CAR_Public/070502.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 2, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 86

                            Headlines


ABN AMRO: U.S. Investors File Suit to Block $21B LaSalle Sale
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: No Review for "Ridgeway" Certification
CANADA: Superior Court to Hear Arguments Against Montreal Police
CARMAX INC: Settles Dealers Act Violations Lawsuit in S.C.
CARRIER CORP: Wash. Suit Over High-Efficiency Furnaces Certified

CHENANGO VALLEY: Recalls Pet Foods Possibly Containing Melamine
COMCAST CORP: Seeks Consolidation of Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa.
DORAL FINANCIAL: Securities, Derivative Suits Settled for $129M
EVCI CAREER: Settles N.Y. Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GAP INC: Calif. Judge Dismisses N.Y. Labor Law Violations Suit

GLOBAL WEALTH: Reaches $46M Settlement in D.C. Gender Bias Suit
GOOGLE INC: Authors Seek to Stop Copying of Books in Mich. Univ.
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: N.J. Lawsuit Over LDW Charge in Discovery
HERTZ CORP: Files Motion to Junk Concession Fee Recoveries Suit
HOLLAND AMERICA: Faces Federal Wage Law Violations Suit in Wash.

HOLMES GROUP: Recalls Heaters with Defective Electrical Wiring
INTERSTATE BAKERIES: N.J. Labor-Related Litigations Still Stayed
JEWEL FOOD: Local Resident Files FCRA Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
KENTUCKY: Judges' Retirement Provision Challenged in Lawsuit
NEWMONT MINING: Court Mulls Approving Securities Suit Settlement

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Calif. Court Consolidates ERISA Litigations
PATHMARK STORES: Faces Suit Over Great Atlantic Merger Deal
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Snowmobiles with Faulty Shock Towers
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Enters $109M Settlement in N.J. Consumer Suit
SIRVA, INC: Subsidiaries Settle OOIDA Suits Over Leases for $8M

ST. JOHN: Suit Over Attendance System to Go to Arbitration
TENNESSEE: Judge Sides with Plaintiffs in County Retirement Suit
VEDA ADVANTAGE: GMP Files Breaches of Trade Practices Lawsuit
XEROX CORP: Court Mulls Appeal on N.Y. Apartheid Suit Dismissal
XEROX CORP: Discovery Continues in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit
XEROX CORP: Discovery Ongoing in "Carlson" Securities Fraud Suit

* Oklahoma Royalty Owners Voice Concern Over S.B. 507 Amendments


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMGEN INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA



                            *********


ABN AMRO: U.S. Investors File Suit to Block $21B LaSalle Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of U.S. investors led by Halpert Enterprises launched a
class action in the Supreme Court in New York against ABN Amro
and Bank of America in the Supreme Court in New York, The
Evening Standard (London) reports.

The suit against ABN, its directors headed by chairman Rijkman
Groenink, and Bank of America, is aimed at stopping ABN from
completing the $21 billion sale of its U.S. subsidiary, LaSalle,
to BoA next Sunday.  

It accuses ABN of giving BoA preferential treatment, and
supplying inside information "to others" in connection with the
sale.

The suit alleges the sale of LaSalle shows "the defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care,
independence, candor, good faith and fair dealing".

It further alleges that, as a result of the takeover being
rushed through as part of a wider takeover of ABN by Barclays,
shareholders in the Dutch bank risked losing up to 13 per cent.

Halpert also claims the $200 million break fee for BoA if the
LaSalle deal does not go through was "unreasonable and
unenforceable because it does not represent a reasonable
estimate of BoA's actual expenses in the event that the contract
to sell LaSalle to BoA is breached".

The summons accuses ABN's directors of "self-dealing and breach
of fiduciary duty".

It also asserts, that "the defendants arranged to sell the
company's lucrative LaSalle to BoA in an effort to discourage
any higher bids [for ABN]".

It claims the agreement between ABN and BoA that the Dutch bank
will hand over $200 million if it accepts a higher rival offer
for LaSalle is "not enforceable".


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: No Review for "Ridgeway" Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Texas rejected an appeal made by plaintiffs
in a lawsuit filed on behalf of Ray Ridgeway against:

     * Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., and
     * The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co.
       
       -- (Case No. 48-185170-00) --

originally in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 48th
Judicial District.

The plaintiffs' causes of action include alleged breach of
contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties with
respect to a special dividend that was paid in 1988 by a
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. predecessor, Santa Fe
Southern Pacific Corp.

The complaint alleges that Santa Fe Southern erroneously
informed shareholders as to the tax treatment of the dividend
"specifically, the apportionment of the dividend as either a
distribution of earnings and profits or a return of capital,"
which allegedly caused some shareholders to overpay their income
taxes.

The plaintiffs assert, through their expert's report, that Santa
Fe Southern had essentially no accumulated earnings and profits
and that the entire dividend distribution should have been
treated as a return of capital, rather than the approximately 34
percent that Santa Fe Southern determined was a return of
capital.

On July 8, 2005, the court entered an order denying the
plaintiffs' requests to certify a class action.  The Texas Court
of Appeals affirmed the order denying certification on Aug. 24,
2006.  Plaintiffs' motion for rehearing of the order of the
Texas Court of Appeals was denied.

Plaintiffs then asked the Supreme Court of Texas to review the
decision of the Court of Appeals.

On March 2, 2007, the Texas Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs'
request to review the decision denying their request to certify
a class action.

The deadline for the plaintiffs to ask the Texas Supreme Court
to reconsider its ruling has now passed without the plaintiffs
filing any reconsideration request, according to the company's
April 24, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. -- http://www.bnsf.com/--  
through its subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the freight
rail transportation business.


CANADA: Superior Court to Hear Arguments Against Montreal Police
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Quebec agreed to hear arguments from the
lead claimant in a suit filed over the 2003 arrests of people
protesting against a World Trade Organization meeting in
Montreal, Meg Hewings of the Hour.ca reports.

The court agreed to hear arguments by Rachel Engler-Stringer
against the City of Montreal in its ruling on April 10.

The Montreal class action -- a lawsuit by 238 protesters --
alleges that the Montreal police used unlawful arrests,
arbitrary detention and abuse of procedure based on political
discrimination following a protest against WTO in July 2003.  
The plaintiffs will use the Quebec and Canadian Charter to
further argue their allegations in court.

One of the arrestees, Oline Twiss says, "We don't believe police
should be able to arrest people in such flagrant violation of
the Charter of Rights.  It's an affront to anyone in this
country who thinks they have a right to peaceful protest."

Ms. Twiss also describes how the Montreal police dealt with the
activists.  She says the protesters were rounded up by the
police, detained for several hours on a bus, denied access to
water, washrooms and medicines.  They were later transferred to
a holding cell where they were detained for up to 36 hours.


CARMAX INC: Settles Dealers Act Violations Lawsuit in S.C.  
----------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. settled a purported class action filed in the Court
of Common Pleas in Aiken County, South Carolina, which alleges
that the company is violating the state's Regulation of
Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers Act.

On Aug. 29, 2006, Heather Herron, and others, filed the putative
class action against 51 South Carolina automobile dealers,
including CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.  CarMax operates two of
its 71 superstores in the state of South Carolina.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants are violating South
Carolina's Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers
Act by:

      -- presenting their respective processing fees in a manner
         that gives consumers the impression that charging the
         processing fees is required by law; and

      -- excluding their respective processing fees from the
         advertised prices of their vehicles.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages equal to two times
actual damages and punitive damages equal to three times actual
damages.  The complaint, however, does not specify a dollar
amount of damages.  

Plaintiffs alternatively seek equitable relief in the form of a
permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from deceptively
charging future consumers such processing fees and the
disgorgement of all such processing fees collected since Aug.
29, 2002.  They also seek to recover attorneys' fees.

Subject to final judicial approval, the company has settled this
lawsuit, according to the company's April 27, 2007 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Feb. 28 2007.

Richmond, Virginia-based CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com-
- is a retailer of used cars in the U.S.


CHENANGO VALLEY: Recalls Pet Foods Possibly Containing Melamine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chenango Valley Pet Foods is working with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration in voluntarily recalling pet foods manufactured
with a certain shipment of rice protein.

Wilbur-Ellis informed the company that the rice protein
concentrate shipped to Chenango Valley Pet Foods may be
contaminated with melamine, an industrial chemical used to make
plastics and fertilizers that may lead to illness or fatalities
in animals if consumed.

The pet foods were sold to customers in Wisconsin,
Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, who further sold the products
to their customers through catalog mail orders or retail
outlets.

