CAR_Public/070507.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 7, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 89

                            Headlines


BAHRAIN: Top Lawyers' Lawsuit Against Gov't Officials Adjourned
BATTAT INC: Recalls Toy Cell Phones with Pin that Could Detach
BODISEN BIOTECH: Faces N.Y. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
BOEING CO: Still Faces Employment Bias Lawsuits in Wash., Ill.
BONUS TECH: Faces Fair Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.

CANADA: Suit Planned to Compel Energy Bill Tax Rebate Payments
COAST SPAS: Recalls Spas that Can Overheat, Posing Fire Hazard
EXELON GENERATION: Sued in Illinois Over Procurement Auction
GALLIKER DAIRY: Possible Under-processing Prompts Milk Recall
GENERAL MOTORS: Timetable in Canadian Suit Over Manifold Gaskets

GOOGLE INC: YouTube Sued in N.Y. for Copyright Infringement
GRACO: Recalls Tower Toys with Plastic Covering that can Detach
HALLIBURTON INC: Faces N.Y. ERISA Suit by Dresser-Rand Workers
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Israeli Charity Mulls Suit Against Germany
INCO LTD: "Pearson" Suit Settlement Hearing Scheduled May 29

J C PENNEY: Appeals Class Certification in Tex. Insurance Case
LIFECELL CORP: Still Faces N.J. Lawsuits Over Transplants
LIFECELL CORP: "Kennedy-McInnis," "Graves" Transferred to MDL
MCKESSON HBOC: Court Okays $72.5M Settlement by Arthur Andersen
MEDICAL INFORMATION: No Class Status in Profit Sharing Plan Suit

MENU FOODS: Rob Pierce Files Penna. Suit Over Tainted Pet Food
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: June Hearing Set for Wash. Consumer Lawsuit
PRAXAIR INC: Faces 8 Suits by Welders Seeking Medical Monitoring
PRESSTEK INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in N.H.
PRICELINE.COM INC: Court Dismisses Certain Claims in "Marshall"

PRIVATE CARE: Faces Fla. Suit Over Fair Labor Code Violations
QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Cellular Phone Sales
QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Ala. Lawsuit Over Alleged RESPA Violations
RED HAT: Discovery in N.C. Securities Lawsuit to End September
SAMSON RESOURCES: Parties Reach Settlement in "Scott" Litigation

SHELHIGH INC: FDA Wants All Shelhigh Medical Devices Recalled
SMALL WORLD: Recalls Townhouse Toys with Pieces that can Detach
STARWOOD HOTELS: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Obligatory Tipping
VISTAPRINT LTD: Cal. Appeals Court Affirms Settlement Approval
WESTERN POWER: Denmark Town Locals to Sue Over Blackouts

ZIMBABWE: Newspaper Workers Sue Employer Over Unpaid Wages


* Bridegeport Class Action Management Conference Set May 18


                            *********


BAHRAIN: Top Lawyers' Lawsuit Against Gov't Officials Adjourned
---------------------------------------------------------------
The High Civil Administrative Court has adjourned a class action
filed against two government officials until June 25 to give
officials' lawyers time to reply, Gulf Daily News reports.

The Bahrain Bar Assoc. (BBA), represented by Jameela Ali Salman,
and 70 lawyers, represented by Ali Jabal, have filed two
lawsuits.  One is against Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister
Shaikh Khalid bin Ali Al Khalifa and Supreme Council for Women
secretary-general Lulwa Al Awadhi.  The other is against Shaikh
Khalid and U.N. General Assembly president Shaikha Haya bint
Rashid Al Khalifa.

A government legal affairs lawyer represents Shaikh Khalid,
while two other lawyers are representing Shaikha Haya and Ms Al
Awadhi.

The plaintiffs allege that both Ms Al Awadhi and Shaikha Haya,
also working privately as lawyers, have continued to practice
law in violation of legislation that prevents them from doing so
while in government positions.  The plaintiffs demand that both
lawyers' names be removed from the ministry list of active
lawyers.

