CAR_Public/070501.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 1, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 85

                            Headlines


ALDRICH CHEMICAL: 2003 Blast Suit Plaintiffs Awarded Damages
AROTECH CORP: Firm, Officials Face Mich. Securities Fraud Suit
AUSTRALIA: Baulkham Hills Shire May Face Suit Over Road Project
BLUE CROSS: Doctors Announce Settlement With 90% of All "Blues"
CALIFORNIA: Susceptible to Lawsuits, Needs Reform on Statutes

CLAIRE'S STORES: Faces Suits Over Apollo Management Transaction
DPC ENTERPRISES: AZ Residents Chlorine Leak Trial Begins May 15
ECHOSTAR COMMS: Faces Wash. Suit Over Telemarketing Practice
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J. Withdrawn
GENERAL MOTORS: Suit Over OnStar Software Filed in Mich. Court

ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Class in Cook County Strip-Search Suit
INSURANCE BROKERAGE: Antitrust Re-Pleading Deadline Set May 22
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Suit
JOS A BANK: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
JOS A BANK: Settlement Reached in Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit

MITTAL STEEL: Faces Canadian Suit Over Steel Plant, Coke Covens
NEW YORK: City Settles Litigation Over Special Preschool Classes
ORANGE 21: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: N.J. Stock Suit Granted Class Certification
TOLL BROS: Luxury Home Builder Faces Pa. Securities Fraud Suit

TJX COMPANIES: Banks Follow Through Lawsuit Filing Plan in Mass.
TRUSTREET PROPERTIES: Court Mulls Appeal on "Lewis" Dismissal
VISKASE CANADA: Faces Suit in Ontario Over Retirees' Benefits
VONAGE HOLDINGS: JPMDL Orders Transfer of IPO Lawsuits to N.J.
VONAGE HOLDINGS: N.J. Court Enters Order Dismissing "Norsworthy"

WELLS REAL: Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Md. Transferred to Ga.
WET SEAL: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Complaint
WET SEAL: Faces Lawsuits in Calif. Over Credit Rules Violations
WORLDSPACE INC: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
* Indiana Bill Signed into Law to Protect Indiana Cemetery Funds


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHECKFREE CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Ga.
OCCAM NETWORKS: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
US AUTO: Schiffrin Barroway Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
USANA HEALTH: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Utah


                            *********


ALDRICH CHEMICAL: 2003 Blast Suit Plaintiffs Awarded Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
A Montgomery County jury awarded damages to plaintiffs in a
purported class action filed against Aldrich Chemical Co. over
the Sept. 21, 2003 explosion at an Isotec, Inc. plant that it
owns, The Canton Repository reports.

Under the recent verdict, about 31 people could be getting
between $35 and $625 in damages, plus expenses, for the
inconvenience of being evacuated following the 2003 explosion in
suburban Miamisburg.

Aldrich Chemical operates the Isotec plant in Miamisburg that
had an explosion at the nitric oxide operations in 2003 that
caused the evacuation of surrounding neighborhoods.

A class action representing 3,000 individuals was brought
against the company in December 2003.  It seeks compensation for
evacuation costs, emotional distress and punitive damages.

Judge Dennis J. Langer of Montgomery County Common Pleas Court
in Ohio ruled in Oct. 21, 2005 that a class action would be in
the best interests of judicial economy by avoiding numerous
split trials and split appeals, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9,
2005).  

On Jan. 9, Judge Langer ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on
three claims of liability, but ruled in favor of the company on
one issue, court documents showed.  The one ruling in favor of
the company denied the plaintiffs' claims that the company acted
"in willful or wanton disregard."  

Consequently, Richard Schulte, co-lead counsel on the case
sought damages amounting to $80 million in the purported class
action over the Sept. 21, 2003 explosion (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 1, 2007).  

Mr. Schulte, a partner at Behnke Martin & Schulte, said the
decision to seek such an amount came after Judge Langer's
ruling.

Aldrich Chemical, whose parent company, Sigma-Aldrich Corp., is
based in St. Louis, owns Isotec, at 3858 Benner Road.  The 2003
explosion happened when a nitric oxide column blew up, injuring
one worker.  The blast caused the evacuation of more than 500
homes and 2,000 people within that one-mile radius.

Mr. Schulte, representing the Plaintiffs can be reached at:

          Richard Schulte, Esq.
          Behnke, Martin & Schulte, LLC
          131 N. Ludlow Ave., Suite 840
          Dayton, Ohio 45402
          Phone: 937-435-7500
          Fax: 937-435-7511
          Web site: http://www.legaldayton.com/


AROTECH CORP: Firm, Officials Face Mich. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arotech Corp. has learned that on March 23, 2007, a purported
class action complaint was apparently filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the company
and certain of its officers and directors, according to the
company's April 17, 2007 Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Although the company has yet to be served with a copy of the
complaint, it apparently seeks class status on behalf of all
persons who purchased our securities between March 31, 2005 and
Nov. 14, 2005 and alleges violations by the company and certain
of its officers and directors of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
primarily related to the company's acquisition of Armour of
America in 2005 and certain public statements made by the
company with respect to its business and prospects during the
period.

The complaint also alleges that the company did not have
adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls,
and that our financial statements and reports were not prepared
in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules.  It seeks an unspecified
amount of damages.

The suit is "Kuehn v. Arotech Corporation et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-11249-LPZ-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff
with referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.

Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick E. Cafferty of Cafferty
Faucher (Ann Arbor), 101 N. Main Street, Suite 450, Ann Arbor,
MI 48104, Phone: 734-769-2144, E-mail:
pcafferty@caffertyfaucher.com.


AUSTRALIA: Baulkham Hills Shire May Face Suit Over Road Project
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baulkham Hills Shire in Sydney could face a class action over
roadworks issue on Terminus Street in Castle Hill, Kristen
Campise of Hills News reports.

Castle Hill businesses are convinced that the Eastern Ring Road
project of the town is going to ruin their businesses, and have
threatened to file a class action.  The business owners met with
the council on April 23.

Under the project, Terminus Street will become a two-lane, two-
way street with a median strip and no on-street parking.  The
project is aimed at improving traffic flow in, around and
through the Castle Hill Central Business District.

In the meeting, Mitchell MP Alan Cadman, whose office is on
Terminus Street, called on the council to delay works until a
complete plan of consultative procedures and development of the
council carpark was made available to businesses, the report
said.

Councilor Sonya Phillips requested that a AU$96,980 budget
surplus be allocated to a reserve fund for the Castle Hill CBD
to expedite completion of the project and reduce impact to the
businesses.


BLUE CROSS: Doctors Announce Settlement With 90% of All "Blues"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel representing a putative class of approximately 900,000
physicians, as well as the medical societies of numerous states
and other medical societies across the country, announced that
they have settled a national class action with the vast majority
of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield health plans in the country
and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

When combined with prior settlements with other Blues, the
settlement means that more than 90% of all Blues plans in the
country, which covers approximately 77 million patient lives -
have now settled the class action with physicians.

The settling plans have agreed to implement what counsel said
are "important and valuable business practice changes," and to
streamline the way companies interface with doctors, resulting
in major savings to the system.

According to counsel, these business changes and savings,
combined with a guaranteed cash payment of over $128 million to
class members, bring the estimated value of the settlement to an
amount in the range of settlements previously agreed to with
other managed care companies.

The class action, "Love et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association, et al.," was filed on 2003 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida before Judge Federico
Moreno.

The complaint identified Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans as
defendants in an alleged scheme to defraud doctors in violation
of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO).

Counsel said that the latest settlement was yet another major
development in their ongoing fight against insurers' alleged
wrongful practices relating to medical necessity determinations
and reimbursement for services provided to patients.

Physicians and medical societies have previously settled very
similar claims against almost every other managed care insurer
in the nation in a prior class action, resulting in major
reforms in the health insurance landscape in this country.

"The commitments contained in this agreement and prior
agreements bring the settling Blues into compliance with what
has become the standard for the industry, which is premised on
achieving the highest quality delivery of health care," said
Edith Kallas, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs and a partner at
Whatley Drake & Kallas.  "That is truly in the best interest of
physicians and their patients."