Only these products are included in the recall:

     --- Doctors Foster & Smith Chicken & Brown Rice Formula
         Adult Lite Dog Food
         net wt.: 5 lbs., 12.5 lbs., and 25 lbs.
         code dates: best used by Jan 24, 09,
                     best used by Feb 8, 09,
                     best used by Feb 26, 09,
                     best used by April 10, 09,
                     best used by April 17, 09;

     --- Doctors Foster & Smith Chicken & Brown Rice Formula
         Adult Lite Cat Food, net wt. 3 lbs. and 7 lbs.; code
         date: best used by March 13, 09;

     --- Lick Your Chops Lamb Meal, Rice & Egg Cat Food, 4 lbs.
         packages, code date: best used by April 29, 08;

     --- Bulk Chicken & Brown Rice Formula Adult Lite Dog Food
         sold to one consignee (SmartPak) in a 2000 lbs. tote,
         Ship date: Feb 9, 2007.

No illnesses or injuries have been reported to date.

Pet owners who purchased the pet foods are strongly advised to
stop using the products immediately and return them to the place
of purchase for a refund.  Pet owners must consult their
veterinarian should they have health concerns with their pets.

For more information or questions, contact Dennis J. Bobita of
Chenango Valley Pet Foods at 1-610-821-0608.


CARRIER CORP: Wash. Suit Over High-Efficiency Furnaces Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington ordered that a case filed by
current and past Washington State owners of high-efficiency
furnaces manufactured by Carrier Corp. may proceed as a class
action.

In 2005, homeowners in the State of Washington filed suit,
alleging that in the mid-1980s Carrier stopped using stainless
steel secondary heat exchangers in favor of cheaper
polypropylene-laminated mild steel.  

Carrier switched to the cheaper product despite the fact that
the industry standard was (and still is) to use stainless steel
parts to prevent corrosion.

Plaintiffs allege that the polypropylene separates from the
steel and degrades due to the high temperatures in the furnace,
exposing the underlying mild steel to acidic condensate.  In
some cases the corrosion proceeds to the point of actually
perforating the outside wall of the heat exchanger (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 11, 2006).

Carrier allegedly never disclosed to consumers that the new heat
exchangers are not as robust as ones manufactured from stainless
steel or that their furnaces would not as long as consumers
typically expect.

The case was filed on behalf of tens of thousands of Washington
individuals and entities who purchased Carrier, Bryant and Payne
high-efficiency furnaces since January 1, 1989.

"In Washington, homeowners run their furnaces for at least five
months of the year," stated Kim D. Stephens, counsel for
plaintiffs with the Seattle law firm of Tousley Brain Stephens
PLLC.  "It is of great concern that Carrier would sell a furnace
that could potentially malfunction in the dead of winter."

"Carrier's warranty does not cover labor charges for replacement
of the failed part," explained Jonathan D. Selbin, plaintiffs'
counsel with national law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

"Homeowners who bought their furnace on the assurance by Carrier
that it would last a lifetime have been forced to spend hundreds
or even over a thousand dollars on the repair of their faulty
furnace, or have had to spend thousands on a brand new furnace."

High-efficiency condensing (or 90%) furnaces maximize efficiency
by employing a second heat exchanger to extract more heat from
the hot gases through condensation.  These furnaces are
typically more expensive than non-condensing (or 80%) furnaces.

The complaint charges that the polypropylene degrades and
disintegrates due to the high temperatures in the furnace.  When
the polypropylene separates from the steel, it exposes the
underlying mild steel to acidic condensate.  In some cases, the
corrosion proceeds to the point of actually perforating the
outside wall of the heat exchanger.

In the U.S., Carrier warrants the heat exchanger for the
lifetime of the original purchaser and for 20 years for
subsequent purchasers.  Despite this warranty, the complaint
charges that Carrier's condensing furnaces fail prematurely and
well before their warranted and expected life, resulting in
consumers having to incur substantial charges on the labor to
repair their furnace or on the purchase of a new furnace.

The Washington lawsuit is part of litigation in a number of
jurisdictions against Carrier for concealing defects in its
condensing furnaces.

Homeowners in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ontario, Canada have also
filed class action complaints against Carrier, each setting
forth similar allegations (Class Action Reporter, Dec 21, 2006).

The suit is "Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School et al. v.
Carrier Corp., Case No. 3:05-cv-05437-RBL," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington under
Judge Ronald B. Leighton.

Representing plaintiffs are:

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

          Lori E. Andrus, Esq.  
          H. John Gutierrez, Esq.  
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
          275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3343
          Phone: 415-956-1000
          Fax: 415-956-1008
          E-mail: landrus@lchb.com
                  hjgutierrez@lchb.com

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.  
          Paulina do Amaral, Esq.
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
          780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-2024
          Phone: 212-355-9500
          Fax: 212-355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
                  pdomaral@lchb.com

          - and -
          David L. Edwards, Esq.
          Edwards & Hagen
          P.O. Box 2016
          110 W Market, Suite 202
          Aberdeen, WA 90520
          Phone: 360-532-6210
          E-mail: dave@ehlaw.net

Representing defendants are:

          Bart L. Kessel, Esq.
          Tucker Ellis & West
          1000 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2475
          Phone: 213-430-3388
          Fax: 213-430-3409
          E-mail: bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com

          Mark L. Levine
          Brian Swanson
          Michael J. Valaik
          Andrew Polovin
          Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott
          Courthouse Place
          54 W Hubbard St., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Phone: 312-494-4400
          E-mail: mark.levine@bartlit-beck.com
                  brian.swanson@bartlit-beck.com
                  michael.valaik@bartlit-beck.com
                  andrew.polovin@bartlit-beck.com

          - and -

          John Michael Silk
          Dennis Smith
          Wilson Smith Cochran & Dickerson
          1700 Financial Center
          1215 4th Ave., Ste 1700
          Seattle, WA 98161-1007
          Phone: 206-623-4100
          Fax: 206-623-9273
          E-mail: silk@wscd.com
                  smithd@wscd.com


COMCAST CORP: Seeks Consolidation of Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp. is seeking the consolidation of two purported
class actions filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District
of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The company was named a defendant in two purported class actions
originally filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of
Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
respectively.

The potential class in the Massachusetts case is company's
subscriber base in the "Boston Cluster" area, and the potential
class in the Pennsylvania case is the company's subscriber base
in the "Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters," as those terms are
defined in the complaints.

In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain subscriber
exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in
unlawful "horizontal market restraints" in those areas and seek
damages pursuant to antitrust statutes, including treble
damages.

As a result of recent events in both cases relating to the
procedural issue of whether the plaintiffs' claims could proceed
in court or, alternatively, whether the plaintiffs should be
compelled to arbitrate their claims pursuant to arbitration
clauses in their subscriber agreements, it has become more
likely that these cases will proceed in court.

The company's motion to dismiss the Pennsylvania case on the
pleadings was denied, and the plaintiffs have moved to certify a
class action.  Comcast is opposing the plaintiffs' motion and is
proceeding with class discovery.

The company has moved to dismiss the Massachusetts case.  The
Massachusetts case was recently transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and plaintiffs are seeking to
consolidate it with the Pennsylvania case, according to the
company's April 27, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

Pennsylvania-based Comcast Corp. -- http://www.comcast.com-- is  
a cable operator in the U.S. and offers a variety of consumer
entertainment and communication products and services.


DORAL FINANCIAL: Securities, Derivative Suits Settled for $129M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doral Financial Corp. entered into an agreement to settle all
claims in a consolidated securities class action and shareholder
derivative litigation filed against the company following the
announcement in April 2005 of the need to restate its financial
statements for the period from 2000 to 2004.

As part of the settlement, the company and insurers will pay an
aggregate of $129 million, of which insurers will pay
approximately $34 million.

In addition, one or more individual defendants will pay an
aggregate of $1 million (in cash or Doral Financial stock).  The
company also agreed to certain corporate governance
enhancements.

The company's payment obligations under the settlement agreement
are subject to the closing and funding of one or more
transactions through which the company obtains outside financing
during 2007 to meet its liquidity and capital needs, including
the repayment of the company's $625 million senior notes due on
July 20, 2007, payment of the amounts due under the settlement
agreement and certain other working capital and contractual
needs.

Either side may terminate the settlement agreement if the
company has not raised the necessary funding by Sept. 30, 2007
or if the settlement has not been fully funded within 30 days
from the receipt of such funding.

These lawsuits were brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased Doral Financial securities as early as May 15, 2000
and as late as May 26, 2005.   