Mr. Al Jabal said Ms Al Awadhi's position at the Supreme Council
for Women was in the rank of minister, making it illegal for her
to work as a lawyer.  Ms Salman alleges that the three have
violated Advocacy Law N0 26,1980.  

"The lawsuits are not of a personal nature against the
defendants, because the BBA has great respect for them, but are
from the professional perspective," she said.


BATTAT INC: Recalls Toy Cell Phones with Pin that Could Detach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Battat Inc., of Plattsburgh, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling
nearly 300,000 units of Parents Magazine Record-A-Voice Toy Cell
Phones.

Battat said the metal pin inside the hinge of the cell phone
flip-top could fall out, posing a choking hazard to young
children.

The firm has received 54 reports of the metal pin falling out of
the hinge.  In two cases, consumers reported finding the pin
inside a child's mouth, with one child receiving a cut in the
mouth.

The toy cell phone plays different songs, sound effects and user
recorded messages.  They were sold in polka dot, swirl, floral
and stripe patterns, and the Parents logo is visible inside the
flip-top and on the battery compartment cover.  Only items
bearing date codes 090106 through 101206 are involved in this
recall.  The date code can be located on the bottom of the
product packaging and in the battery compartment.

These toys were manufactured in China and were sold at Target
stores nationwide from September 2006 to January 2007 for about
$8.

Consumers are advised to take these toy cell phones away from
young children instantly and contact Battat to receive a
replacement product or refund.

Photo of the toy cell phones included in the recall can be
viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07178.html

For additional information, call Battat, Inc. at (800) 247-6144
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or e-mail
the firm at cellrecall@battatco.com


BODISEN BIOTECH: Faces N.Y. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bodisen Biotech, Inc. was named as a defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, according to the
company's April 30, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

In late 2006, various shareholders of the company filed eight
purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and certain of
its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.

The complaints contain general and non-specific allegations
about prior financial disclosures and the company's internal
controls and a prior, now-terminated relationship with New York
Global Group.

The eight actions are:

      -- "Stephanie Tabor vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13220 (filed November 2006),"
      
      -- "Fraser Laschinger vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13254 (filed November 2006),"

      -- "Anthony DeSantis vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13454 (filed November 2006),"

      -- "Yuchen Zhou vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-
         13567 (filed November 2006),"

      -- "William E. Cowley vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13739 (filed December 2006),"

      -- "Ronald Stubblefield vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-14449 (filed December 2006),"

      -- "Adam Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-
         15179 (filed December 2006)," and

      -- "Lawrence M. Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No.
         06-15399 (filed December 2006)."

The court has consolidated each of the actions into a single
proceeding and as of the date of this annual report, only
plaintiffs in two of the actions have served summons and
complaint on the company.  

The time for the company to respond formally to these lawsuits
has not come.  Thus, it has not responded to any of the
complaints in these class actions.  The complaints do not
specify an amount of damages that plaintiff seek.

The fist identified complaint is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Victor Marrero.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, PA
         Phone: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com

Representing the defendants is:
       
         Judd Burstein, Esq.
         Burstein & McPherson, L.L.P.
         1790 Broadway
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 974-2400
         Fax: 212-974-2944
         E-mail: jburstein@burlaw.com


BOEING CO: Still Faces Employment Bias Lawsuits in Wash., Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. remains a defendant in two employment
discrimination class actions.  

In the Williams class action, which was filed on June 8, 1998 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
(alleging race discrimination), the company prevailed in a jury
trial in December 2005, but plaintiffs appealed the pre-trial
dismissal of compensation claims in November 2005.

In the Calender class action, which was filed Jan. 25, 2005 in
the U.S. Northern District of Illinois (a spin-off from Williams
alleging race discrimination), plaintiffs dropped their
promotions claim on June 6, 2006, and put their compensation
claims on hold pending the outcome of the Williams appeal.

The company reported no development in the case at its April 24
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2007.

Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/  
-- is an aerospace company that operates in six principal  
segments: Commercial Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems,  
Network Systems, Support Systems, Launch and Orbital Systems,  
and Boeing Capital Corp.


BONUS TECH: Faces Fair Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus DeJesus, a former employee of both Bonus Tech, Inc. and VJ
Investments, Inc., filed a class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against both
companies for overtime compensation and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. DeJesus claims he had performed non-exempt work in
defendants' aviation consultant business in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The suit is brought on behalf of all similarly situated non-
exempt employees who have worked in excess of 40 hours during
one or more work weeks on or after May 2004 and did not receive
time and half of their regular rate of pay for all of their
hours worked over 40 in one or more work weeks.

Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him who have or will
opt in this action, demands judgment, jointly and severally
against defendants, for the payment of all overtime hours at one
and on-half their regular rate of pay due them for the hours
worked by them for which they have not been properly
compensated, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees
and costs of suit, and for all proper relief including
prejudgment interest.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e78

The suit is "DeJesus v. Bonus Tech, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-
cv-60622-WPD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com


CANADA: Suit Planned to Compel Energy Bill Tax Rebate Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New Brunswick lawyer says he plans to file a class action this
summer in an attempt to force the province to make good on a
promised tax rebate on energy bills, Oilweek Magazine reports.

Lawyer Yassin Choukri, former deputy justice minister of the
Lord government, is filing the class action, on behalf of some
New Brunswickers who want their money back.

The Progressive Government of Bernard Lord first introduced the
program to rebate the eight percent provincial portion of the
Harmonized Sales Tax on home-heating bills, which the new
Liberal Government rejected, saying the province can't afford
it.

Mr. Choukri says that the rebate order remains in effect and
people should keep their bills for a possible refund in the
future until the current government cancels the program or a
court rules it cannot go ahead.

He already sent a notice to the Liberal government about the
lawsuit and said he's just waiting until the end of June when
new legislation comes into effect that will make it easier to
proceed with class actions in New Brunswick.


COAST SPAS: Recalls Spas that Can Overheat, Posing Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Spas Manufacturing Inc., of Langley, British Columbia,
Canada, in cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of 8,000 units of
Coast Spas with Franklin Electric Motors.  

The company said that the recalled spas have a circulating pump
and motor assembly, which can overheat and pose a fire hazard.

Coast Spas has received 30 reports of spa fires.  No injuries
have been reported.

Only the spas manufactured from January 2002 through October
2004 with either red or yellow pump and motor assemblies are
included in this recall.  The spa manufacturer's name and date
code and the pump and motor assembly can be located in the spa
compartment.  Consumers can access this compartment by lifting
out the compartment door and setting it aside.

The spas involved in the recall were manufactured in Canada, and
the Engineered Motor Products Division of Franklin Electric Co.
Inc., of Bluffton, Ind., manufactured the motors and pump
assemblies.  Spa dealers nationwide sold this product from
January 2002 through October 2004 for between $7,000 and
$15,000.

Consumers are advised to stop using the product instantly and
should contact Coast Spas immediately to arrange for the
installation of a free retrofit by a service technician.

Product photo can be viewed at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07177.html

For more information, consumers should check the firm's Web site
at http://www.spamotorretrofit.com,or call Coast Spas toll-free  
at (877) 534-5255 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday.


EXELON GENERATION: Sued in Illinois Over Procurement Auction
------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Generation Co. LLC and Commonwealth Edison Co. as well as
other suppliers in the Illinois procurement auction are facing a
class action filed in Illinois state court.

The suit claims that the suppliers manipulated the auction and
that the resulting wholesale prices are unlawfully high.

Exelon Corp. is a utility services holding company engaged,
through its subsidiaries, in the generation, and energy delivery
businesses, among others.  Exelon Generation handles retail
sales operations.  Commonwealth Edison distributes and transmits
services in northern Illinois.


GALLIKER DAIRY: Possible Under-processing Prompts Milk Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------
Galliker Dairy Co. of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, with the
knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, is recalling half-gallon
packages of Galliker's Acidophilus Plus Reduced Milk because
they possibly contain under-processed milk.  Under-processed
milk may be unsafe.  