The practice changes the Blues plans have agreed to include
commitments to do the following:

      -- Implement a definition of medical necessity that
         ensures that patients are entitled to receive medically
         necessary care as determined by a physician exercising
         clinically prudent judgment in accordance with
         generally accepted standards of medical practice;

      -- Use clinical guidelines that are based on credible
         scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed medical
         literature (taking into account Physician Specialty
         Society recommendations, the views of physicians
         practicing in the relevant clinical areas, and other
         relevant factors) when making medical necessity
         determinations;

      -- Provide physicians with access to an independent
         medical necessity external review process;

      -- Establish an independent external review board for
         resolving disputes with physicians concerning many
         common billing disputes;

      -- Pay for the cost of recommended vaccines and
         injectibles and for the administration of such vaccines
         and injectibles;

      -- Not automatically reduce the intensity coding of
         evaluation and management codes billed for covered
         services;

      -- Ensure the payment of valid clean claims within fifteen
         (15) days for electronically-submitted claims and
         thirty (30) days for paper claims;

      -- Provide fee schedules to physicians;

      -- Establish a compliance dispute mechanism to address
         disputes regarding the Blues' compliance with the
         agreement;

      -- Establish and/or maintain physician advisory
         committees; and

      -- Provide ninety (90) days' notice of changes in
         practices and policies and annual changes to fee
         schedules.

These practice changes are expected to result in hundreds of
millions of dollars in real savings to physician practices
throughout the country.  

The end result will leave doctors "more time for patient care
instead of dealing with what was a complex, cumbersome, costly
and frustrating system put in place by Blue Cross and Blue
Shield plans," said Archie Lamb, plaintiffs' co-lead counsel.

Mr. Lamb added, "The primary achievement of this agreement for
physicians is found in the fundamental recognition by these
companies of the importance of America's physicians in the
healthcare equation."

William W. Hinchey, M.D., President of the Texas Medical
Association, stated, "Given the Blues' size and clout
nationwide, this settlement should have an immediate,
substantial, and positive impact on our patients and our
practices.  It will help us return our focus to where it should
be: on managing patient care."

The agreement follows similar settlements with virtually every
other managed care company in the nation, with the exception of
UnitedHealthcare, who continues to litigate against physicians
rather than making the kinds of positive practice changes other
insurers have agreed to make.

Counsel stated that UnitedHealthcare has repeatedly refused to
address the significant concerns raised by representatives of
the more than 400,000 physicians nationwide who care for
United's health plan members.

Bob Seligson, Executive Vice President/CEO of the North Carolina
Medical Society and President of the national Physicians
Advocacy Institute, Inc., said, "The Blues plans have
demonstrated that they are serious about improving their
relationship with the nation's physicians.  We call upon
UnitedHealthcare to follow the Blues plans example, along with
every large for-profit health insurer in the country, and
implement the terms of these settlements voluntarily. Doing so
would go a long way in repairing the divisions that exist
between UnitedHealthcare and America's physicians."

The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Florida under Case No. 03-21296-CIV-Moreno.

For more details, visit http://www.hmocrisis.comand  
http://www.hmosettlements.com.


CALIFORNIA: Susceptible to Lawsuits, Needs Reform on Statutes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 2007 State Liability Systems Ranking Study, an annual
national ranking of state civil justice systems that was
conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal
Reform (ILR) has revealed that California's class action law
ranks 46th in the nation in fairness and reasonableness, which
necessitate reforms, The Insurance Journal reports.

Commenting on the state's rank, John H. Sullivan, president of
the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC), told The
Insurance Journal, "Simply put, California has the fifth-worst
class action law in the country."

He added, "It's time for the Legislature to install balance and
clarity and make this part of the civil justice system work for
all Californians.  Until the Legislature does, consumers will
continue to pay for these lawsuits through higher prices of
everyday goods and services."

According to CJAC, other states and Congress have passed reforms
to improve their class action laws, however California statutes
have remained largely unchanged, giving neither judges nor
lawyers clear guidelines for handing these cases.  The group
warns that California is increasingly seen as a safe haven for
opportunistic class actions.

Thus, CJAC is sponsoring bill AB 1505 to better protect the
rights of discrimination victims and harmed consumers.  The
group says the bill will make class action law more fair,
predictable, and efficient, and would give judges clear
statutory rules for handling class action cases and greatly
reduce the legal uncertainty that makes these lawsuits expensive
and time-consuming.

Recently, CJAC urged swift legislative action on the bill, which
it believes will bring much-needed clarity to the complex and
costly world of class actions (Class Action Reporter, April 27,
2007).

Essentially, the bill (AB 1505) is intended to give judges clear
statutory rules for handling these cases and greatly reduce the
legal uncertainty that makes these lawsuits expensive and time-
consuming.

According Mr. Sullivan, "Imagine the DMV passing out handbooks
written for horse and buggy driving.  That's the status of
California's statutes governing class actions."

Mr. Sullivan also said, "This bill will stop the game playing
going on because of the uncertainty of current class action case
law, and it will protect the class action remedy for people's
important rights."

Commenting on the proposal, its author Assemblywoman Nicole
Parra said, "It is critical that our judges have clear rules
when it comes to handling class actions, just as judges do at
the federal level.  This bill brings California up to date with
the rest of the nation."

She added, "Ultimately consumers and taxpayers will benefit from
the reforms in AB 1505.  A more efficient legal system means
lower costs for products and services and less crowded
courtrooms."

Assembly Bill 1505 will help curb California's jackpot justice
system by bringing together many of the well-developed and
tested rules for federal class actions with processes the
state's own judges have developed for handling complex cases in
their courtrooms.

The Civil Justice Association of California on the Net:
http://www.cjac.org/.


CLAIRE'S STORES: Faces Suits Over Apollo Management Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claire's Stores, Inc. faces several purported class actions over
an agreement, wherein Apollo Management, L.P, will acquire the
company.

On Dec. 20, 2006, a plaintiff who is an alleged shareholder of
the company filed a purported class-action complaint in the
Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward
County, Florida.

The complaint, which was amended by the plaintiff on March 21,
2007, is captioned, "Lustig v. Claire's Stores, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-020798."

The amended complaint names as defendants Claire's Stores, its
directors, and Apollo Management, L.P. and alleges, among other
things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders of the company in connection with the proposed
merger transaction and that the company and Apollo Management,
L.P. aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties.

Among other relief, the amended complaint seeks class action
status, injunctive relief from completing the merger, and
payment of attorneys' fees.

The following putative class action complaints were subsequently
filed in Broward County:

      -- "Henzel v. Claire's Stores, Inc., et al. (Case No. 07-
         006325) (March 21, 2007);"

      -- "McCormack v. Schaeffer, et al. (Case No. 07-006327)
         (March 21, 2007);"

      -- "Minissa v. Schaefer, et al. (Case No. 07-06630) (March
         26, 2007);"

      -- "Benoit v. Schaefer, et al. (Case No. 07-006907) (March
         28, 2007);"

      -- "Call4U v. Claire's Stores, Inc., et al. (Case No. 07-
         07178) (April 2, 2007);" and

      -- "International Union of Operating Engineers Pension
         Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Claire's
         Stores, Inc., et al. (Case No. 07-007913) (April 11,
         2007)."

These complaints allege similar claims and seek similar relief
as the Lustig action, with the McCormack action also seeking
unspecified money damages.

With the exception of the Call4U complaint, these complaints
also name as defendants Claire's Stores, its directors, and
Apollo Management, L.P.  Claire's Stores, its directors and its
chairman emeritus were named as defendants in Call4U action.

Claire's Stores, Inc. on the Net: http://www.clairestores.com/.


DPC ENTERPRISES: AZ Residents Chlorine Leak Trial Begins May 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for a lawsuit filed against DPC Enterprises over a Nov.
17, 2002 chlorine spill that forced the evacuation of an
estimated 5,000 people in Glendale and West Phoenix is scheduled
to begin May 15 in Jefferson County Circuit Court in Arizona,
the News Democrat Journal reports.

The process of jury selection for the trial, which is expected
to take 10-12 weeks, began last week.

Originally filed in Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona,
the suit charges DPC Enterprises, operator of a chlorine
recycling center, of negligence in its handling of the toxic and
corrosive chemical, on behalf of people affected by the leak
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2004).

Residents allegedly suffered inconvenience and personal
injuries, as well as emotional and economic damages as a result
of the spill.

Federal investigators believed the leak occurred while chlorine
was being transferred from a railroad tank car to a tanker truck
at a DPC facility, 4909 W. Pasadena Ave.

The suit alleges a hose used to transfer chlorine, which can be
lethal at high concentrations, ruptured during the process,
leading to a massive release of gas.

It further alleges the hose used during the chlorine transfer
was unsuitable for that purpose, and that the transfer
facility's emergency procedures were ineffective in stopping the
leak.

Numerous agencies, including four local fire departments, the
local chapter of the American Red Cross, the Joachim-Plattin
Ambulance District, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, and
the county hazardous materials unit responded to the leak.