                        Case Background

The company and certain of its officers and directors and former
officers and directors, were named as defendants in 18 purported
class actions filed between April 20, 2005 and June 14, 2005
over allegations of federal securities laws violations.  

Sixteen of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York and two were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.   

They allege primarily that the defendants engaged in securities
fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements during the class period, failing to disclose material
information concerning the valuation of the company's IO Strip
portfolios, and misleading investors as to Doral's vulnerability
to interest rate increases.

The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has transferred
the two actions that were not initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to that
court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the actions previously filed there before Judge Richard Owen.

On Feb. 8, 2006, Judge Owen entered an order appointing the West
Virginia Investment Management Board as lead plaintiff and
approving the selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel.

On June 22, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint alleging securities fraud during the period
between March 15, 2000 and Oct. 25, 2005, based on allegations
similar to those noted above, as well as based on the reversal
of certain transactions entered into by Doral Financial with
other Puerto Rico financial institutions and on weaknesses in
Doral Financial's control environment as described in the
company's amended annual report on Form 10-K/ A for 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages including interest, costs and expenses, and
injunctive relief.

                  Effects of Recent Settlement

As a result of the recent settlement agreement, Doral Financial
established a litigation reserve and recorded a one-time charge
to the company's full-year financial results for 2006 of $95.0
million.

"Doral Financial has achieved two more significant milestones by
filing our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec.
31, 2006 and settling the outstanding class action and
shareholder litigation related to our prior restatement of
historical results from 2000 to 2004.  With these two milestones
achieved, we are focused on pursuing and completing in a timely
manner a transaction to address the capital and liquidity needs
of the holding company," stated Glen R. Wakeman, the company's
chief executive officers.

"At the same time, Doral Bank Puerto Rico, our principal banking
subsidiary, is strong and moving forward implementing business
strategies aimed at transforming the company into a more
traditional community banking institution, including offering a
broader range of products and services.  Our deposits are stable
and growing, we are improving service standards, as well as our
business fundamentals," Mr. Wakeman said, adding that Doral Bank
Puerto Rico continues to be well capitalized for bank regulatory
purposes as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The parties to the settlement agreement will seek final court
approval of the settlement before the maturity of the senior
notes due July 20, 2007, but no assurance can be given that it
will receive final court approval by this date.

The suit is "In Re: Doral Financial Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-md-01706-RO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard Owen.

Representing the defendants are:

          Beatriz Annexy-Guevara, Esq.
          Reichard & Escalera
          Post Office Box 364148
          San Juan, PR 364148
          Phone: (787) 777-8815
          Fax: (787) 765-4225
          E-mail: annexy@reichardescalera.com

          Jesus E. Cuza, Esq.
          Greenberg Traurig, LLP (NYC)
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: (212) 801-9200
          Fax: (212) 801-6400
          E-mail: cuzaj@gtlaw.com

          Lynn Ann Dummett, Esq.
          Sidley Austin LLP(NY)
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 839-5938
          Fax: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: ldummett@sidley.com

          Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq.
          Greenberg Trauig P.A( Ft. Lauderdale)
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 768-8263
          Fax: (954) 765-1477 (fax)
          E-mail: eichhornc@gtlaw.com

          Rafael Escalera-Rodriguez, Esq.
          Reichard and Escalera
          P.O.Box 364148
          San Juan, PR 00936
          Phone: (787) 777-8877
          Fax: (787) 765-4225
          E-mail: escalera@reichardescalera.com

          - and -

          Jonathan B. Gaskin, Esq.
          Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP( San Francisco)
          The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 773-5996
          Fax: (415) 773-5759
          E-mail: jgaskin@orrick.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

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

          Ken H. Chang, Esq.
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 451-9667
          Fax: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: kchang@wolfpopper.com

          William Bernard Federman, Esq.
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 N. Pennsylvania
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Fax: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wfederman@aol.com

          - and -

          Jack Gerald Fruchter, Esq.
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212 279-3655
          E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com


EVCI CAREER: Settles N.Y. Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. settled a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against it and certain of
its current directors and officers.

On Dec. 6, 2005, "Glauser v. EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp.,
et al.," was filed on behalf of a class of EVCI's investors who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Nov.
14, 2003 and Oct. 19, 2005.

Plaintiff alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
the Exchange Act, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in
connection with various public statements made by the company
and seeks an order that the action may proceed as a class action
and an award of compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and
the other purported class members in an unspecified amount,
together with interest and reimbursement of costs and expenses
of the litigation.

To date, five follow-on actions have been filed in the same
court alleging substantially similar claims, except that some of
these follow-on actions allege a class period from Aug. 14, 2003
to Dec. 5, 2005.

On May 9, 2006, the court ordered the actions consolidated and
appointed a lead plaintiff.  After the filing of a consolidated
amended complaint on July 21, 2006, defendants made a motion to
dismiss the actions that was denied by the court on Dec. 13,
2006.

On April 12, 2007, defendants and lead plaintiff reached an
agreement to settle the litigation.  

The stipulation of settlement and related filings, which have
been submitted to the court, are still subject to Court
approval, and there is no guarantee that the Court will approve
them.

The settlement will be funded by EVCI's insurance carriers, and
will include the dismissal of all claims without any liability
or wrongdoing attributed to EVCI or any other defendant.

EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. -- http://www.evcinc.com/--  
provides on campus career college education through its wholly
owned subsidiary, Interboro Institute, Inc., Technical Career
Institutes, Inc., and Pennsylvania School of Business, Inc.


GAP INC: Calif. Judge Dismisses N.Y. Labor Law Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed a putative class action that
claimed The Gap Inc. violated New York labor laws.

Originally filed in Oct. 2006, lead plaintiff Dienna Howard,
alleged she was told by an unnamed manager that all associates
must purchase, and while working, wear Gap clothing and
accessories.  Employees were also allegedly required to make
periodic clothing purchases from their employer to keep their
attire current to reflect the items sold by the store all the
time.

Plaintiff alleged that such purchases were at all times a
condition of her employment, and that her greed-upon hourly wage
was "substantially reduced by the purchases that she was
required to make from Gap, Inc.

Finally, she alleged that the clothing purchases represented a
significant cost to Gap's employees because of the low hourly
wage they received, and that Gap sold clothing to its employees
at a profit because "the cost of producing the clothing is less
than the cost defendant charges to its employees for the
clothing."

On Dec. 8, 2006, shortly after Gap filed its first motion to
dismiss, Ms. Howard filed her amended complaint.  That complaint
alleged three claims:

     -- a violation of New York Labor Law Section 193
        prohibiting unauthorized deductions from employees'
        wages;

     -- a violation of the New York Labor Law Section 198-b
        prohibiting illegal kickbacks to employers, and

     -- a claim for unjust enrichment.

Gap then filed another motion to dismiss, which was granted on
Jan. 19.  Plaintiff was granted leave to amend.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, adding a
few general allegations and removing the claim for unjust
enrichment.  A hearing was held on this motion on April 26,
where plaintiff's counsel did not appear.

In his April 30 ruling, the judge said Ms. Howard, who worked
for Gap for only two weeks before suing in 2006, failed to state
a claim despite being given two chances to amend her complaint.

Judge Alsup said she failed to plead "that this was the kind of
coercive economic arrangement that the statute was meant to
prevent. ... Most jobs ...come with some costs.  Some workers
must purchase business-casual clothing for work.  Even more
workers pay to commute to work either by car or by transit.  
Such expenses reduce an employee's wages, but are not considered
unlawful and need not be reimbursed by employers.  It is also
likely true that Gap's alleged policy may not be the best or
most fair way of treating its workers who are paid a relatively
low hourly wage."

But the judge said Ms. Howard cannot "shoehorn the Gap's alleged
policy into a New York statute prohibiting unauthorized
deductions ... (H)er allegations, even if true, do not fit into
the statute."

A copy of the judge's ruling is available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e39

The suit is "Howard v. Gap, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-06773-WHA,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge William H. Alsup.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Michael J. Bononi, Esq.
          Bononi Law Group
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-553-9200
          Fax: 213-553-9215
          E-mail: mbononi@bononilawgroup.com

          Stephen P. Connor, Esq.
          Anne-Marie Sargent, Esq.
          Connor & Chung, PLLC
          4200 Wells Fargo Center
          999 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104-4090
          Phone: 206-654-5050
          Fax: (206) 624-5469
          E-mail: spc@consarlaw.com

          - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Carlson Lynch Ltd.
          36 North Jefferson Street
          PO Box 7635
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Phone: 724-656-1555
          Fax: 724-656-1556
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

Representing defendants are:

          Lynne C. Hermle, Esq.
          Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: (650) 614-7400
          E-mail: lchermle@orrick.com

          - and -
          
          Jessica Perry, Esq.
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          1020 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94305
          Phone: 650-614-7350
          Fax: 650-614-7401
          E-mail: jperry@orrick.com


GLOBAL WEALTH: Reaches $46M Settlement in D.C. Gender Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global Wealth Management Group, one of the four main business
units of Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., settled for $46,000,000, a
gender discrimination class action involving the company's
current and former women financial advisors and registered
trainees.