It has not been shown to be feasible to perform routine
bacteriological tests on the raw milk itself to determine the
presence or absence of all pathogens and thereby ensure that it
is free of infectious organisms.  

Only products with the code date of May 13, 2007 are involved.  
The product comes in a 64-ounce (One Half-Gallon), plastic
package marked with the code date on the front of the package.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after a chemical test indicated that
possible under-processing occurred.  All of Galliker's
processing documents indicate that the proper procedures were
followed.  Only this one product is involved.

Production of this product will continue while this incident is
investigated.  Products having any other code date are not
affected.

Retailers are asked to pull-from-sale all unsold Galliker's
Acidophilus Plus Reduced Fat Milk with the code date of May 13,
2007 and return them for full refund.  

Consumers with any questions may contact the company at 800-477-
6455.


GENERAL MOTORS: Timetable in Canadian Suit Over Manifold Gaskets
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a timetable set by the court in a suit over intake
manifold gaskets installed in General Motors vehicles, the
defendants have until May 31, 2007 to file a responding record.

A Web site set up by lawyers from Stevenson LLP and Koskie
Minsky LLP, discloses the timetable set by the court in this
matter, as:

Plaintiff to deliver
certification motion record                February 28, 2007

Defendants to file responding record        May 31, 2007

Reply record, if any                        July 31, 2007

Case conference
with Justice Cullity                        after July 31, 2007

Cross-examinations to be completed          September 30, 2007
with undertakings and motions
arising from cross-examinations             October 31, 2007

Certification motion                        December 3-5, 2007

More than 50 owners of General Motors vehicles in Nova Scotia
have joined a possible national class action filed against
General Motors of Canada Ltd. and its U.S. parent General Motors
Corp., in Ontario, according to The Chronicle Herald.

The suit alleges that certain Buicks, Chevrolets, Oldsmobiles
and Pontiacs made between 1995 and 2003 have a defective intake
manifold gasket that degrades prematurely, causing coolant to
leak into the engine, and damaging it, the report said.  The
gasket regulates the flow of air and fuel into the cylinders.  
The allegation is that the gasket degrades prematurely causing
coolant to leak into the engine.

A statement of claim was filed with the Nova Scotia Supreme
Court last spring.  The statement of claim filed with courts in
several provinces alleges the defect was corrected when General
Motors introduced a new gasket in 2004 but that General Motors
was negligent because it failed to inform customers and did not
issue a recall on affected vehicles.   The claim dates back to
1995.

The claim, therefore, is based on negligence, including the
failure to warn the class of the problems and to rectify the
problems.  The damages are difficult to assess but a claim has
been made for restitution of the defendants' savings, which are
estimated to be about $1,200,000,000 in Canada alone, according
to the Web site.

Colin Stevenson of Toronto law firm Stevenson LLP and Harvin
Pitc as well as Koskie Minsky LLP are representing the
plaintiffs in Canada.  They have set up the Web site
http://www.gmcanadianclassaction.cafor customers to submit a  
claim.


GOOGLE INC: YouTube Sued in N.Y. for Copyright Infringement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Football Association Premier League Limited, the premier
league of English soccer, and independent music publisher Bourne
Co. filed a class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to stop the alleged
unauthorized and uncompensated use of their creative and other
copyrighted works and those of all other similarly situated
copyright holders on the YouTube.com website.

The lawsuit names as defendants:

     -- YouTube, Inc.;
  
     -- YouTube LLC; as well as

     -- YouTube's corporate parent, Google, Inc.

According to the complaint, "Defendants are pursuing a
deliberate strategy of engaging in, permitting, encouraging, and
facilitating massive copyright infringement on the YouTube
website" in order to build traffic to the site.