Fourteen people, including 10 Glendale police officers, were
treated for chlorine-related symptoms.

DPC believes that no more than 270 gallons were spilled and has
denied any negligence involved with the leak.


ECHOSTAR COMMS: Faces Wash. Suit Over Telemarketing Practice
------------------------------------------------------------
EchoStar Communications Corp. was named as a defendant in a
purported class action alleging that the company and several
others violated a Washington statute by making automated
telemarketing calls using automatic dialing and announcing
devices (ADADs).

Originally, Michael Spafford, Jr. filed the suit in King County
Superior Court.  However, it was later transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on April
5, 2006.

Besides EchoStar Communications other defendants identified in
the case are:

      -- EchoStar DBS Corp.;
      -- Dish Network Service LLC;
      -- Echosphere LLC;
      -- Echostar Orbital Corp. II;
      -- Echostar Orbital Corp.;
      -- EchoStar Satellite LLC;
      -- Echostar Technologies Corp.; and
      -- Satellite Systems Network, LLC.

The suit alleges that defendants contacted plaintiffs and other
Washington residents via ADADs in order to advertise or sell
satellite television subscriptions and equipment under EchoStar
Communications' Dish Network brand.  

It essentially challenges the use of ADADs under RCW Section
80.36.400 (ADAD statute). That statute severely restricts the
use of the devices, which automatically dials telephone numbers
and greets recipients (or their answering machines) with a
prerecorded message.

In general, violation of the ADAD statute is a per se violation
of Washington's Consumer Protection Act and entitles the
recipient of such a call to statutory damages in the amount of
five hundred dollars.

In late 2006, the company moved to dismiss Mr. Spafford's claim
on grounds that the ADAD statute is an unconstitutional
infringement of its First Amendment right to free speech.  The
court though denied the motion.

The suit is "Spafford v. EchoStar Communications Corporation et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00479-JLR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge James
L. Robart.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Tousley Brain Stephens
          1700 Seventh Ave., Ste. 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-1332
          Phone: 206-682-5600
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com

- and -

          Daniel Charles Gallagher, Esq.
          10611 Battle Point Drive, NE
          Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
          Phone: 206-855-9310
          Fax: 206-855-2878
          E-mail: seattlelaw@hotmail.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Joseph H. Boyle Esq.
          T. Wade Welch & Associates
          2401 Fountainview Drive, Ste. 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Phone: 713-952-4334
          E-mail: jboyle@twwlaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Grant, Esq.
          Stokes Lawrence
          800 5th Ave., Ste. 4000
          Seattle, WA 98104-3179
          Phone: 206-626-6000
          E-mail: james.grant@stokeslaw.com


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J. Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in a class action against a group of hedge funds
and research analysts accused of conducting and disseminating
bogus research about Canadian insurer Fairfax Financial Holdings
Limited withdrew their claims in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, The New York Post reports.

Plaintiffs Edgar Holomon, Michael Strofolino and Carl Farmer
gave no reason why they voluntarily dismissed their suit.

In February, the law firm Seeger Weiss LLP filed the suit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
all sellers of common stock of Fairfax Financial Holdings
Limited (FFH) over the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) between
Dec. 18, 2002 and July 25, 2006, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 09, 2007).

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- S.A.C. Capital Management, LLC  
     -- S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC  
     -- S.A.C. Capital Associates, LLC
     -- S.A.C. Healthco Funds, LLC
     -- SIGMA Capital Management, LLC
     -- Steven A. Cohen
     -- EXIS Capital Management, Inc.
     -- EXIS Capital, LLC
     -- EXIS Differential Partners, L.P.
     -- EXIS Integrated Partners, L.P.
     -- Adam D. Sender
     -- Spyro Contogouris
     -- Max Bernstein
     -- Andrew Heller
     -- Rocker Partners, L.P.
     -- Copper River Partners, L.P.
     -- David Rocker
     -- Third Point, LLC
     -- Daniel S. Loeb
     -- Jeffrey Perry
     -- Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. and
     -- John D. Gwynn

The suit accuses a group of hedge funds and research analysts of
conducting and disseminating bogus research about Canadian
insurer Fairfax Financial Holdings.

The complaint filed states that the case "arises from a massive,
illegal stock market manipulation scheme that has targeted and
severely harmed ... shareholders of Fairfax, and has resulted in
immense ill-gotten profits for defendants S.A.C. Capital, Exis
Capital, Third Point, Rocker Partners and other extremely
powerful hedge funds."

The complaint further alleges that Defendants "launched a
manipulation scheme ... which was an abusive short selling
strategy coupled with a public relations campaign chock full of
false and misleading statements about Fairfax, its executives,
its business, and its common stock price designed to drive down
(Fairfax's) stock price.

The suit is "Holomon v. S.A.C. Capital Management, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00640-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh,
with referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing plaintiffs are Christopher A. Seeger and Roopal
Premchand Luhana, both of Seeger Weiss, LLP, One William Street,
New York, NY 10004, Phone: (212) 584-0700, E-mail:
cseeger@seegerweiss.com or rluhana@seegerweiss.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Suit Over OnStar Software Filed in Mich. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan due to
its alleged failure to provide warranty service for its vehicles
with factory-installed analog only OnStar telematic equipment.

OnStar is an in-vehicle telecommunication device that provides
automatic crash notification to emergency responders, stolen
vehicle location, remote door unlock and remote diagnostics in
the event problems with airbags, anti-lock brakes or other
systems.

Lead plaintiffs Howard S. Morris, Jack Jacovelli and Bruce
Johnson bring this class action against GM due to its failure to
disclose that the analog telematic equipment in its vehicles
will cease to operate on the OnStar System.

As a result of GM's actions, plaintiffs and thousands of other
OnStar owners, lessees and subscribers:

     -- will lose the benefit of this safety system,

     -- will be exposed to an increased risk of serious personal
        injury and harm, and

     -- their motor vehicles will lose substantial value.

Plaintiffs bring this action seeking class-action status and
alleging violations of the Michigan Consumer Fraud Act, the
consumer fraud acts of the 50 states, breach of warranty,
fraudulent omission and injunctive relief.

Further, plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf
of all individuals and entities in the United States who own or
lease General Motor vehicles equipped with analog telematics
equipment and who acquired the vehicle during the period from
September 25, 2002 through the present.

Questions of fact common to the class include:

     (a) all class members purchased or leased a vehicle with
         analog telematics equipment;

     (b) telematics equipment is a consumer product for all
         class members;

     (c) all class members' telematics equipment was defective
         and not suited for use with the OnStar system;

     (d) GM made the same express and implied representation and
         warranties to all class members;

     (e) GM maintains the same customs, policies and practices
         regarding service and repairs for safety components;

     (f) GM concealed and failed to disclose the same
         information regarding the defects in its analog
         telematics equipment;

     (g) all class members were given the same or similar
         notices of termination of analog service;

     (h) GM refuses to provide class members with repairs,
         replacements, devices or other means to receive OnStar
         digital service; and

     (i) all class members have suffered the same or similar
         damage as a result of defendant's conduct.

Questions raised are:

     (i) did GM fail to disclose and/or omit material facts
         relating to its telematics equipment?

    (ii) did GM breach its express warranties?

   (iii) did GM breach its implied warranty of merchantability?

    (iv) did GM breach its implied warranty of fitness for
         particular purpose?

     (v) is GM legally responsible for the class' damages?

    (vi) is the class entitled to injunctive or declaratory
         relief?

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all class members,
request judgment in their favor and against defendant, and
request the following relief:

     -- certification of the plaintiff class, the appointment of
        plaintiffs as class representatives, and the appointment
        of plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;

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

     -- exemplary damages;

     -- injunctive relief enjoining the defendant from engaging
        in the unlawful conduct described in the complaint; and

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

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e0b

The suit is "Morris et al v. General Motors Corporation, Case
No. 2:07-cv-11830-AC-RSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, under Judge Avern Cohn, with
referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen.

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


ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Class in Cook County Strip-Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted class-action status to a lawsuit against Cook County
with regard to its strip-search policy.

Kim Young of Milwaukee, Wisconsin filed the suit on Jan. 30,
2006.  Ms. Young claims that she was in Chicago, Illinois last
January 2005 for a funeral when she was pulled over for a
traffic violation.  

It was later discovered that Ms. Young had a prior traffic
warrant, and she was taken to the Cook County Jail where she was
allegedly strip-searched in violation of her civil rights.

Ms. Young said that she was processed with 30 other women who
were strip-searched.  According to her, she was given a pap
smear and strip-searched by doctors (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
6, 2006).  