                        Case Background

The purported class action was filed on June 22, 2006 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the
caption, "Joanne August-Johnson et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW
Inc.," (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2006)

Plaintiffs, who seek damages in law and in equity, are:

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

According to the complaint, the case arises out of the company's
alleged systematic discriminatory treatment of its female
financial advisors in violation of federal and applicable state
civil rights laws.

The suit was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
on behalf of all female financial advisors at Morgan Stanley who
were employed at any time from Aug. 5, 2003 to the present.

Its filing was designed to protect the rights of the named
plaintiffs, who reside in four states, and the prospective class
members nationwide.

                        Settlement Terms

Under terms of the settlement, which is subject to court
approval, Global Wealth will adopt new programs in such areas as
account redistribution, training and management development
designed to enhance the success of women financial advisors.

In addition, it establishes a process through which women
financial advisors who believe they were historically
disadvantaged because of their gender may submit monetary claims
to a Special Master jointly appointed by the parties.  A $46
million pool has been established to pay such claims and related
costs.

"We are firmly committed to the initiatives we will be
undertaking to attract and retain women financial advisors and
help them be as successful as possible, and pleased to resolve a
legal matter stemming from the past.  Our goal -- across the
organization - is to be the employer-of-choice for talented
women," said Caroline Gundeck, head of the Global Wealth Office
of Diversity.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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


GOOGLE INC: Authors Seek to Stop Copying of Books in Mich. Univ.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Author's Guild Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Google Inc.
over alleged "massive copyright infringement," The Hindustan
Times reports.

The suit is seeking class-action status on behalf of anyone or
any entity with a copyright to a literary work at the University
of Michigan library.

According to the author's organization of more than 8,000, the
powerful Internet search engine cannot put their books in the
public domain for commercial use without permission.

"The authors' works are contained in certain public and
university libraries and have not been licensed for commercial
use," The Author's Guild Inc. said in the lawsuit.

According to the report, the New York-based nonprofit
organization, said its primary purpose as the nation's largest
organization of book authors was to advocate for and support the
copyright and contractual interests of published writers.

"By reproducing for itself a copy of those works that are not in
the public domain, Google is engaging in massive copyright
infringement.  It has infringed and continues to infringe, the
electronic rights of the copyright holders of those works," it
said.

According to the complaint, Google knew or should have known
that copyright laws required it to obtain authorization from
copyright owners of literary works to create and reproduce
digital copies for its own commercial use.

The lawsuit asked the court to block Google from copying the
books so the authors would not suffer irreparable harm by being
deprived of the right to control reproduction of their works.

The suit is "The Author's Guild, et al. v. Google Inc., Case No.
1:05-cv-08136-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge John E. Sprizzo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          J. Kate Reznick, Esq.
          Kohn, Swift & Graft, P.C.
          One South Broad Street,
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: (215) 238-1968 or (215) 238-1700
          Fax: (215) 238-1968

          - and -

          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
          Laura Helen Gundersheim, Esq.
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (NYC)
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-594-5300
          Fax: 212-868-1229 or 212-273-4481
          E-mail: sdumain@milbergweiss.com or                     
          lgundersheim@milbergweiss.com

Defendant is represented by:

          Ronald Lee Raider, Esq.
          Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP (GA)
          1100 Peachtree Street, Ste. 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
          Phone: (404)-532-6909
          Fax: (404)-815-6555
          E-mail: rraider@kilpatrickstockton.com


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: N.J. Lawsuit Over LDW Charge in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in a suit originally filed over Hertz
Equipment Rental Corp.'s Loss Damage Waiver charge.

On Aug. 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd. filed a suit
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
against HERC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The suit purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of
all persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC
and who paid a Loss Damage Waiver charge.  The complaint alleges
that the LDW is deceptive and unconscionable as a matter of law
under pertinent sections of New Jersey law, including the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Uniform Commercial
Code.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of statutory damages
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages with the return of all LDW charges paid,
declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting HERC from
engaging in acts with respect to the LDW charge that violate the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  

The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.

In October 2006, the company filed an answer to the complaint.  
In November 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro, an individual
residing in Texas, and new claims relating to HERC's charging of
an "Environmental Recovery Fee."

Causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing were also added.  In
January 2007, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint. Discovery has now commenced, according to the
company's
March 30, 2006 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz Equipment Rental  
Corporation, Case No. 2:06-cv-03830-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 the plaintiffs is Scott A. George of Sheller,  
Ludwig & Sheller, P.C., One Greentree Centre, Route 73 &  
Greentree Road, Suite 201, Marlton, NJ 08053, Phone: (856) 988-
5590, E-mail: sgeorge@sheller.com.  

Representing the defendant is Alan E. Kraus of Latham & Watkins,  
LLP, One Newark Center, 16th Floor, Newark, NJ 07101-3174,  
Phone: (973) 639-7293, E-mail: alan.kraus@lw.com.


HERTZ CORP: Files Motion to Junk Concession Fee Recoveries Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corp. seeks to dismiss a suit filed on behalf of all
persons who rented cars from the company or Enterprise Rent-A-
Car Co. at airports in Nevada and who were charged airport
concession recovery fees.  

On Oct. 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan Ph.D., and Lydia
Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a suit against Hertz and Enterprise Rent-A-Car
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Sobel purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all
persons who rented cars from Hertz or Enterprise at airports in
Nevada and whom Hertz or Enterprise charged airport concession
recovery fees.  The complaint alleged that the airport
concession recovery fees violate certain provisions of Nevada
law, including Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an
injunction prohibiting Hertz and Enterprise from quoting or
charging any of the fees prohibited by Nevada law.

The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.  In
November 2006, the plaintiffs and Enterprise stipulated and
agreed that claims against Enterprise would be dismissed without
prejudice.  In January 2007, the company filed a motion to
dismiss.

The suit is "Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD., and Lydia Lee, et
al. v. The Hertz Corp. and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., Case No.
3:06-cv-00545-LRH-VPC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada under Judge Larry R. Hicks with referral to
Judge Valerie P. Cooke.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          G. David Robertson, Esq.
          Robertson & Benevento
          50 W. Liberty St., Suite 600
          Reno, NV 89501  
          Phone: 775-329-5600
          Fax: 775-348-8300
          E-mail: gdavid@nvlawyers.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Dan C. Bowen of Lionel, Esq.
          Sawyer & Collins
          50 W. Liberty St., Suite 1100
          Reno, NV 89501
          Phone: 775-788-8666
          E-mail: dbowen@lionelsawyer.com

          - and -

          Matthew K. Narensky, Esq.
          Heller Ehrman, LLP
          333 Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415 772-6000
          E-mail: matthew.narensky@hellerehrman.com


HOLLAND AMERICA: Faces Federal Wage Law Violations Suit in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miami-based lawyer Ross Toyne filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court in Seattle, Washington against Holland America
Line Inc., over alleged violations of federal wage laws, The
Seattle Post Intelligencer reports.

The suit alleges Holland America, in late 2005, required
Filipino seaman, Romeo Balen, an employee aboard its M/V
Westerdam, to pay the cost of flying to meet that vessel to
begin a one-year contract as a bar attendant.  The cost was
nearly one-third of the $6,885 Mr. Balen was due to receive
under his one-year contract, the report says.

The suit further alleges that when Mr. Balen failed to pay the
full $2,119 that the cruise line demanded of him, he was fired.

According to Mr. Toyne, nearly 7,500 Filipinos could be eligible
as part of the plaintiffs' class.

Mr. Toyne, representing plaintiffs, could be reached at:

          Ross B. Toyne, Esq.
          Ross B. Toyne & Associates, P.A.  
          66 West Flagler Street, Suite 300
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: (305) 377-1910
          Fax: (305) 377-1915


HOLMES GROUP: Recalls Heaters with Defective Electrical Wiring
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Holmes Group, of Milford Mass., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling
about 300,000 oil-filled electric heaters.

The company explained that a poor electrical connection within
the heater can lead to overheating that could cause fire and
thermal burn hazards.