The complaint alleges that the YouTube defendants have long been
aware of this pattern of massive infringement yet purposefully
refrain from employing readily available measures to curb it
because the defendants understand that the popularity of
YouTube.com (and its value as a platform for other uses) derive
primarily from the ability of website visitors to access, view,
and otherwise exploit copyrighted materials without having to
pay the owners of those materials.

The complaint further alleges that it was this very business
model that persuaded defendant Google to pay $1.65 billion to
purchase YouTube in November 2006, and that Google has endorsed
and directed YouTube's infringing conduct since becoming its
corporate parent.

According to the complaint, "The $1.65 billion paid by Google to
purchase YouTube in 2006, and the concomitant $4 billion
increase in Google's market capitalization, vastly understates
both the value of the intellectual property rights of the Class
that YouTube has misappropriated and the harm to the Class
caused by Defendants' unlawful conduct".

The Premier League and Bourne plan to prosecute this case as a
class action on behalf of themselves and thousands of others
whose copyrighted works have appeared on YouTube.com without
permission.

Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises,
include:

     (a) whether defendants' conduct as alleged in the complaint
         constitutes direct infringement of the Protected Works
         held by lead plaintiffs and the class;

     (b) whether defendants' conduct as alleged in the complaint
         constitutes contributory infringement of the Protected
         Works held by lead plaintiffs and the class;

     (c) whether defendants' conduct as alleged in the complaint
         constitutes vicarious infringement of the Protected
         Works held by lead plaintiffs and the class;

     (d) whether defendants' conduct as alleged in the complaint
         constitutes "inducing" infringement by others of the
         Protected Works held by lead plaintiffs and the class;

     (e) whether defendants acted willfully with respect to the
         acts complained of;

     (f) whether defendants have deliberately avoided taking
         reasonable precautions to deter infringement on
         YouTube;

     (g) whether defendant have the right and ability to control
         the infringing activities taking place on YouTube;

     (h) whether defendants derive direct financial and related
         benefits from the infringing activities taking place on
         YouTube;

     (i) whether YouTube's procedures for copyright holders to
         request removal of their copyrighted works through
         "takedown notices" are futile because, among other
         things, YouTube does not take effective steps to
         prevent users who post infringing material from
         continuing to post material to the YouTube website and
         the methods provided by YouTube to search for
         infringing material are inadequate;

     (j) whether defendants place an undue burden on copyright
         holders constantly to monitor YouTube in order to
         identify and locate their copyrighted works posted on
         YouTube's website;

     (k) whether there exists technology to identify and remove
         copyrighted material;

     (l) if, as the class alleges, such technology exists,
         whether defendants selectively employ that technology
         solely for the benefit of copyright holders who agree
         to enter into a licensing agreement that is
         satisfactory to YouTube;

     (m) whether defendants have installed or can install any
         filtering technology to identify and remove copyrighted
         material owned by copyright holders who have not agreed
         to enter into licensing agreements that is satisfactory
         to YouTube;

     (n) whether defendants' conduct as alleged constitutes
         "storage at the direction of a user" of copyrighted
         material as that phrase is used in 17 U.S.C. Section
         512(c)(1);

     (o) whether YouTube does more than simply store user
         directed content without modification and/or provides a
         number of features and facilities to propagate that
         content in modified form;

     (p) whether copyrighted materials displayed by YouTube
         "reside" on a system or network controlled by
         defendants as that term is used in U.S.C. Section
         512(c)(1);

     (q) whether defendants have or had actual knowledge that
         the material or an activity using the material on their
         systems or networks is infringing;

     (r) whether defendants have or had actual knowledge that
         the material or an activity using the material on their
         systems or networks is infringing;

     (s) whether, upon notification of claimed infringement as
         set forth in 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(3), defendants
         respond expeditiously to remove or disable access to
         the material that is claimed to be infringing;

     (t) whether the defenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. Section 512
         or elsewhere in the Copyright Act are available to
         defendants;

     (u) whether defendants provide means and facilities to
         enable the infringing activities at issue;

     (v) whether defendants promote, encourage, invite and/or
         induce the infringing activities at issue;