She told NBC5.com, "They violated my rights because I didn't
give them permission to do it.  It was terrible.  Yes, they used
gloves, but I'll go to my own doctor if I want a pap smear.  
What do I want the jail to do it for?"  She considered her
treatment humiliating and degrading considering she just got a
traffic ticket.

Besides Ms. Young two other plaintiffs were included in the
case, namely: William Jones and Ronald Johnson.  The three named
as defendants in their case:

      -- Cook County;
      -- Michael Sheahan;
      -- Callie Baird;
      -- Scott Kurdovich;
      -- Steven Martin, Jr.;
      -- Ruth Rothenstein;
      -- Leonard R. Bersky;
      -- David Fagus;
      -- Karen Scott; and
      -- Daniel Winship.

The recent decision by Judge Matthew Kennelly makes Cook County
potentially liable for the strip searches of some 250,000 men
who have entered the jail since Jan. 30, 2004, according to a
report by Matt O'Connor of The Chicago Tribune.

The county also could be on the hook for tens of thousands of
other inmates -- men and women -- who were strip-searched during
the same time period despite being charged with misdemeanors or
lesser offenses not involving drugs or weapons.

The suit is "Young et al v. County of Cook et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-00552," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael I. Kanovitz of Loevy &
Loevy, 312 North May Street, Suite 100, Chicago, IL 60607,
Phone: (312) 243-5900, E-mail: mike@loevy.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Francis J. Catania of Cook County State's Attorney, 500
         Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone:
         (312) 603-5440, E-mail: fcatania@cookcountygov.com; and

     (2) Daniel Francis Gallagher of Querrey & Harrow, Ltd., 175
         West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60604-
         2827, Phone: (312) 540-7000, E-mail:
         dgallagher@querrey.com.


INSURANCE BROKERAGE: Antitrust Re-Pleading Deadline Set May 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Garrett E. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey had given plaintiffs in a major class
action against more than 100 insurance company and broker
defendants until May 22 to re-plead their case, BestWire
reports.

The deadline was originally set to expire May 7, but in a letter
sent to the judge, plaintiffs asked for an additional 30 days
arguing they need the additional time given:

    -- the level of particularity required by the court,

    -- the number of defendants and claims involved,

    -- the lengthy dismissal decisions,

    -- the fact that this is the last opportunity to amend their
       pleadings, and,

    -- so much time has been invested in this case by all
       parties.

But instead of granting the 30-day extension request, Judge
Brown had given the plaintiffs a 15-day extension -- over strong
objections from the defendants -- who argued the time already
allotted was more than enough.

A number of class actions filed against more than 100 insurance
companies and brokers have been consolidated into two actions
currently pending before Judge Brown in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey:

     -- "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Civil
         No. 04-5184 (GEB) (concerning the brokering of
         commercial insurance); and

     -- "In re Employee Benefits Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
         Litigation, Civil No. 05-1079 (GEB) (concerning the
         brokering of employee benefits insurance)."

Originally filed by about 14 businesses, two municipalities and
three individuals against 78 commercial insurers and 37 broker
defendants, including:

     -- American International Group Inc.,
     -- Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.,
     -- Ace Ltd.

Broker defendants include:

     -- Marsh & McLennan,
     -- Aon Corp.,
     -- Willis Group Holdings Ltd. and
     -- Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

The suits alleged brokers and insurers conspired in an industry-
wide practice of manipulating the market for insurance through
the use and payment of undisclosed contingent commissions, bid-
rigging and other practices.

In summary, the ruling dismissed conspiracy charges against
insurers and brokers; pointed out that the contingent
commissions are not illegal or anticompetitive; and freed The
Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers of charges of
racketeering.  

Earlier, Judge Brown dismissed charges of bid rigging and
account steering against numerous commercial insurers and
brokers (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 11, 2007)

The judge determined that plaintiffs, who consist of public
entities and companies that purchased insurance from and through
the defendants, failed to show that the defendants conspired to
suppress competition and fraudulently sell insurance and
benefits in violation of the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt
Organization Act or federal Sherman Antitrust Act.  

While CIAB provides its members with networking opportunities
and communications tools, Judge Brown ruled that plaintiffs
"failed to assert any fact indicating the presence of a nexus"
between CIAB and defendants' alleged fraudulent activity,
according to an Insurance Journal report.

The rulings involved consolidated cases brought by employees of
companies that bought employee benefits from MetLife and other
insurers through various large insurance brokers, including
Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc, Seabury & Smith Insurance and Aon
Corp., and employees whose companies purchased property/casualty
insurance from AIG Inc., Chubb Corp., Fireman's Fund Insurance
Co., XL Insurance, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and other insurers
through Marsh, Aon, Willis, Brown & Brown and others.

The suit is "QLM Associates, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-05184-GEB-PS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge
Garrett E. Brown, Jr., with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) John Michael Agnello and Melissa A. Flax, both of
         Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfilla, Cecchi, Stewart &
         Olstein, PC, 5 Becker Farm Road, Roseland, NJ 07068,
         Phone: (973) 994-1700, E-mail:
         jagnello@carellabyrne.com or mflax@carellabyrne.com;

     (2) Christopher P. Anton of Budd Larner PC, 150 John F.
         Kennedy Parkway, CN 1000, Short Hills, NJ 07078, Phone:
         (973) 379-4800, E-mail: canton@budd-larner.com;

     (3) Amy E. Barabas of Cahill, Gordon & Reindell, LLP, 80
         Pine Street, New York, NY 10005-1702, Phone: (212) 701-
         3374, E-mail: abarabas@cahill.com;

     (4) Alyssa C, Barillari of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer &
         Feld, LLP, 590 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022-2524,
         Phone: (212) 872-1000, E-mail: abarillari@akingump.com;

     (5) Andrew T. Berry of McCarter & English, LLP, Four
         Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, PO Box 652,
         Newark, NJ 07101-0652, Phone: (973) 622-4444, E-mail:
         aberry@mccarter.com; and

     (6) Peter Richard Bisio of Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 555
         Thirteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004, Phone:
         (202) 637-5600, E-mail: prbisio@hhlaw.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joanna J. Cline of Pepper Hamilton, LLP, 457
         Haddonfield, LLP, 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 420,
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08002, Phone: (856) 910-7200, E-mail:
         clinej@pepperlaw.com;

     (2) Mary Lynne Calkins of Learch, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 401 B STReet, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, E-mail:
         mcalkins@lerachlaw.com;

     (3) Harvey Joel Barnett, 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200,
         Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-242-6280, E-mail:
         hbarnett@sperling-law.com;

     (4) Natalie Finkelman Bennett of Shepherd, Finkelman,
         Miller & Shah, LLC, 475 White Horse Pike, Collingswood,
         NJ 08107-1909, Phone: (856) 858-7012, E-mail:
         nfinkelman@classactioncounsel.com;

     (5) Philip J. Bezanson of Bracewell & Guillani, LLP, 1177
         Avenue of Americas, New York, NY 10036-2714, Phone:
         (212) 508-6100, E-mail:
         phillip.bezanson@bracewellgiuliani.com; and

     (6) Bryan L. Clobes of Cafferty Faucher LLP, 1717 Arch
         Street, 36th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone:
         (215) 864-2800, E-mail: bclobes@millerfaucher.com.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Interlink Electronics, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a
purported securities fraud class action filed against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Filed on Nov. 15, 2005, the suit, "Roger Brooks, et al. v.
Interlink Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-
SH," was brought against the company and two of its current and
former officers.  

It alleges that between April 24, 2003 and Nov. 1, 2005, the
company and two of its current and former officers made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information regarding the company's results of operations and
financial condition.  

The complaint also alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market which had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price.  It seeks
unspecified damages and legal expenses.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the court appointed new lead plaintiffs.  On
Jan. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint also includes claims under the Securities
Act and the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages and legal
expenses.

On Feb. 22, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, according to the company's April 9, 2007 Form
10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Percy Anderson with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Timothy J. Burke of Stull Stull and Brody, 10940
         Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024,
         Phone: 310-209-2468, E-mail: service@ssbla.com;

     (2) Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-201-9150; and

     (3) Roy L. Jacobs of Roy L. Jacobs and Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
         212-867-1156.

Representing the defendants is Daniel S. Floyd of Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, 333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-
3197, Phone: 213-229-7000, E-mail: dfloyd@gibsondunn.com.


JOS A BANK: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of the
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against it in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

On July 24, 2006, Roy T. Lefkoe filed a lawsuit (Case No. 1:06-
cv-01892-WMN) against the company and its chief executive
officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  

The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of the company's stock from Jan. 5, 2006 through June
6, 2006.  The lawsuit purports to make claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, based on the company's disclosures during the time
period described above.  It seeks unspecified damages, costs,
and attorneys' fees.  

