROPERTIES: Faces Md. Suit Over General Electric Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trustreet Properties, Inc. was named a defendant in a purported
class action filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County,
Maryland in relation to an agreement that the company entered
unto with General Electric Capital Corp., according to FF-TSY
Holding Co. II, LLC's March 30, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Oct. 30, 2006, Trustreet entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (GE Capital Merger Agreement) to be acquired by a
subsidiary of General Electric Capital Corp., which, in turn, is
a subsidiary of General Electric Co.

On Oct. 31, 2006, a purported shareholder class action related
to the GE Capital Merger Agreement was filed in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County, Maryland naming Trustreet, each of
Trustreet's former directors and GE Capital Solutions as
defendants.  

The lawsuit, "Dr. Hila Louise-Chashin-Simon Foundation, Inc. v.
Trustreet Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. C-06-11890,"
alleges, among other things, that the $17.05 per share in cash
paid to the holders of Trustreet's common stock in connection
with the GE Capital Merger is inadequate, that the individual
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
Trustreet's stockholders in negotiating and approving the GE
Capital Merger Agreement, that GE Capital Solutions aided and
abetted the director defendants in such alleged breach and that
all defendants conspired in such breach.  

The complaint seeks the following relief:

      -- a declaration that the lawsuit is properly maintainable
         as a class action and a certification of the plaintiff
         as a class representative;

      -- a declaration that the director defendants have
         breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff
         and other members of the class, that GE Capital
         Solutions aided and abetted such breaches and that all
         defendants conspired in such breaches;

      -- equitable relief enjoining the GE Capital Merger and,
         if such transaction is consummated, rescinding the
         transaction;

      -- appropriate damages; and

      -- an award of attorneys' and experts' fees to the
         plaintiff.

Trustreet Properties, Inc. on the Net: http://www.trustreet.com.


UNITED PARCEL: Ninth Circuit Orders Rehearing of "Bates" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ordered a
rehearing by an 11-judge panel of the case, "Bates, et al. v.
United Parcel Service, Inc., Appellate Case No. 04-17295, Case
No. CV-99-02216-TEH (U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California)."

Back in October 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit
upheld ruling by Judge Thelton Henderson of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California in the case in
which global shipping giant was permanently barred from using a
hearing test that excluded deaf employees from all driving
positions.

                         Case Background

In 1999, Disability Rights Advocates and Schneider and Wallace
on behalf of hundreds of deaf applicants and employees of United
Parcel Service filed a nationwide class action against the
company that was essentially brought under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The suit sought to end widespread discrimination faced by the
deaf employees and applicants at UPS in relation to promotion
opportunities, communication barriers, and exclusion from entire
job classifications, such as driving positions.   

In April 2003, the case went to trial.  Several months into the
trial the parties reached a settlement agreement regarding the
employment accommodation issues.  

The settlement resulted in injunctive relief:

      -- sign language interpreters,
     
      -- communication aids for current employees and
         applicants,

      -- emergency alerts,

      -- text telephones, and

      -- equal access to promotional opportunities for deaf
         employees.  

The settlement also provided $5 million in damages for class
members.  The sole remaining issue in the case after the
settlement was UPS's across-the-board policy requiring
applicants for all driver positions to pass a Department of
Transportation hearing test intended for vehicles over 10,000
pounds, even for positions driving vehicles under 10,000 pounds.    

Trial on the "driver issue" (UPS's use of the DOT hearing test)
resumed in September 2003 and continued for three months.  After
a year of deliberation, Judge Thelton E. Henderson ruled that
UPS could no longer use the DOT hearing standard to exclude deaf
employees from driving UPS vehicles under 10,000 pounds.  

Under the ruling, UPS is required to individually assess each
deaf driving applicant based on his or her driving
qualifications, rather than using the DOT test.   

UPS appealed Judge Henderson's decision to the Ninth Circuit,
which consisted of panel of judges that included Martha Berzon,
Betty Fletcher, and John Gibson.

Argument before the Ninth Circuit panel was held during
September 2005, which eventually resulted in the October 2006
decision that affirmed Judge Henderson's ruling.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's 2006 decision is available free of
charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1e00

The suit is "Bates, et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case
No. CV-99-02216-THE," which is on appeal from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Thelton E. Henderson with referral to Judge James Larson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Laurence W. Paradis of Disability Rights Advocates,
         2001 Center Street, 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704,
         Phone: 510-665-8644, Fax: 510-665-8511, E-mail:
         larryp@dralegal.org; and

     (2) Todd M. Schneider of Schneider & Wallace, 180
         Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94104,
         Phone: 415-421-7100, Fax: 415-421-7105, E-mail:
         tschneider@schneiderwallace.com.

Representing the defendant is Christopher J. Martin of Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304,
Phone: (650) 849-5300, E-mail: cjmartin@gibsondunn.com.