     (w) whether, when a user uploads a video to Youtube,
         Youtube converts the video into YouTube's own software
         format and makes it available for viewing on YouTube's
         website;

     (x) whether defendants offer users a facility to "embed"
         into another website videos available on Youtube, which
         allows videos hosted on YouTube to play on separate
         websites;

     (y) whether defendants enable users to upload videos onto
         YouTube and restrict access and viewership of, or
         render "private," those videos to individuals that the
         user designates as "friends";

     (z) whether defendants permit users to share video files
         with other individuals;

    (aa) whether defendants have entered into partnerships with
         certain copyright holders whereby YouTube has agreed to
         pay these copyright holders royalties for the uses of
         their copyrighted material on YouTube;

    (bb) whether injunctive relief is appropriate; and

    (cc) whether lead plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
         damages for defendants' wrongful conduct as alleged in
         the complaint, including:

         -- statutory damages;
  
         -- monetary damages;

         -- disgorgement of profits;

         -- prejudgment interest; and

         -- attorneys' fess and court costs.

The lawsuit seeks a court-ordered injunction to prohibit the
defendants from continuing to violate various copyright
protection laws.  It also asks for unspecified damages for
YouTube's past copyright violations.

The YouTube Class Action on the net:
http://www.youtubeclassaction.com/

The Premier League is the top division of English soccer that is
broadcast in 204 countries worldwide and viewed by audiences
estimated at 2.59 billion people.

Bourne is one of the leading independent publishers of music in
the United States.  Among its notable classics are "Let's Fall
in Love" and "Smile".

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e8d

The suit is "The Football Association Premier League Limited, et
al. v. YouTube, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Louis M. Solomon, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Phone: (212) 969-3000

          - and -

          Max W. Berger, Esq.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 554-1400


GRACO: Recalls Tower Toys with Plastic Covering that can Detach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graco Children's Products Inc. of Exton, Pa., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 40,000 units of Soft Blocks Tower Toys that are
in Graco Baby Einstein Discover and Play activity centers.

The plastic covering on the soft block towers can detach, posing
a choking hazard to infants.

The soft block tower is a stack of three different shaped
stuffed fabric blocks in red, yellow and blue.  Pictures of
apples, fire engines, ducks, bananas, birds and blueberries on
the blocks are covered in plastic film.  The soft blocks are one
of nine toys that snap onto the tray of the activity center.  

Only model number 4635BEE with serial numbers 012705 through
063005, which indicates the manufacturing dates of Jan. 27, 2005
through June 30, 2005, are included in this recall.  Model and
serial numbers are located underneath the activity center's
tray.

Graco has received 137 reports of infants mouthing and chewing
pieces of the plastic film covering, some of whom required
medical attention.  Serious incident reports include 32 infants
who gagged and 49 who choked on the plastic covering.

The toys were manufactured in China and were being sold at Army
& Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Babies "R" Us, Toys "R"
Us, Meijer, Shopko, Target, and various specialty retailers
nationwide, and on http://www.Wal-Mart.comand  
http://www.Target.comfrom February 2005 through about December  
2005 for $80.

Photo of the product can be viewed at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07176.html

Consumers should immediately remove the Soft Blocks toy from the
activity center and contact Graco for a free replacement Tower
toy without the plastic film.  Consumers can continue to use the
activity center after the soft block tower has been removed.

For additional information, contact Graco at (800) 345-4109
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or log on to
http://www.gracobaby.com


HALLIBURTON INC: Faces N.Y. ERISA Suit by Dresser-Rand Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton, Inc. is facing a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York accusing it of
cheating employees of benefits in its sale of co-defendant
Dresser Industries.

Plaintiffs claim that on or about Jan. 1, 1987, Dresser-Rand Co.
was formed as a New York general partnership by Dresser
Industries and Ingersoll-Rand Co.

Lead plaintiffs Kathy Joy Kirkendall, Wesley Snyder, Barbara
Caya and Bonnie Seth bring this action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons who were employed by Dresser-Rand on
March 1, 2000 and were participants in the Dresser Plan, and the
estates and designated beneficiaries of such persons.