The Holmes Group has received 59 reports involving the recalled
heaters, 12 regarding minor injuries including four reported
burns.  The company has also received 36 reports of property
damage including four fires that caused between $41,000 and
$200,000 in damage.

The recall only involves Holmes oil-filled electric heaters with
model numbers HOH2505 and HOH2520, printed on the side of the
unit neat the bottom.

These heaters were manufactured in China and were being sold at
department stores, hardware stores and other retailers
nationwide from September 2005 through February 2007 for between
$40 and $50.

Consumers must immediately stop using the heaters involved and
contact The Holmes Group for a free replacement.

For additional information, contact The Holmes Group at (800)
306-2471 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.holmesoilfilledheaterrecall.com.


INTERSTATE BAKERIES: N.J. Labor-Related Litigations Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three wage and hour cases that were filed in New Jersey Court
against Interstate Bakeries Corp. remains stayed due to the
company's Chapter 11 filing.  

The company was named in two wage and hour cases in New Jersey
that have been brought under state law, one of which has been
brought on behalf of a putative class of route sales
representatives.  

The case involving the putative class is:

      -- "Ruzicka, et al. v. Interstate Brands Corp., et al.,
         No. 03-CV 2846 (FLW) (Superior Court, Ocean City, New
         Jersey).

The other case is:

      -- "McCourt, et al. v. Interstate Brands Corp., No. 1-03-
         CV-00220 (FLW) (D.N.J.)."  

These cases are in their preliminary stages.  As a result of the
Interstate Bakeries' Chapter 11 filing, these cases have been
automatically stayed.

The named plaintiffs in both cases have filed a proof of claim
in the bankruptcy case for unpaid wages.

The company is named in an additional wage and hour case brought
on behalf of a putative class of bakery production supervisors
under federal law.  The suit is "Anugweje v. Interstate Brands
Corp., 2:03 CV 00385 (WGB) (D.N.J.)."  

This action is in the preliminary stages.  As a result of the
Interstate Bakeries' Chapter 11 filing, this case has been
automatically stayed.

The company reported no development in the matter in its April
18, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 10 2007.

Kansas City, Missouri-based Interstate Bakeries Corp. --
http://www.interstatebakeriescorp.com-- is a wholesale baker  
and distributor of fresh baked bread and sweet goods in the U.S.


JEWEL FOOD: Local Resident Files FCRA Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jewel Food Stores, Inc., d/b/a Jewel-Osco, was named as a
defendant in a purported class action filed by an Illinois
native, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Stephen Cicilline, Jr., filed the litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April
26, 2007.  Attorneys Henry Marwood Baskerville, IV, and Daniel
Francis Lynch are representing Mr. Cicilline in the case.

The suit is specifically alleging that the defendant violated
the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act amendment to FCRA.  It
was brought on behalf of all persons who used their credit card
or debit card in any transaction occurring after Dec. 4, 2006,
at Jewel and were provided an electronically printed receipt at
the point of sale or transaction, which displays either more
than the last five digits of the person's credit card or debit
card number, and/or the expiration date of the person's credit
card or debit card.

According to the complaint, plaintiff is seeking relief:

      -- Pursuant to FCRA Section 1681 n(a)(1)(A), $100 to $1000
         per violation;

      -- Pursuant to FCRA Section 1681 n(a)(3), attorney's fees,
         litigation expenses, and costs; and

      -- Such other relief as the court deems equitable and just
         under the circumstances.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1e4b

The suit is "Cicilline v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., Case No.
1:07-cv-02333," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Daniel Francis Lynch, Esq.
         Law Offices of Daniel Lynch
         150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 346-8700
         E-mail: dan@daniellynchlaw.com.


KENTUCKY: Judges' Retirement Provision Challenged in Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judges Roderick Messer, Steve D. Hurt and Doughlas M. George
filed a class action, on behalf of all judges in Kentucky,
targeting the judges' retirement program, The Lexington Herald-
Leader reports.

Named respondents in the suit:

     -- the Board of Trustees of the Kentucky Judicial Form
        Retirement System and

     -- Chief Justice Joseph Lambert.

The suit is asking Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas D. Wingate to
declare that the senior status judge program sunsets in 2009.  
The title of the law states it is effective until July 1, but
the text says it expires Jan. 31, 2009, but because of
conflicting language in the law, there is confusion over when
the work program for retired judges expires.

According to the report, if Judge Wingate rules that the program
ends this summer, it could lead to a spike in judicial
retirements. In exchange for working part-time for five years,
senior judges get a sizable boost to their retirement pensions,
the report said.

Louisville lawyer Sheryl Snyder said the board will take a
neutral stance, but she said it will ask for clarification so it
"knows what its obligations are."

"The practical question is whether the judges need to retire by
June 30, 2007, in order to be eligible for the program, or if
the program will allow them to retire between '07 and '09 and be
eligible for the program," she said. "That's the question we're
going to ask the court to resolve, and ask the court to resolve
it quickly."

Although the board is officially neutral, retirement system
director Donna Stockton-Early said it is operating under the
assumption the program will expire in 2009. After the program
expires, senior judges will keep their enhanced pensions as long
as they complete their service, she said.

"I don't think you can stop everyone's benefits," she said of
the senior judges.


NEWMONT MINING: Court Mulls Approving Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to
give preliminary approval to a tentative settlement of a
consolidated securities class action pending against Newmont
Mining Corp.

On June 8, 2005, UFCW Local 880 & Retail Food Employers Joint
Pension Fund filed a putative class action against the company
and Wayne W. Murdy, Pierre Lassonde and Bruce D. Hansen.  Zoe
Myerson filed similar purported class actions in the same court
on June 15, 2005; John S. Chapman filed his on June 20, 2005.  

Each of these complaints alleges, among other things, that the
company and the individual defendants violated certain antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by failing to disclose
alleged operating deficiencies.  The complaints seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.  

In November 2005, the court consolidated these cases and, in
March 2006, appointed a lead plaintiff.  

In April 2006, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint naming David Francisco, Russell Ball, Thomas Enos and
Robert Gallagher as additional defendants.  

It alleged, among other things, that Newmont and the individual
defendants violated certain antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose alleged operating
deficiencies and sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

On Oct. 20, 2006, lead plaintiff, on behalf of a settlement
class consisting of all purchasers of Newmont securities from
Nov. 1, 2003, through and including March 23, 2006 (except
defendants and certain related persons), entered into a
stipulation of settlement with defendants.

If approved by the court, the settlement:

      -- would release all claims asserted, or that could have
         been asserted in the action;

      -- would provide for a payment by Newmont of $15 million
         to be distributed to class members pursuant to a plan
         of allocation developed by lead plaintiff; and

      -- would provide that all defendants deny any wrongdoing
         or liability with respect to the settled matters.

The parties have moved for preliminary approval of the
settlement, but the court has not ruled on the motion, according
to the company's April 27, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "UFCW Local 880-Retail Food Employers Joint Pension
Fund v. Newmont Mining Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01046-
MSK-BNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado under Judge Marcia S. Krieger with referral to Judge
Boyd N. Boland.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Darby K. Kennedy, Esq.
         Dyer & Shuman, LLP
         801 East 17th Avenue
         Denver, CO 80218-1417
         Phone: 303-861-3003
         Fax: 303-830-6920
         E-mail: dkennedy@dyershuman.com.

Representing the defendants is
       
         Pamela Robillard Mackey, Esq.
         Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey & Foreman, PC
         150 East 10th Avenue
         Denver, CO 80203
         Phone: 303-831-7364
         Fax: 303-832-2628
         E-mail: pmackey@hmflaw.com.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Calif. Court Consolidates ERISA Litigations
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
consolidated on March 27, 2007 two separately filed the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act class actions against Northrop
Grumman Corp.

The suits are:

      -- "Grabek v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al.,
         previously styled Waldbuesser v. Northrop Grumman
         Corporation, et al.," and
      
      -- "Heidecker v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al."

The suits were consolidated under the caption, "In Re Northrop
Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation," for discovery and other
purposes, as each allege similar issues of law and fact.

Plaintiffs in "Grabek" allege breaches of fiduciary duty by the
company, certain of its administrative and Board committees, all
members of the company's Board of Directors, and certain company
officers and employees with respect to alleged excessive, hidden
and/or otherwise improper fee and expense charges to the
Northrop Grumman Savings Plan and the Northrop Grumman Financial
Security and Savings Plan (both of which are 401(k) plans).

"Heidecker" asserts similar claims, but has dismissed the
company's Board of Directors.  

Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, removal of individuals
acting as fiduciaries to such plans, payment of attorney fees
and costs, and an accounting.

Northrop Grumman Corp. -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/--  
along with its subsidiaries, provides products, services and
solutions in information and services, aerospace, electronics
and shipbuilding.


PATHMARK STORES: Faces Suit Over Great Atlantic Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pathmark Stores, Inc. faces a purported class action in New
Jersey over a definitive merger agreement in which The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. will acquire the company.

It was recently announced that The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Co., Inc., and Pathmark Stores, Inc., have reached a definitive
merger agreement in which A&P will acquire Pathmark Stores,
Inc., for $1.3 billion in cash, stock and debt assumption or
retirement, creating a 550-store, $11 billion supermarket chain
operating in the New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia metro
areas, as well as in Baltimore/Washington DC, Michigan and
Louisiana.

On March 6, 2007, Chris Larson, a stockholder in the company,
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Middlesex County, a purported class action complaint against the
company and its directors.

The complaint asserts on behalf of a purported class of the
company's stockholders' claims against the defendants for
alleged self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duties in
connection with the merger.

It seeks:

      -- an injunction of the merger unless and until the
         company adopts and implements certain procedures to
         obtain the highest possible price for its stockholders;

      -- imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of
         plaintiffs, upon any benefits received by defendants as
         a result of their alleged wrongful conduct; and

      -- recovery of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.

Defendants have not filed answers, or otherwise responded, to
the complaint, according to the company's April 19, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

Pathmark Stores, Inc. -- http://www.pathmark.com/-- is a  
supermarket chain in New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia
metropolitan areas, operating as a single segment.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Snowmobiles with Faulty Shock Towers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc. of Meldina Minn., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 2,700 snowmobiles that were manufactured in
2006.

According to the company, the right and left suspension shock
towers can separate due to inadequate welding during the
manufacturing process.  Separation of the welded joints can
result in stiffer steering or the shock mount failing suddenly,
causing the rider to lose control of the snowmobile and crash.

Polaris has received eight reports about a failure to the upper
shock tower due to the inadequate weld.  There was even one
incident that resulted in the driver losing control of the
snowmobile and breaking his collarbone.

Only the 2006 models are involved in this recall.  The model and
serial numbers are located on the right side of the tunnel
underneath the seat.  The affected models are:

     (1) 2006 FS Classic S06PD7ES;

     (2) 2006 FST Classic S06PD7FS/S06PD7FE;

     (3) 2006 FS Touring S06PT7ES;

     (4) 2006 FST Touring S06PT7FS; and

     (5) 2006 FST Switchback S06PS7FS/S06PS7FE.

These snowmobiles were manufactured in the U.S. and were being
sold nationwide from February 2005 through March 2007 for
between $ 8,400 and $9,900.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using their snowmobile
and contact their Polaris dealer to schedule and appointment for
a free repair.  The dealer will install a kit that will replace
the original shock towers with new versions.  Polaris has
directly notified registered consumers with units affected in
this recall.

For more information, contact Polaris at (800) 765-2747 between
8 a.m. and 12 a.m. ET everyday, or log onto the company's Web
site at www.polarisindustries.com.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Enters $109M Settlement in N.J. Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the putative class action, "Hilda Perez v. Rent-A-
Center, Inc," and her attorneys, Seth R. Lesser, Esq. of the
Locks Law Firm, Mark R. Cuker, Esq. of Williams Cuker
Berezofsky, and William Riback, Esq. of the Law Office of
William Riback, reached an agreement to settle the case for $109
million.  

This class action settlement will fully reimburse those
customers who entered into contracts with Rent-A-Center in the
State of New Jersey during the period April 23, 1999 through
March 16, 2006 for the amounts that they paid Rent-A-Center in
excess of that permitted under the New Jersey law as resolved by
the New Jersey Supreme Court in this case.  Approximately
100,000 Rent-A-Center customers will each receive, on average,
almost $800.00.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court, Law Division, Camden
County, New Jersey on March 21, 2003.  It arose out of several
rent-to-own contracts Ms. Perez entered into with the company.
The requested class period is April 23, 1999 to the present.  

In her amended complaint, Ms. Perez alleges on behalf of herself
and a class of similarly situated individuals that the rent-to-
own contracts she entered into with the company violated New
Jersey's Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA) and, as a result,
New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act because such contracts imposed a
time price differential in excess of the 30% per annum interest
rate permitted under New Jersey's criminal usury statute.

Ms. Perez alleges that RISA incorporates the 30% interest rate
limit, limiting time price differentials to 30% per annum.  Ms.
Perez seeks reimbursement of the excess fees and/or interest
contracted for, charged and collected, together with treble
damages, and an injunction compelling the company to cease the
alleged violations.  She seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, together with attorneys' fees and costs and
disbursements.

For more information contact the Plaintiff's Settlement Class
Counsel:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Locks Law Firm
          Phone: 1 (212) 838-3333
          E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com

          Mark R. Cuker, Esq.
          Williams Cuker Berezofsky
          Phone: 1 (215) 557-0099
          E-mail: mcuker@wcblegal.com

          William Riback, Esq.
          Law Office of William Riback
          Phone: 1 (856) 342-9700
          E-mail: ribacklaw@aol.com

          - and -
          
          Gus Whitcomb
          Vice President of Public Affairs - Rent-A-Center
          Phone: 1 (800) 275-2696 extension 1025
          E-mail: gwhitcomb@racenter.com.


SIRVA, INC: Subsidiaries Settle OOIDA Suits Over Leases for $8M
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIRVA, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement with the Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. and certain
owner-operators regarding two class actions filed against
SIRVA's subsidiaries, Allied Van Lines, Inc. and North American
Van Lines, Inc., alleging violations of the federal Truth in
Leasing regulations.

Under the settlement agreement, Allied Van Lines and North
American Van Lines have agreed to pay $8 million to the owner-
operators in the represented class over a period of two years to
settle all claims in the lawsuits.  SIRVA expects to pay $2.7
million of the costs, with the balance funded by its agents.

The settlement class covers all Allied Van Lines owner-operators
who leased equipment and services to Allied Van Lines after May
5, 2000, and all North American Van Lines and Global Van Lines
drivers who leased equipment and services to North American Van
Lines after March 2001.  As part of the settlement, Allied Van
Lines and North American Van Lines will implement a new uniform
independent contractor operating agreement.

The settlement agreement also includes SIRVA and its subsidiary,
Global Van Lines, Inc.

The suit was originally filed in 2004 by OOIDA along with member
Rodney Rockwell against Allied Van and its agent TFC Inc. Judge
Milton Shadur of the Northern District of Illinois certified it
in June 2005 (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2005).

The suit, filed on behalf of more than 100 similarly situated
owner-operators for violations of the federal truth-in-leasing
regulations, asserts that Allied-TFC's leases violate the
federal regulations on at least three key points:

     (1) The leases say the company will not return drivers'
         escrow funds if the truckers do not give at least 30
         days' notice before terminating their leases;

     (2) The leases require owner-operators to pay for a variety
         of administrative and other services that the federal
         regulations say they are not obligated to pay for; and

     (3) The leases charge owner-operators for the company's
         public liability insurance premium.

OOIDA and the plaintiffs are seeking declaratory, injunctive and
monetary relief, demanding that Allied Van develop and use legal
leases and reimburse drivers for escrow funds and illegal charge
backs.

The recent settlement would dismiss all pending claims with no
admission of wrongdoing by SIRVA or any of the other defendants.
The defendants and their agents that opt into the settlement
would receive a full release of all claims asserted in the
litigation.

"We are very pleased to have brought this issue to closure and
strongly feel this settlement to be in the best interests of our
company and our network of branded agents," said Michael
McMahon, SIRVA's President, Moving Services North America.  "We
believe that the new independent contractor operating agreement
will be a benefit to our agent's owner-operators and to the
entire SIRVA network.  Additionally, it will enhance our ability
to recruit and retain quality drivers."

The suit is "Owner-Operator Ind. v. TFC Inc., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-03207," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Milton I. Shadur.

Representing defendants are:

          Daniel R. Barney, Esq.
          Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson
          1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 280
          Washington, DC 20036-5804
          Phone: (202) 551-9020
          E-mail: dbarney@scopelitis.com

          - and -

          Maxwell H. Brusky, Esq.
          Dombroff & Gilmore
          10 South LaSalle Street, #1120
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 781-0200
          Fax: (312)781-0800
          E-mail: mbrusky@dglitigators.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Cohen, Esq.
          Paul D. Cullen, Esq.
          The Cullen Law Firm, P.C.
          1101 30th Street, N.W., 300
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 944-8600
          
          - and -

          Albert Edwin Fowerbaugh, Jr., Esq.
          Lord Bissell & Brook
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 443-1871
          Fax: (312) 896-6571
          E-mail: afowerbaugh@lordbissell.com


ST. JOHN: Suit Over Attendance System to Go to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action and two personal grievances are to go to
arbitration against the St. John Parish School Board in
Louisiana, Keri Champion of L'Observateur reports.