On Aug. 3, 2006, a lawsuit substantially similar to the Lefkoe
Action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland by Tewas Trust UAD 9/23/86 (Case No. 1:06-cv-02011-
WMN).

The Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as
those in the Lefkow Action and purports to assert the same
claims and seek the same relief.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the Lefkoe Action and the Tewas Trust Action
were consolidated under the Lefkoe Action (Case No. 1:06-cv-
01892-WMN) and the Tewas Trust Action was administratively
closed.

Massachusetts Labor Annuity Fund has been appointed the lead
plaintiff in the class action and has filed a consolidated class
action complaint.  

R. Neal Black, the company's President and David E. Ullman, the
company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
have been added as defendants.

On behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between Dec. 5,
2005 and June 7, 2006, the class action purports to make claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the company's
disclosures during the class period.

The class action seeks unspecified damages, costs, and
attorneys' fees.  The company has filed a motion to dismiss the
case, according to the company's April 17, 2007 Form 10-K with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Feb. 3, 2007.

The first identified complaint is "Roy T. Lefkoe, et al. v. Jos.
A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01892-WMN,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland
         21202, Phone: 410/332-0030, E-mail:
         piven@browerpiven.com;  

     (2) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
         bmgross@bernardmgross.com;

     (3) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com; and

     (4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


JOS A BANK: Settlement Reached in Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Solano gave final
approval to the settlement of a consolidated class action over
that was filed against Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.

On Sept. 15, 2005, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in
the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, Case No. FCS
026631 (McClure Action), alleging unlawful wage payment and
employment practices with regard to a purported class of
persons.

The essential allegations of the McClure Action were duplicated
in a lawsuit filed against the Company on February 21, 2006 in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case
No. CGC 06449650 (Palmtag Action).

The McClure Action and the Palmtag Action were consolidated in
the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, as Judicial
Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4479 (Consolidated Action).

In fiscal 2006, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement to resolve the Consolidated Action.  

On March 1, 2007, the Superior Court of California, County of
Solano, issued final approval of the Stipulation of Settlement
and dismissed the Consolidated Action with prejudice, according
to the company's April 17, 2007 Form 10-K with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Feb. 3, 2007.

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. on the Net: http://www.josbank.com.


MITTAL STEEL: Faces Canadian Suit Over Steel Plant, Coke Covens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mittal Steel Co. N.V. is a defendant in a purported class action
in Canada seeking compensation for damages caused by a steel
plant in Nova Scotia, according to the company's April 17, 2007
Form 20-F with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In March 2004, a group of residents in Nova Scotia brought a
potential class action in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
against various parties, including Mittal Canada, alleging
various torts for damage allegedly caused by the steel plant and
coke ovens formerly owned and occupied by Dominion Steel and
Coal Corp. from 1927 to 1967.  

Mittal Steel acquired Mittal Canada in 1994, and the plaintiffs
are attempting to establish that Mittal Canada thereby assumed
the liabilities of the former occupiers.

Plaintiffs seek to have the claim approved as a class action,
though the court has not yet issued a decision on the matter.

Mittal Steel Co. N.V. on the Net: http://www.arcelormittal.com.


NEW YORK: City Settles Litigation Over Special Preschool Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
approved a settlement between New York City and attorneys for
disabled preschool students in the purported class action, "D.D.
v. New York City Board of Education et al."

The suit was filed on May 16, 2003 on behalf of children -- many
of them have autism or physical disabilities - that had been on
waiting lists to get into special preschool classes.

There are three named plaintiffs in the case who all went by the
initials of D.D., A.C., and B.T.  Their attorneys named as a
defendants in the case:

      -- New York City Board of Education;
      -- New York City Department of Education;
      -- City Of New York;
      -- Joel Klein;
      -- Angelo Gimondo;
      -- Nelly Real-Korb;
      -- Richard P. Mills;
      -- Joe Blaize;
      -- Michael A. Johnson;
      -- Beth Marino; and
      -- Michelle Fratti.

The suit was filed after city officials told the mother of the
one of the plaintiffs that they could not provide her 3-year-old
with speech and occupational therapy because the seats in
special education preschools were full.

In essence, throughout the duration of the case, the defendants
were claiming that there was simply not enough availability of
seats at special education preschools.  

Under the settlement, city and state officials will make the
following changes:

      -- Create a new computer system to show special education
         parents where there are open preschool spots.

      -- Require rigorous reviews of special education programs.

      -- Allow children to stay longer in "early intervention"
         programs that now turn them away when they are older
         than 2.

      -- Permit programs that now accept only 12 kids to add
         another child if an extra staff member is on hand.

The suit is "D.D. v. New York City Board of Education et al.,
Case No. 1:03-cv-02489-DGT-RLM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge David G.
Trager with referral to Judge Roanne L. Mann.

Representing the plaintiffs is Ilann M. Maazel of Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady PC, 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor, New
York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 763-5000, Fax: (212) 763-5001, E-
mail: imaazel@ecbalaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Martin John Bowe of The City of
New York, Law Department, 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007,
Phone: (212) 788-0878, Fax: (212) 788-0940, E-mail:
mbowe@law.nyc.gov.


ORANGE 21: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has yet to grant final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Orange
21, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

Initially, two stockholder class actions were filed.  A
consolidated complaint was later filed on Oct. 11, 2005, which
purported to seek unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged
class of persons who purchased the company's common stock
pursuant to the registration statement filed in connection with
the company's public offering of stock on Dec. 14, 2004.

The complaint alleged that the company and its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose in the registration statement material information
about plans to make a change in its European operations, its
dealings with one of its customers and whether certain of its
products infringe on the intellectual property rights of Oakley,
Inc.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the
court granted on March 29, 2006.  The court allowed plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint only with respect to their claim
about a European distribution change.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint dated April 7, 2006.

On May 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss that
amended complaint.  No discovery has been conducted.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement to settle this action, subject to court approval.

Under the proposed settlement, $1.4 million will be paid to the
class of plaintiffs and for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees from
proceeds of our directors' and officers' insurance.

The company will pay no amounts.  The proposed settlement
remains subject to court approval, according to the company's
April 17, 2007 Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Christine Pittman, et al. v.
Orange 21, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
  
     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, (San Diego), 402 West  
         Broadway, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800,
         Fax: 619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com;
  
     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala  
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;
  
     (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,  
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:  
         wfederman@aol.com;
  
     (4) Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, 501 West Broadway, Suit  
         1250, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 877.493.5366, Fax:
         619.238.5425;
  
     (5) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade  
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,  
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;
  
     (6) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San  
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,  
         Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;
  
     (7) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,  
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com; and
  
     (8) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,  
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215.638.4847, Fax:  
         215.638.4867.

SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: N.J. Stock Suit Granted Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Walls of the U.S. District Court for New Jersey
granted certification to a consolidated securities fraud suit
against Suprema Specialties, Inc., Bloomberg News reports.

An investor sued Suprema Specialties on Jan. 24, 2002, accusing
the company of misleading the public about its financial
results.

The class action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
New Jersey, seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who bought Suprema stock from
Aug. 8, 2001 through Dec. 21, 2001.

The complaint names Suprema and six top officers and directors
as defendants, saying they inflated the company's stock price
during the class period by issuing false and misleading
statements about its finances.

According to the lawsuit, the deception began in August 2001
when the company announced "record" results for the fourth
quarter and year-end of 2001.

In September 2001, the company filed statements with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission saying it was issuing 3.5
million shares of stock to the public.

The complaint says that two of the individual defendants reaped
more than $4.6 million from sales of their shares at that time.
Then, in November 2001, Suprema again trumpeted its results for
the first quarter of 2002, the complaint alleges.

But just one-month later news of the deception was revealed.  In
a Dec. 24, 2001 statement, Suprema announced the resignation of
its chief financial officer and controller and said it had begun
an investigation into its past financial results.  Nasdaq halted
trading in Suprema shares the same day.

On Feb. 28, 2002, the court issued an order consolidating all
related cases into one class action lawsuit.  Beginning on March
15, 2002 competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel were filed with the court.

On July 1, 2002, the court appointed a lead plaintiff to
represent the class and lead counsel to oversee the litigation.
The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint on Sept. 9, 2002.

On Dec. 15, 2002, defendants filed their motions to dismiss lead
plaintiff's amended complaint.  The court ruled on these motions
on June 25, 2003, issuing an order granting defendants' motions
and directing lead plaintiff to amend their complaint within 60
days.