UNITED STATES: Pilots File Calif. Suit on Retirement Age Rule
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Aviation Administration was named as a defendant in
a purported federal class action challenging a rule that
requires pilots to retire at age 60, The CBS 5 Bay Area reports.

Michael L. Oksner of Midway, Utah, who is a former Southwest
Airlines captain, filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on April 26, 2007.

His suit named as defendants:

      -- Marion C. Blakey, FAA Administrator;
      -- Jon Jordan;
      -- Nicholas Lacey;
      -- Frederick E. Tilton; and
      -- United States of America.

Mr. Oksner, 62, along with other pilots, contends that there is
no medical or safety basis for the rule, which was established
in 1959.  Pilots contend that the measure violates their
constitutional right to equal treatment.

According to Mr. Oksner, who is designated as the lead plaintiff
in the case, he believes that experience makes older pilots
better at their job and that rigorous medical and flight
simulation tests given to pilots each year are adequate to
ensure safety.

The lawsuit seeks a court order declaring the rule
unconstitutional as well as financial compensation for the
retired pilots.

In addition to listing more than 125 pilots as plaintiffs, the
suit seeks to be certified a class action on behalf of an
estimated several thousand pilots who were or are about to be
forced into retirement at age 60.

The suit is "Oksner v. Blakey et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-02273-
SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Anthony P.X. Bothwell of Law Offices of A.P.X.
         Bothwell, 350 Bay Street, Suite 100 PMB314, San
         Francisco, CA 94133, Phone: 415-370-9571, Fax: 415-362-
         5469, E-mail: apxb@hotmail.com; and

     (2) Rey Hassan of Hassan Law Firm, 1801 Bush Street, Suite
         04, San Francisco, CA 94133, Phone: (415) 775-9700,
         Fax: (415) 775-2507, E-mail: reylaw@earthlink.net.


USANA HEALTH: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set May 25
------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP and former Utah Attorney General Jan Graham,
representing investors in USANA Health Sciences, Inc. (Nasdaq:
USNA), said that investors seeking lead plaintiff status in a
class action lawsuit commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Utah, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of USANA during the period July 18, 2006 through
March 14, 2007, inclusive have until May 25, 2007 to move the
court for lead plaintiff appointment.

Filed in March, the complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws, including Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 28, 2007).

The Complaint further alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business and financial results and
failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the company's multi-level marketing system was
         operating as a pyramid scheme;

     (2) the majority of the company's Associates did not sell
         to consumers, but sold to other Associates;

     (3) the company was experiencing an exceedingly high
         Associate attrition rate, resulting in an unsustainable
         sales force;

     (4) 74% of the company's new Associates were failing within
         the first year; and

     (5) 87% of the company's Associates were losing money.

The Complaint contends that, as a result of these false
statements and omissions, USANA common stock traded at
artificially inflated or distorted prices.

On March 15, 2007, the Fraud Discovery Institute issued a press
release and The Wall Street Journal published an article
concerning a three-year investigation by the Fraud Discovery
Institute that had revealed that USANA's multi-level marketing
system was an unsustainable pyramid scheme.

In reaction to this news, the price of the company's stock
declined $8.92 per share, or 15%, to close on March 15, 2007 at
$49.85 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all members of
the proposed Class.

For more information, contact Dreier LLP, Phone: 1-800-952-8897,
E-mail: classlaw@dreierllp.com, Website:
http://www.dreierllp.com.


VIRGINIA: PHP Files $1B Anti-Spam Suit, Seeks Spammers' Identity
----------------------------------------------------------------
Project Honey Pot, a service of anti-spam company Unspam
Technologies LLC, filed a purported federal class action seeking
the identity of individuals responsible for harvesting millions
of e-mail addresses on behalf of spammers.

The suit, "Project Honey Pot, a dba of Unspam Technologies, Inc.
v. John Does Injuring PHP and its Members By Harvesting E-mail
Addresses, Transmitting Spam, And Posting Comment Spam, Case No.
1:07-CV-419-CMH/LO," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia on April 26, 2007.  

The case was filed under the Virginia anti-spam statute, as well
as a federal 2003 anti-spam law.  The statute penalizes
fraudulent senders of unsolicited bulk e-mail at $1 per message,
or $25,000 per day that any offending message was transmitted.

The federal law, known as the "CAN-SPAM Act of 2003," authorizes
fines of $100 for every attempted transmission of a spam message
containing false or misleading transmission information.  
Damages increase three-fold if a victim's e-mail address was
harvested from a public Web site.

According to the complaint, plaintiff requests entry of judgment
in its favor against defendants:

      -- Granting preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
         against defendants, and all those in privity or acting
         in concert with defendants, enjoining them from
         directly or indirectly violating the terms of the CAN-
         SPAM Act or the terms of Virginia anti-spam statute;

      -- Awarding plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages in
         an amount to be proven at trial;

      -- Awarding plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs associated
         with prosecuting this action; and  

      -- Granting plaintiff such other or additional relief as
         the court deems just and proper under the
         circumstances.