St. John Association of Educators members who filed the suit
claim that their labor rights were violated when St. John Parish
Schools implemented the biometric scanning system, which
requires employees to have their thumbprints scanned, to better
track attendance, according to the report.

They further claim that the board violated their labor
agreements with the union by making the biometric scanning
system a mandatory procedure without prior consultation.

Herman Clayton and Sandra McCrae brought the two personal
grievances to the board after refusing to use the new system
based on religious beliefs.

Board president Gerald Keller said in the April 25 report that
he expects the arbitration to proceed within 30 to 45 days.

"We believe that because of the complex issues associated with
this case, our best option is to call in a neutral party and
take the case out of the political arena," he said.

Kevin Kleibert is the lawyer representing the administration.


TENNESSEE: Judge Sides with Plaintiffs in County Retirement Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Maury County Circuit Court in Tennessee has ruled in favor
of plaintiffs in a class action involving a dispute over county
employee retirement benefits.

Maury County Mayor Jim Bailey explains that the recent decision
by Judge Jim T. Hamilton could cost taxpayers a "substantial"
amount of money, according to a report by Skyler Swisher of The
Columbia Daily Herald.

Filed by A.C. Howell, former Maury County budget director, and
Wendell Harris, a retired deputy, the suit alleges that retired
county employees who were covered under a previous plan are
entitled to three additional years of service to the county
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2006).

In 1999, the county switched from its plan with Life of Georgia
to the state's retirement fund, Tennessee Consolidated
Retirement.

The original plan, according to an affidavit by A.C. Howell,
required a three-year waiting period before an employee could
join the plan.

The affidavit though states that if an employee began
participating at the earliest possible date the employee
received credit for service back to the date he or she was
hired.  However, the new plan does not give employees credit for
those three years of service.

According to court documents, the class action applies to all
former employees of Maury County who were active participants in
the county's retirement plans as of Dec. 31, 1999, who retired
after that date, as well as all present and former Maury County
employees who lost credited years of service.

In siding with the plaintiffs, Judge Hamilton ruled that the
county had a contractual agreement with employees to provide
payments for all years of service regardless of whether
employees were contributing to the plan.

Shirley Harmon, former human resources director for Maury
County, who oversaw the retirement plan when the switch was
made, along with "her office simply made a fatal and critical
mistake when they only reported years of contribution,"
according to Judge Hamilton's ruling.

The judge further ruled, "Unfortunately, for Maury County, Mrs.
Harmon erroneously believed that the years of service for which
employees had not contributed did not count and could be taken
away 'because they did not pay anything in during this time.'"

Plaintiffs' attorneys haven't determined how much will be
awarded to employees, but some long-serving current and former
county employees could receive up to $150 additional monthly,
Mr. Howell said.

If the case is appealed, it will proceed to the Tennessee Court
of Appeals.


VEDA ADVANTAGE: GMP Files Breaches of Trade Practices Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard Malouf & Partners commenced, on behalf of 18 plaintiffs
said to be representative of thousands, a lawsuit against Veda
Advantage Information Services and Solutions for defamation and
negligence, The Age reports.

GMP alleges defamation, negligence and breaches of trade
practice law by Australia's top credit profiler, formerly known
as Baycorp.

According to a 2004 Australian Consumer Association report, 34
per cent of Veda's credit histories were found to be inaccurate,
leading to the potential for defamation.  Veda claims that since
the 2004 report, it has repaired any ineffective processes that
led to errors.

"In our view, there are serious, systemic flaws which are
leaving an increasing number of Australian consumers vulnerable
to defamation, mis-matching and harassment," the report said.

But Veda contends that it has reformed since 2004.  In 2005, the
Consumers Federation of Australia said Veda had taken
"significant steps to improve its response to consumer issues".

Veda general manager Erica Hughes said the company "is intending
to mount a vigorous defense," putting in "place dispute
resolution and investigation processes after consultation with
consumer groups and with the major data providers."

"These services exist to help consumers to have incomplete or
incorrect data rectified -- and those services are free," Ms.
Hughes said.

GMP claims, given that Veda manages about 14.5 million credit
histories, the case has the potential to turn into the largest
class action in Australian history.

Veda Advantage Information Services and Solutions provide credit
reports so that banks and other creditors can determine whether
to offer credit.

For more information, contact:

          Gerard Malouf & Partners
          P.O. Box 463
          Parramatta 2124 NSW
          Phone: 1300 887 848
          Fax: 02 9630 4135
          Website: http://www.gmplegal.com.au/contact.asp


XEROX CORP: Court Mulls Appeal on N.Y. Apartheid Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal
against the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York of the class action, "Digwamaje et
al. v. IBM et al."

The suit, filed against Xerox Corp. and several other
corporations, alleges that defendants provided material
assistance to the apartheid government in South Africa from 1948
to 1994, by engaging in commerce in South Africa and with the
South African government and by employing forced labor, thereby
violating both international and common law.

Filed on Sept. 27, 2002, the First Amended Complaint on the
company was deemed effective as of Dec. 6, 2002.  

On March 19, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
that eliminated a number of corporate defendants but was
otherwise identical in all material respects to the First
Amended Complaint.  

Plaintiffs claim violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act, the
Torture Victims Protection Act and Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.  They also assert human rights
violations and crimes against humanity.  

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion
and punitive damages in excess of $200 billion.  The foregoing
damages are being sought from all defendants, jointly and
severally.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  Oral argument of the motion was heard on Nov. 6,
2003.  By Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Nov. 29, 2004, the
court granted the motion to dismiss.  A clerk's judgment of
dismissal was filed on Nov. 30, 2004.  On Dec. 27, 2004, the
company received a notice of appeal dated Dec. 24, 2004.

On Feb. 16, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation withdrawing
the Dec. 24, 2004 appeal on the ground that the Nov. 30, 2004
judgment of dismissal was not appealable.  

On March 28, 2005, plaintiffs submitted a letter requesting
permission to file a motion for leave to file an amended and
consolidated complaint.  By Summary Order filed April 6, 2005,
the court denied the request.  

In a second Summary Order filed the same day, the court amended
its Nov. 29, 2004, Opinion and Order, which dismissed the
action, so as to render the Opinion and Order appealable and
plaintiffs filed a new appeal on May 3, 2005.  

On Aug. 19, 2005, plaintiffs-appellants filed their brief in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On Oct. 4, 2005,
defendants-appellates filed their brief in the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.  

Oral argument in the Second Circuit was held on Jan. 24, 2006,
according to the company's April 27, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kweku J. Hanson, Esq.
         487 Main Street
         Harford, CT 06106
         Phone: (860) 728-5454
         Fax: (860) 548-9660

         Medi Moira Mokuena
         268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House 1685, Extension 12
         Republic of South Africa

              - and -

         Paul M. Ngobeni, Esq.
         914 Main Street, Suite 206
         East Hartford, CT 06108
         Phone: (860) 289-3155 and (508) 620-4798.

Representing the defendants are:

         Kristin M. Heine, Esq.
         Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP
         500 Campus Drive, Florham Park
         NJ 07932-1047
         Phone: (973) 549-7338
         Fax: (973) 360-9831
         Web site: http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/

              - and -

         Kristin Michele Heine, Esq.
         Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP
         140 Broadway, 39th Flr.
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: (973) 549-7338
         Fax: (973) 360-9831
         E-mail: kristin.heine@dbr.com.


XEROX CORP: Discovery Continues in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery proceedings are still ongoing in the class action, "In
re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation," which was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
Xerox Corp. and other defendants.  

Initially consisting of seventeen cases, the consolidated action
named as defendants:

     -- the company,
     -- Barry Romeril,
     -- Paul Allaire, and
     -- G. Richard Thoman

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all other purchasers of common stock of the
company between Oct. 22, 1998 and Oct. 7, 1999.

The amended consolidated complaint in the action alleges that in
violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
each of the defendants is liable as a participant in a
fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a
fraud or deceit on purchasers of the company's common stock
during the class period by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material facts relating
to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the material
negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on the
company's operations and revenues.  