The lead plaintiff filed a second amended class action complaint
on Jan. 30, 2004.  Defendants filed their motions to dismiss
this complaint on March 5, 2004.

The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motions on
April 2, 2004, to which defendants filed their reply briefs on
April 16, 2004 and April 19, 2004.

On Aug. 31, 2004, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On Sept. 17, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On Sept.
14, 2005 the appeals court heard oral arguments.

On Feb. 23, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit issued an order affirming in part, reversing in part and
remanding for further proceedings the district court's order
dismissing the second amended complaint.

On June 30, 2006, the various defendants began filing their
answers to the second amended complaint.  On Sept. 15, 2006,
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.  Oral arguments
on the motion to certify the class were heard on Nov. 13, 2006.

Early this year, the U.S. District Court for New Jersey heard
oral arguments on the motion to certify a class in a
consolidated securities fraud suit against Suprema Specialties
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 01, 2007).

The judge's recent ruling came after he dismissed the case and a
federal appeals court in Philadelphia reversed him in February
2006.

"We're very happy with Judge Walls' decision," said Mark
Lebovitch, an investors' attorney at Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann in New York. "It's an important step toward getting
money for Suprema investors."

The suit is "Smith, et al. v. Suprema Specialties, et al., Case
No. 2:02-cv-00168-WHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
District of New Jersey under Judge William H. Walls.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Michael J. Canavan of Pepper Hamilton, LLP, 301
         Carnegie Center, Princeton, NJ 08543-5276, Phone: (609)
         452-0808, E-mail: canavanm@pepperlaw.com;

     (2) Cathy Fleming of Nixon Peabody LLP, 437 Madison Ave.,
         New York, NY 10022-7001, Phone: 212-940-3783, Fax: 866-
         403-7673, E-mail: cafleming@nixonpeabody.com;

     (3) Pamela J. Labaj of Caron, Contants & Wilson, 201 Route
         17 North, 2nd Floor, Rutherford, NJ 07070, Phone: 201-
         507-3709, E-mail: plabaj@ffic.com;

     (4) Theodore D. Moskowitz of McCarter & English, LLP, Four
         Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark, NJ 07101-
         0652, Phone: (973) 622-4444, E-mail:
         tmoskowitz@mccarter.com; and

     (5) Eric Tunis of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP, 51
         John F. Kennedy Pkwy., Short Hills, NJ 07078, Phone:
         (973) 376-7700, E-mail: etunis@eapdlaw.com.


Representing plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Joseph J. DePalma of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com; and

     (3) Leo W. Desmond, Thirteen Main Street, Suite Four,
         Sparta, NJ 07871, Phone: (973) 726-4242.


TOLL BROS: Luxury Home Builder Faces Pa. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toll Brothers of Huntingdon Valley is facing a lawsuit seeking
class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, the Daily Local News reports.

Earlier, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of Toll Brothers, Inc. common stock during the period
between Dec. 9, 2004 and Nov. 8, 2005 (Class Action Reporter,
Apr. 20, 2007).

A disgruntled shareholder charges the luxury home builder
certain key officers and directors of violating federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the period and
that the statements artificially inflated the market price of
the company's securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made a
series of false and misleading statements indicating that Toll
Brothers' business model, which was based on developing
expensive homes for a niche market of high-end buyers, was
unique and thus immune from the adverse impact of rising
interest rates and other negative macro-economic factors that
appeared to be negatively impacting the home-building industry
during 2004 and 2005.

As the truth was revealed to investors, including the
deteriorating state of demand for Toll Brothers' homes, its
constrained and shrinking number of active selling communities,
the insufficient inventory of lots for Toll Brothers to achieve
20% net income growth in 2006 and 2007, and the actual adverse
impact of rising interest rates and negative macro-economic
trends on traffic to Toll Brothers communities and demand for
its homes and thus its future prospects, Toll Brothers stock
plummeted, falling from its $58.25 per share Class Period high
in July 2005 to as low as $33.72 per share on Nov. 9, 2005, a
42% drop.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Toll Brothers common stock during the Class Period.

Toll Bros. spokesman Fred Cooper told the Daily Local News
Wednesday the company believes the complaint is "without merit."


TJX COMPANIES: Banks Follow Through Lawsuit Filing Plan in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Bankers Association (MBA) has followed through
its class action filing plan in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Framingham, Mass.-based TJX
Cos. Inc. over a credit and debit card data breach in which more
than 45 million cards may have been compromised, BankNet 360
reports.

The suit is centered on the fact that banks paid a heavy price
for TJX's security "negligence" in losses to fraudulent account
charges and massive card-reissuing campaigns following the
breach.

The suit will seek to recover damages in the "tens of millions
of dollars," and the Connecticut Bankers Assoc., the Maine
Assoc. of Community Banks, and individual banks, are joining the
MBA as co-plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 26, 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Banks all across the nation re-issued debit cards as a result of
the TJX data breach.  Preliminary estimates of the costs vary
from institution to institution, up to $25 dollars per card.  
This alone would run into many millions of dollars for banks
throughout the country.  

Moreover, when fraud occurs, banks generally cover the entire
fraud, replacing money in customer accounts to protect their
customers.

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

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

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

The suit is "Massachusetts Bankers Association et al vs. TJX
Companies, Case No. 1:07-cv-10791-WGY," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge
William G. Young.

Representing plaintiffs is James R. Byrne of Tyler, Cooper &
Alcorn LLP, CityPlace, 35th Floor, 185 Asylum Street, Hartford,
CT 06103-3488, Phone: 860-725-6201, Fax: 860-278-3802, E-mail:
jbyrne@tylercooper.com.


TRUSTREET PROPERTIES: Court Mulls Appeal on "Lewis" Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals has yet to rule on a motion challenging the
dismissal of a purported class action filed against Trustreet
Properties, Inc. in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas.  

On Jan. 18, 2005, Robert Lewis and Sutter Acquisition Fund, LLC,
two limited partners in the Income Funds, filed a class action
on behalf of the limited partners of the Income Funds against:

     -- Trustreet Properties, Inc.,  
    
     -- CNL Restaurant Properties, Inc. (CNLRP),  

     -- the Income Funds,  

     -- the general partners of the Income Funds,  

     -- CNL Restaurant Investments, Inc., and  

     -- CNL Restaurant Capital Corp.  

The complaint (Cause No. 05-00083) alleged that the general
partners of the Income Funds breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed mergers between the Income Funds
and subsidiaries of the operating partnership of the company and
that the company and CNLRP aided and abetted such alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.   

It further alleged that the Income Funds' general partners
violated provisions of the Income Funds' partnership agreements
and demanded an accounting as to the affairs of the Income  
Funds.   

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and exemplary
damages and equitable relief, including an injunction of the  
Mergers.  

On Apr. 26, 2005, a supplemental plea to jurisdiction hearing
was held with a ruling expected May 13, 2005.  On May 2, 2005,
the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add allegations that the
general partners of the Income Funds, with CNLRP and U.S.
Restaurant Properties, Inc., prepared and distributed a false
and misleading final proxy statement filing to the limited
partners of the Income Funds and the shareholders of CNLRP and
USRP.   

On May 26, 2005, the court entered a final order dismissing
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  On June 22,
2005, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the order of
dismissal.   

On Sept. 7, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an appellant's brief.  At
the same time, the company and the other defendants filed their  
Brief of Appellees.'   

On Dec. 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their Appellants' Reply  
Brief.

On Sept. 21, 2006, the plaintiffs submitted a letter brief to
the Court of Appeals setting forth additional arguments; the
defendants filed a responsive letter brief on Sept. 25, 2006.
The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on Sept. 27, 2006.

As of March 29, 2007, the Court of Appeals has not yet issued
its decision, 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.

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


VISKASE CANADA: Faces Suit in Ontario Over Retirees' Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Viskase Canada, Inc., a subsidiary of Viskase Companies, Inc.,
was named as a defendant in a purported class action filed in
Ontario Superior Court of Justice over the termination of post-
retirement health care and life insurance benefits for retirees.

In February 2007, two former employees filed suit in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against Viskase Canada Inc. and
Viskase Companies, Inc., alleging the benefits were permanently
vested as a condition of their retirement.

Further, they petitioned for class action status on behalf of
all similarly situated retirees.

The complaint requests reinstatement of the benefits, or
unspecified damages in the alternative, and punitive damages of
CAD$1.0 million, according to the company's April 9, 2007 Form
10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Viskase Companies, Inc. on the Net: http://www.viskase.com/.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: JPMDL Orders Transfer of IPO Lawsuits to N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL)
transferred all remaining complaints over Vonage Holdings
Corp.'s initial public offering to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

During June 2006 and July 2006, Vonage, several of our officers
and directors, and the firms who served as the underwriters in
company's initial public offering, or IPO, were named as
defendants in several similar purported class actions.