The $1 billion lawsuit is considered as the largest anti-spam
case to have ever been filed in U.S. history.  It is also
thought to be the first anti-spam case brought by a class of
Internet users not affiliated with any single Internet service
provider.

The was generally brought on behalf of roughly 20,000 Internet
users in more than 100 countries who use PHP's anti-spam tool.

Because of webmasters installing the anti-spam tool on their
servers, PHP has collected information on thousands of e-mail
harvesters in the U.S.  

These harvesters are either people or bots that automatically
scan web sites for e-mail addresses and then store them in a
database for sale to a spammer.

The lead attorney in the case, Jon Praed of the Internet Law
Group, and PHP both hope that by filing the "John Doe" suit,
they can use that information collected in conjunction with
subpoenas to find out who the actual spammers are.

Despite the suit's historical significance, Matthew Prince,
Unspam Technologies' chief executive officer, cautions that the
case is not going to solve the spam problem.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1e0d

The suit is "Project Honey Pot, a dba of Unspam Technologies,
Inc. v. John Does Injuring PHP and its Members By Harvesting E-
mail Addresses, Transmitting Spam, And Posting Comment Spam,
Case No. 1:07-CV-419-CMH/LO," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District.

Representing the plaintiffs is Jon L. Praed of The Internet Law
Group, 4121 Wilson Blvd., Suite 101, Arlington, VA 22203, Phone:
(703) 243-8100.


WATCHGUARD TECH: Amended Complaint in Wash. Fraud Suit Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP gave notice, on April 24,
2007, that an amended class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, on behalf of:

     a) shareholders of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.
        (NASDAQ:WGRD) that cashed out or tendered their
        WatchGuard shares pursuant to the October 4, 2006 "going
        private" transaction, and

     b) shareholders that purchased WatchGuard common stock from
        March 14, 2006 through March 22, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that certain private equity fund
defendants acquired WatchGuard by assembling ownership positions
on insider information in violation of the federal securities
laws.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the punitive
members of the class(es).

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 25,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact William Restis, Esq. of
Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, Phone: 877-493-5366 (toll free), E-
mail: wrr@classactionlaw.com.


WORKSTREAM INC: Anticipates 2008 Trial for N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Workstream, Inc. expects a 2008 trial for the securities fraud
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company and its chief executive
officer and its former chief financial officer.

On or about Aug. 10, 2005, a class action was filed on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the company's common shares
during the period from January 14, 2005 to and including April
14, 2005.  

It alleges, among other things, that management provided the
market misleading guidance as to anticipated revenues for the
quarter ended Feb. 28, 2005, and failed to correct this guidance
on a timely basis.  

The action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act,
and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as well
as the award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel
and expert fees and costs.  

In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which added additional plaintiffs and sought to elaborate on the
allegations contained in the complaint.  

The defendant's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was denied. The Court has certified the case as a class
action and has approved notice to the class.  

Discovery is continuing.   Based on discovery to date, the
company expects to file a motion for summary judgement at the
close of discovery.  

In the event the case is not disposed of on motion, the company
does not expect trial to occur earlier than Spring 2008,
according to the company's April 16, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Feb. 28, 2007.

The suit is "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al. v.
Workstream, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Charles L. Brieant.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh
         Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: (212) 868-3610, Fax:
         (212) 918-7967, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com; and
       
     (2) Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, 485
         Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY 10018, Phone:
         (212) 239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail:
         rstone@lawssb.com.

Representing the defendants are David M. Doret and H. Robert
Fiebach of Cozen and O'Connor, 45 Broadway Atrium, New York, NY
10006-3792, Phone: 212-509-9400.


* Fraudulent Settlement Notices Distributed in Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------
Fake letters regarding a settlement of a 'confidential' class
action are out in Oklahoma.

ConsumerAffairs.Com, quoting Oklahoma Attorney General Drew
Edmondson, reports that the scheme "appears to be a clever scam,
in which consumers are notified of their eligibility for a cash
settlement in a class action fraud settlement."

The letter, which talks about an out-of-court settlement,
contains a check in the amount of $2,975, and it directs the
recipient to contact a specified law office within five business
days to 'facilitate the release' of the full award of $129,000.

Mr. Edmonton suspects that customers are asked to provide bank
account information when they contact the law firm.  The
scammers take the consumers' bank funds and are not detected
until the check bounces.  What identifies the letter as a scam
is the information saying all parties involved in the class
action are sealed, according to Mr. Edmonton.

"The letter also requires the consumer to contact a Michigan law
firm in a very short period of time, and because of a 'gag
order' the consumer risks forfeiting his share of the money if
he contacts anyone to check the validity of the settlement," he
said.


                            *********


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, Janice Mendoza,
and Mary Grace Durana, 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  * * *