The lawsuit contends that the Dresser Plan, sponsored by
Dresser, provided for pension benefits for employees of
Dresser-Rand.  Such benefits were accrued during employment with
Dresser prior to Jan. 1, 1987 and with Dresser-Rand thereafter.

It states that on or about Sept. 29, 1998 Halliburton became the
successor by merger to Dresser and thereby became sponsor of the
Dresser Plan.

On information and belief, the Dresser Plan was merged into the
Halliburton Plan on or about Dec. 31, 2000, with the result that
the Halliburton Plan became the successor to the Dresser Plan.

As of February 2000, Plaintiffs and the Class (and/or the
persons through whom the estate and beneficiary Class members
claim) were employees of Dresser-Rand and participants in the
Plan.

The Plan provides for retirement benefits applicable to
Plaintiffs and the Class that are based on age, service and rate
of pay at the time of termination of employment with
Dresser-Rand.

Effective Feb. 28, 2000, Halliburton sold its interest in
Dresser-Rand to Ingersoll, leaving Ingersoll as the sole partner
of Dresser-Rand.

Following the sale, the parties did not wind up the affairs of
Dresser-Rand. Rather, Dresser-Rand continued to operate the same
business, under the same name, at the same locations, with the
same employees performing the same jobs.

Plaintiffs and the Class purport that they continue to be
employed by Dresser-Rand on and after March 1, 2000, performing
the same jobs at the same locations as before the sale.

Commencing in or about July, 2002, Halliburton allegedly has
taken the position that sale of its interest in Dresser-Rand to
Ingersoll had the effect of terminating the existence of
Dresser-Rand, and thereby terminating the employment of all
Dresser-Rand employees, including Plaintiffs and the Class
(and/or those through whom the estate and beneficiary members
claim), as of March 1, 2000.

On information and belief, since about July 2002, Halliburton
has allegedly caused the administrators of the Plan to calculate
benefits for members of the Class using March 1, 2000 as the
date of termination.

In fact, the suit states, under New York law, the withdrawal of
a partner leaving a sole partner does not terminate the
partnership, unless an intent to terminate is effectuated by
winding up the partnership's affairs.

Because Dresser-Rand's affairs have not been wound up, it
continued in existence, and its employees continued in its
employ, after March 1, 2000 and to this day, according to the
complaint.

Using the date of March 1, 2000 in place of the later actual
date(s) of termination has the effect of decreasing the benefits
payable to members of the Class, the suit states.

Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs and the Class:

     (i) declaring that the sale of Halliburton's interest in
         Dresser-Rand did not have the effect of terminating the
         existence of Dresser-Rand or the employment of its
         employees;

         Dresser-Rand did not cease to exist as of March 1, 2000
         or at any other time, and that the employment of
         Plaintiffs and members of the Class (and the persons
         through whom estate and beneficiary Class members
         claim) continued until their individual termination, or
         continues to the present, for purposes of benefit
         determinations under the Plan;

    (ii) requiring Defendants to redetermine benefits due to
         Plaintiffs and the Class based upon the correct dates
         of termination, and to pay benefits in accordance with
         such redetermination, together with interest;

   (iii) awarding Plaintiffs and the Class compensatory damages
         in an appropriate amount;

    (iv) granting Plaintiffs costs and attorneys' fees; and

     (v) granting such further relief as may be just.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e84

The suit is "Kirkendall et al. v. Halliburton, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00289-WMS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York under Judge William M. Skretny.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jules L. Smith, Esq.
          Blitman & King
          The Powers Building
          16 West Main Street, Suite 207
          Rochester, NY 14614
          Phone: 585 232-5600
          Fax: 585-232-7738
          E-mail: jlsmith@bklawyers.com



HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Israeli Charity Mulls Suit Against Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fisher Fund, an Israeli charity that helps Holocaust
survivors, plans to launch a class action against Germany on
behalf of thousands of children of Holocaust survivors who need
psychological treatment, David Gordon Smith of Spiegel Online
reports.