The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, which
was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, and the Superior Court of New
Jersey, which was subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws
on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring our common stock in
connection with our IPO.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
omitted and/or misstated certain facts concerning the IPO's
Customer Directed Share Program.

Some complaints also allege the IPO prospectus contained
misrepresentations or omissions concerning certain of the
company's products and/or the prior experience of some of its
management.

One complaint (Inouye v. Vonage Holdings Corp. et al.), which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York and subsequently voluntarily dismissed, included an
allegation of open market securities fraud during a purported
class period of May 24, 2006 to June 19, 2006 in addition to
claims arising out of the IPO.

On Jan. 9, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all remaining complaints to the District of New
Jersey, according to the company's April 17, 2007 Form 10-K with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Vonage Holdings Corp. on the Net: http://www.vonage.com/.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: N.J. Court Enters Order Dismissing "Norsworthy"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
entered an order voluntarily dismissing the case, "Norsworthy v.
Vonage Holdings Corp. et al."

On July 14, 2006, Vonage and the firms who served as the
underwriters in the company's initial public offering or IPO
were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The purported class action lawsuit asserts state law breach of
contract and negligence claims relating to the alleged inability
of participants' in the company's Customer Directed Share
Program to trade their shares after the IPO.

On March 16, 2007, an order was entered voluntarily dismissing
the case without prejudice, according to the company's April 17,
2007 Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Vonage Holdings Corp. on the Net: http://www.vonage.com/.


WELLS REAL: Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Md. Transferred to Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland transferred
the securities class action against Wells Real Estate Investment
Trust, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, officers and
directors, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia.

On March 13, the law firms of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP and
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP announced that a securities class action was
commenced on behalf of a proposed class of the Company's
stockholders who are entitled to vote on Wells REIT's proxy
statement that was filed with the SEC on Feb. 26, 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, Mar. 15, 2007).

The suit, which also included derivative claims asserting
wrongdoing on behalf of Wells REIT against certain defendants,
charges defendants with violations of the federal securities
laws, including Sections 14(a) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The Proxy seeks shareholder approval to merge affiliates of the
Company ("Advisor") into Wells REIT for $175 million worth of
the Company's stock ("Internalization").

The Advisor is wholly owned by officers and directors of Wells
REIT and thus the Internalization is a self-dealing transaction
that must receive the utmost scrutiny by the Class and the
Company.

The Complaint charges that the Internalization does not stand up
to that scrutiny. Among other things, the Complaint alleges that
the Proxy is false, misleading and omits material information
concerning the fact that:

     (a) the Internalization makes no economic sense to the          
         Class and the Company given the likelihood that the
         Company will liquidate starting January 30, 2008;

     (b) they purport to sell the Advisor to the Company, but
         will continue to extract fees from the Company for       
         advisory-type services;

     (c) recent comparable transactions reveal that the value
         placed on this Advisor is excessive and the
         Internalization transaction itself is not justified;

     (d) the Internalization is being used as an alternative
         exit strategy for the Advisor and its owners to end-run
         existing contractual provisions governing the Advisor's
         fees and to extract fees when they otherwise could
         receive nothing; and

     (e) the so-called fairness opinion obtained by defendants
         to support the Internalization and the value of the
         Advisor is materially flawed and based on unsupported
         assumptions.

The Complaint also alleges that the Advisor and certain
defendants owe fiduciary duties to the shareholders and the
Company and breached those duties by entering into the
Internalization which constitutes an abusive and self- dealing
transaction, a waste of the Company's assets and puts their own
personal self-interests above those of the Company and its
shareholders.

The suit seeks damages and other appropriate relief for the
Class and the Company.

On April 17, 2007 the U.S. District Court in the District of
Maryland transferred the lawsuit to the United States District
Court, Northern District of Georgia, Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP.

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

For more information, contact:

     (1) Nicholas E. Chimicles and Kimberly M. Donaldson, both
         of Chimicles & Tickellis LLP, 361 West Lancaster,
         Avenue Haverford, PA 19041, Phone: 610-642-8500 or  
         866-399-2487 (Toll Free), Fax: 610-649-3633, E-Mail:
         kimdonaldson@chimicles.com, Website:
         http://www.chimicles.com;

     (2) Lawrence A. Sucharow and Christopher J. Keller, both of
         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New
         York, New York 10017, Phone: 212-907-0700, Fax: 212-
         818-0477, E-Mail: ckeller@labaton.com, Website:
         http://www.labaton.com;and  

     (3) Lawrence P. Kolker of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
         Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
         10016, Phone: 212-545-4600, Fax: 212-686-0114, E-Mail:
         Kolker@whafh.com, Website: http://www.whafh.com.


WET SEAL: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of the
amended complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against The Wet Seal, Inc.

Between Aug. 26, 2004 and Oct. 12, 2004, six securities class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, or the Court, on behalf of
persons who purchased our common stock between Jan. 7, 2003 and
Aug. 19, 2004.

The company and certain of its former directors and executives
were named as defendants.  

The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, on the
grounds that, among other things, the company failed to disclose
and misrepresented material adverse facts that were known to us
or disregarded by the company.

On Nov. 17, 2004, the court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel.  On Jan. 29, 2005, the
lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint
with the court, which consolidated all of the previously
reported class actions.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the company violated the
federal securities laws by making material misstatements of fact
or failing to disclose material facts during the class period,
from March 2003 to August 2004, concerning its prospects to stem
ongoing losses in its Wet Seal concept and return that business
to profitability.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that the company's
former directors and La Senza Corp., a Canadian company
controlled by them, unlawfully utilized material non-public
information in connection with the sale of its common stock by
La Senza.

The consolidated complaint seeks class certification,
compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorney's fees and
injunctive relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in April 2005.  On Sept. 15, 2005, the consolidated class action
was dismissed against the company in the lawsuit.

However, plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended
complaint, which they did file on Nov. 23, 2005.  The company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Jan. 25,
2006.

A court hearing on the motion was held on Oct. 23, 2006, but the
court has not yet made a ruling on the motion, according to the
company's April 17, 2007 Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.  

The suit is "Alexander Vinokurov v. Wet Seal Inc., et al., Case  
No. 2:04-cv-07159-GAF-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess
with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen R. Basser of Barrack Rodos and Bacine, 402 W.
         Broadway, Ste. 850, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         230-0800, E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com; and

     (2) William J. Doyle, II of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller  
         Rudman and Robbins, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San  
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Seth A. Aronson of O'Melveny & Myers, 400 S. Hope St.,  
         15th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899, Phone: 213-430-
         6000, E-mail: saronson@omm.com;  

    (ii) Charles Avrith of Nagler and Associates, 2300 South  
         Sepulveda Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90064, Phone: 310-
         473-1200, Fax: 310-473-7144.


WET SEAL: Faces Lawsuits in Calif. Over Credit Rules Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported class
action over alleged violations of credit rules, according to the
company's April 17, 2007 Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

In January 2007, a class action complaint was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging violations of The Fair Credit Reporting
(FCRA). In February 2007 a class action complaint was filed
against the company alleging similar violations.

FCRA provides in part that expiration dates may not be printed
on credit or debit card receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators of these rules and
regulations where the violation is deemed to have been willful.
Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the
cardholder.

The Wet Seal, Inc. on the Net: http://www.wetseal.com/.


WORLDSPACE INC: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
WorldSpace, Inc. is a defendant in several securities fraud
class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's April 17, 2007
Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suits were filed in March and April 2007 on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
publicly traded securities.

They were filed against the company, Noah A. Samara, President
and Chief Executive Officer, Sridhar Ganesan, Chief Financial
Officer, Cowen & Co. LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.

The complaints (all similar) allege violations of Sections 11,
12(a)2, and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.  They claim
that certain customers were incorrectly counted as subscribers
after they had ceased to be paying subscribers.

The first identified complaint is "Larry Patel, et al. v.
WorldSpace, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-02252," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)
         201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com;

     (2) Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 12th
         Floor, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
         212.818.0477, E-mail: info@labaton.com; and

     (3) The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508,
         New York, NY, 10118, Phone: 212.686.1060, Fax:
         212.202.3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com.


* Indiana Bill Signed into Law to Protect Indiana Cemetery Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Indiana bill has been signed into law that is aimed at
ensuring the integrity of gravesites in Indiana cemeteries.

The Consumer Protection Fund for Cemetery Maintenance law also
helps to protect money that is paid in advance of funerals and
burial services.