The amended complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme:

      -- deceived the investing public regarding the economic
         capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations
         and the intrinsic value of the company's common
         stock;

      -- allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
         individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held
         common stock of the company while in possession of
         materially adverse, non-public information; and

      -- caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members
         of the purported class to purchase common stock of the
         company at inflated prices.  

The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
members of the purported class against all defendants, jointly
and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon,
together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On Sept. 28, 2001, the court denied the defendants' motion for
dismissal of the complaint.  On Nov. 5, 2001, the defendants
answered the complaint.  On or about Jan. 7, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  

The company and the individual defendants filed their opposition
to that motion on June 28, 2005.  The motion has been fully
briefed, but has not been argued before the court.  The court
has not issued a ruling.  

On or about Nov. 8, 2004, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No. 164 filed a
motion to intervene as a named plaintiff and class
representative.

Separately, on June 8, 2005, IBEW and Robert W. Roten moved to
substitute as lead plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.  

On May 12, 2006, the court denied, without prejudice to
refiling, plaintiffs' motion for class certification, IBEW's
motion to intervene and serve as named plaintiff and class
representative, and IBEW and Mr. Roten's joint motion to
substitute as lead plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.

The court also ordered the parties to submit to it a notice to
certain putative class members to inform them of the
circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of several lead
plaintiffs, and to advise them of the opportunity to express
their desire to serve as a representative of the putative class.

On July 25, 2006, the court so-ordered a form of notice, and
plaintiffs thereafter distributed the notice.

Thereafter, several plaintiffs filed applications to be
considered lead plaintiff.  

On Nov 13, 2006 plaintiffs filed a motion for appointment as
additional lead plaintiffs.  Defendants filed their response on
Nov. 28, 2006.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the court granted the motion of certain
plaintiffs and appointed them as additional lead plaintiffs.

On Feb. 15, 2007, lead plaintiffs filed their renewed motion for
class certification.  That motion has not been fully briefed or
argued before the court.  

The parties are currently engaged in discovery, according to the
company's April 27, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re Xerox Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:99-cv-02374-AWT," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson.  

Representing the for the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

         Hurwitz & Sagarin
         147 North Broad St., P.O. Box 112
         Milford, CT 06460-0112,  
         Phone: 203.877.8000.

Representing the defendants are:

         Alfred U. Pavlis, Esq.
         Daly & Pavlis, LLC,
         107 John St.,
         Southport, CT 06890
         Phone: 203-255-6700
         Fax: 203-255-1953
         E-mail: apavlis@dalypavlis.com

              - and -

         Andrew N. Vollmer, Esq.
         Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering,
         2445 M St. NW
         Washington, DC 20037-1420
         Phone: 202-663-6000.


XEROX CORP: Discovery Ongoing in "Carlson" Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery proceedings are still ongoing in the consolidated
securities class action, "Carlson v. Xerox Corp., et al.," which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

Initially consisting of 21 cases, the consolidated securities
class action, also names as defendants KPMG LLP, Paul A.
Allaire, G. Richard Thoman, Anne M. Mulcahy, Barry D. Romeril,
Gregory Tayler, and Philip Fishbach.

On Sept. 11, 2002, the court entered an endorsement order
granting plaintiffs' motion to file a third consolidated amended
complaint.  The defendants' motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint was denied, as moot.  

According to the third consolidated amended complaint,
plaintiffs purport to bring this case as a class action on
behalf of an expanded class consisting of all persons and/or
entities who purchased the company's common stock and/or bonds
between Feb. 17, 1998 and June 28, 2002 and who were purportedly
damaged thereby.  

The third consolidated amended complaint sets forth two claims:

     -- each of the company, KPMG, and the individual defendants
        violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and U.S.
        Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
        thereunder; and

     -- the individual defendants are also allegedly liable as  
        "controlling persons" of the company pursuant to Section
        20(a) of the 1934 Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants participated in a
fraudulent scheme that operated as a fraud and deceit on
purchasers of the company's common stock and bonds by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts relating to various of the
company's accounting and reporting practices and financial
condition.  

Plaintiffs further allege that this scheme deceived the
investing public regarding the true state of the company's
financial condition and caused the plaintiffs and other members
of the alleged class to purchase the company's common stock and
bonds at artificially inflated prices, and prompted a SEC
investigation that led to the April 11, 2002 settlement which,
among other things, required the company to pay a $10 penalty
and restate its financials for the years 1997-2000, including
restatement of financials previously corrected in an earlier
restatement which plaintiffs contend was improper.  

The third consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
class members against all defendants, jointly and severally,
including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On Dec. 2, 2002, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On July 13, 2005, the court
denied the motion.  On Oct. 31, 2005, the defendants answered
the complaint.

On Jan. 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
ratification.  That motion has not been fully briefed or argued
before the court.  

Plaintiffs have filed notices of withdrawal of proposed class
representatives Sol Sachs, Leonard Nelson and Fernan Cepero.  
The court has approved plaintiffs' notice of withdrawal of
proposed class representative Fernan Cepero.

The parties are engaged in discovery, according to the company's
April 27, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

The suit is "Carlson, et al. v. Xerox Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:00-cv-01621-AWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Francis P. Karam, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
         10 East 40th St.
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414
         Fax: 212-779-3218,
         E-mail: karam@bernlieb.com

              - and -

         Eliot B. Gersten, Esq.
         Gersten & Clifford
         214 Main Street
         Hartford, CT 06106
         Phone: 860-527-7044
         Fax: 860-527-4968
         E-mail: egersten@gcrlaw.net.

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael Gruenglas, Esq.
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
         Four Times Square
         New York, NY 10036-3897
         Phone: 212-735-3000
      
              - and -

         Timothy W. Blakely, Esq.
         Cravath, Swaine & Moore
         825 8th Ave., Worldwide Plaza
         New York, NY 10019-7415
         Phone: 212-474-1000
         Fax: 212-474-3700.


* Oklahoma Royalty Owners Voice Concern Over S.B. 507 Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royalty owners in Oklahoma are voicing concerns over amendments
to a state legislation that could affect their ability to recoup
oil well royalties withheld by unscrupulous producers, The
Associated Press reports.

Senate Bill 507 concerns class actions and is part of a civil
justice measure that also caps pain and suffering damages,
provides liability protection to educators and makes other
changes in Oklahoma's civil justice system.

Royalty owners are concerned about an aspect that would require
litigants to opt in to a class action to become eligible to
recoup unpaid royalties.

Under existing law, class members are automatically included in
a class action and must formally notify the court if they want
to opt out.  Supporters of the rule change say that means
citizens can become involved in a class action without their
knowledge or consent.

However, attorney Robert Barnes, who represents royalty owners
in class actions, contends that the measure is an attempt by
large oil companies to head off lawsuits in which they could owe
millions of dollars in unpaid royalties.

Recently, the Oklahoma State Senate passed on to Gov. Brad Henry
the amendments made by the state House of Representatives to
S.B. 507, touted as a comprehensive lawsuit restriction bill
(Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

May 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 1-31, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 1-31, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMGEN INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of all common stock purchasers of Amgen,
Inc. from May 4, 2005 through March 9, 2007 inclusive.

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

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

     (1) that Amgen was improperly marketing Aranesp and Epogen
         for off-label uses; and

     (2) that the defendants were aware of the negative results
         of studies which showed more cancer reoccurrences and
         an increased number of patient deaths in studies that
         tested Aranesp.

Amgen actively marketed Aranesp and Epogen to physicians for
off-label and unapproved uses, and sold several hundred million
dollars worth of these drugs each year. In October 2006,
researchers halted a clinical study of cancer patients who were
treating with Aranesp when they discovered that more deaths
occurred in patients taking Aranesp than in those taking a
placebo.  Neither defendants nor the company disclosed this
information to investors until months later.

Finally, on Feb. 16, 2007, The Cancer Letter, an independent
publisher of news in the oncology field, published an article
detailing the results of the study.  Then on March 9, 2007, the
FDA mandated a "black box" warning regarding the off-label uses
of Aranesp and Epogen.

As information concerning Amgen, and specifically the company's
marketing of, and the dangers associated with, Aranesp and
Epogen was disclosed to investors, shares of the company's stock
declined from as high as $84.86 per share to a close on March
12, 2007 at $60.68 per share, on unusually heavy trading volumes
in response to the disclosure of this information.  This decline
represents a cumulative loss of $24.18 per share, a loss of 28.5
percent of their value.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

Amgen is a biotechnology company that makes and sells Aranesp
and Epogen, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, which encourage
the creation of oxygen carrying red blood cells.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.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  * * *