Co-sponsored by State Senator Jim Lewis (D-Charlestown), House
Enrolled Act (HEA) 1305 will create the Consumer Protection Fund
for Cemetery Maintenance, which would be used to pay for the
upkeep of a cemetery if the owner is unable to do so and the
money needed for maintenance is not available from the
cemetery's perpetual care fund.

Cemetery owners will be responsible for contributing to the
fund.

The act also specifies that a cemetery's perpetual care fund
must be segregated from other accounts belonging to the owner of
the cemetery and would be subject to audits by the State Board
of Funeral and Cemetery Service.

A custodian or trustee of the perpetual care fund would also be
required to file an annual accounting report with the board.

Sen. Lewis said this legislation is particularly pertinent for
local residents and families involved with recent problems at
Grandview Memorial Gardens in Madison.

A class-action lawsuit was filed last week in Marion Circuit
Court in Indianapolis accusing former cemetery owners of
mishandling money that customers prepaid for burial and funeral
services.

The lawsuit asserts that past owners by failed to properly
deposit money and made illegal withdrawals from accounts that
should have been set aside in trust for maintenance and future
prepaid services.

"I know we can't erase the ordeal that the families in Madison
have dealt with," said Sen. Lewis. "But I hope this new law will
mean that no other families have to go through what they did."

HEA 1305 passed both the Senate and the House unanimously. It
will go into effect July 1, 2007.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHECKFREE CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP gave
notice that a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
all common stock purchasers of CheckFree Corporation from April
4, 2006 through August 1, 2006, inclusive.

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

The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing a drastic downturn in
         its transaction growth;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial and operational projections were lacking in a
         reasonable basis when made.

Prior to and throughout the Class Period, CheckFree relayed to
investors and analysts that the Company would maintain its
consistent financial performance and impressive growth. It was
projected that the Company would realize 25 percent annual
transaction growth for the foreseeable future.

The Company raised its expectations and performance projections
for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006. Analysts and
investors relied upon the Company's projections, and shares of
the Company's stock increased in response to such positive
statements from the Company.

Analysts wrote research articles that conveyed how the Company
"has masterfully managed investor expectations and effectively
communicated the changes in its business model to the Street."

Citing Company statements, financial analysts projected that
shares of the Company's stock would reach over $60 per share in
the near future.

However, on August 1, 2006, the Company shocked investors and
financial analysts when it disclosed that its quarterly results
for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006 were vastly below
their forecasted projections for the quarter.  As opposed to
reaching the projected growth in key business segments, the
Company actually reported a sequential decline.

This news was disturbing to investors since the defendants had
spoken to analysts in late April, and instead of disclosing the
fact that the Company was experiencing a decline in the number
of transactions that it processed, the defendants projected
sequential growth for the quarter in all business segments.

Rather than informing investors of the disappointing results
that the defendants were actually realizing for the month of
April, they withheld this information from investors until
August 1, 2006.

On this news, shares of CheckFree declined $5.93 per share, or
13.75 percent, to close on August 2, 2006 at $37.20 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

CheckFree is an electronic payment processing company which
provides financial electronic commerce products and services.

For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq., both of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler,
LLP, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706, E-
mail: info@sbtklaw.com, Website: http://www.sbtklaw.com.


OCCAM NETWORKS: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against Occam Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the common stock of Occam between May 2, 2006 and April 17,
2007, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results, thus causing Occam's common stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that, unknown to investors,
during the Class Period, defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that Occam's reported financial results were the
product of improper revenue recognition, in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"), concerning
the Company's commitments to provide customers with software,
hardware and software maintenance, hardware and software
upgrades, training, and other services in connection with
customers' purchases of the Company's network equipment and that
during the Class Period, the Company's internal controls were
materially defective.

The Complaint further alleges that certain of Occam's materially
false and misleading financial reports were included in the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus that were filed
with the SEC in connection with the Company's November 7, 2006,
public offering of 5,250,000 shares of its common stock at a
price of $14.00 per share.

It contends that on April 2, 2007, after the close of trading,
Occam surprised investors by disclosing that it would not file
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2006 on time.

Occam explained that it was unable to file its Form 10-K because
"its Audit Committee is reviewing the Company's commitments to
provide customers with software, hardware and software
maintenance, hardware and software upgrades, training, and other
services in connection with customers' purchases of the
Company's network equipment.

The Audit Committee is also considering whether these
commitments impact revenue recognition and the adequacy of the
Company's internal controls relating to the documentation of
customer commitments as part of the terms and conditions of
sale."

On April 3, 2007, the next trading day, Occam shares declined
from $11.10 per share, at the close of trading on April 2, 2007,
to close at $8.51 per share at the close of trading on April 3,
2007, a decline of $2.59 per share or approximately 23%, on
heavier than usual volume.

Then on April 17, 2007, after the close of trading, Occam
disclosed that that it would "not file its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 by today's 15-
day extended filing deadline."

On April 18, 2007, Occam shares declined from $8.91 per share at
the close of trading on April 18, 2007, to close at $8.54 per
share, a decline $0.37 per share or approximately 4%, on heavier
than usual volume.

On April 23, 2007, the Company disclosed that it received a
notice from NASDAQ stating that because the Company had not
filed its annual report on time, Occam was not in compliance
with NASDAQ marketplace rules.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more information, contact:

     (1) Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss and Jeffrey P.
         Campisi, all of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 805 Third
         Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10022, Phone:
         (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980, Fax: Fax: (212) 687-
         7714; and

     (2) Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 555
         Montgomery Street, Suite 1501, San Francisco,
         California 94111, Phone: (415) 772-4700, Fax: (415)
         772-4707.

US AUTO: Schiffrin Barroway Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all common stock purchasers
of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the
Company's Feb. 8, 2007 Initial Public Offering.

The Complaint charges U.S. Auto Parts and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

U.S. Auto Parts, a portfolio company of Oak Investment Partners,
is an online provider of aftermarket auto parts, including body
parts, engine parts, performance parts and accessories.

The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts:

     (1) that U.S. Auto Parts was experiencing major integration
         problems of PartsBin, a company that it acquired prior
         to the IPO;

     (2) specifically, integration problems with PartsBin
         existed due to the different distribution methods
         utilized by both companies to fill customer's orders;

     (3) that due to these problems, U.S. Auto Parts had trouble
         filling customer orders, and was subsequently required
         to issue credit to its customers for out-of-stock
         products;

     (4) that due to these problems, customers were canceling
         orders en mas, causing the Company to offer substantial
         discounts which eroded its gross margins;

     (5) that all of the above resulted in the Company
         experiencing a horrendous fourth quarter which would
         lead to disappointing results for the Company's fiscal
         year 2006; and

     (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls.

On February 8, 2007, U.S. Auto Parts conducted its IPO and
raised over $100 million in net proceeds. Then on March 20,
2007, after the market had closed for the day, U.S. Auto Parts
disclosed its fourth-quarter and year-end financial results,
which were drastically below expectations.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's stock declined
$4.58 per share, or 41.4 percent, to close on March 21, 2007 at
$6.49 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 29, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq., both of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler,
LLP, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706, E-
mail: info@sbtklaw.com, Website: http://www.sbtklaw.com.


USANA HEALTH: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
USANA Health Sciences, Inc. from July 18, 2006 through March 14,
2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges that USANA and several of its officers
violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Company and the Defendant
officers improperly failed to disclose and misrepresented
material adverse facts, including the following:

     -- the Company's business model was unsustainable because
        of a high level of attrition within the its sales force;

     -- the Company's multi-level marketing model operated
        essentially as a pyramid scheme;

     -- the majority of the Company's Associates did not sell to
        consumers, but to other Company Associates;

     -- over 87 percent of the Company's Associates were losing
        money on their sales efforts;

     -- the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
        controls; and,

     -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements
        about its future business prospects lacked a reasonable
        basis when made.

Based on recent additional allegations of wrongdoing at USANA it
is possible that the Class Period may be extended to include
persons who purchased USANA stock after March 14, 2007.

On March 15, 2007, the Fraud Discovery Institute and The Wall
Street Journal revealed to investors serious problems at USANA.
Immediately following these disclosures, shares of the Company's
stock declined $8.92, or 15 percent, to close on March 15, 2007
at $49.85 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

As subsequent adverse information about the Company surfaced,
shares of the Company's stock have declined even further.

USANA develops and manufactures nutritional, personal care, and
weight management products that are sold directly to Preferred
Customers and Associates throughout the United States and in
other countries.

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

For more information, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Dana
Frusco, both of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100
New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C.
20005, Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or dfrusco@cmht.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, 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  * * *