Currently, the Fund is in unofficial talks with German
government officials about finding money to fund much-needed
psychological care for tens of thousands of survivors' children
in Israel.

Traumatized by having been raised in dysfunctional homes and now
suffering from depression, anxiety and other psychological
maladies, the Fund says they urgently need help, however there
is no money available to pay for it.  

Commenting on the issue, Baruch Mazor, general director of the
Fisher Fund, told Spiegel Online, "We think there should be a
solution to this problem and we think that part of the solution
-- maybe the main part -- should come from Germany.  The
country, he says, is responsible for the suffering of the second
generation, pointing out, "The connection is clear-cut."

According to Mr. Mazor, the Fund took on the issue after being
approached by a large number of survivors concerned about the
next generation.   

He emphasizes though that, as only a small minority of
survivors' children develop psychological problems, the sums
involved would not be large.

The maximum amount required would be some $10 to 20 million per
year and would only be used for treatment and for an
accompanying cultural project where interviews with children of
survivors would be filmed.

Mr. Mazor told Spiegel Online that they took on the issue after
being approached by a large number of survivors concerned about
the next generation.

Spiegel Online reports that if the talks fail, the Fund plans to
launch a class action against Germany -- with thousands of
potential plaintiffs.

However, Mr. Mazor revealed that the Fund has yet to choose a
legal partner for the suit, nor the country where it will be
filed.  He also did not want to say when the suit might be
brought, but made it clear that "it won't be years."


INCO LTD: "Pearson" Suit Settlement Hearing Scheduled May 29
------------------------------------------------------------
A May 29, 2007 approval hearing in Toronto is scheduled for a
settlement of a CAN750 million class action against INCO, Ltd.,
Mark Tayti of The Welland Tribune reports.  The hearing is
scheduled for 10 a.m. at 361 University Ave.

Under the settlement agreement, Ontario has agreed to waive all
of its costs in the Superior and Divisional Courts, an amount
totaling more than $90,0000.   Ontario has also agreed to pay
the plaintiff $50,400 -- an amount that will be used by the
plaintiff to retain expert witnesses in the pending case.

In late March 2001, the company's refinery in Port Colborne,
Ontario, Canada was slapped with a purported class action in an
Ontario court.  

The purported class action originally filed against the company
and several other parties under Ontario class action proceedings
legislation claimed about $514,019,674.41 (CAD600 million) in
compensatory damages and $128,511,127.58 (CAD150 million) in
punitive damages covering certain residents who lived in the
Port Colborne area since 1995 and allegedly suffered a decline
in their property values as a result of, and health and other
injuries from exposure to, metals and related emissions from the
refinery.

In June 2002, hearings were held in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice to consider whether this action, or any portion of
it, should be certified to proceed as a class action.  In July
2002 the court rejected certifying any part of the action as a
class action.  The nominal plaintiff appealed this decision and
the appeal, which revised the original pleadings and focused
only on the plaintiff's claim for damages for property value
diminution, resulting in a significant reduction in the number
of citizens that the plaintiff is purporting to represent, was
heard in June 2003.

In February 2004, the Ontario Divisional Court rejected the
plaintiff's appeal.  The plaintiff subsequently sought
permission to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal.  Leave to
appeal was granted and the appeal concerning whether this action
should be certified as a class action under applicable Ontario
law was heard in May 2005.  

In November 2005, the Ontario Court of Appeals overturned the
decision of the Ontario Divisional Court and certified the
action as a class action, but the certification was limited to
claims for declines in property values.

The company filed a motion to the Court of Appeals on Jan. 17,
2006 to correct certain factual errors in the Court's written
decision and to settle the precise terms of the formal order to
be issued.  

It also filed a motion in February 2006 for leave to appeal the
Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada (Class
Action Reporter, March 24, 2006).

In June, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear any
challenge to an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that certified
the class action (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2007).

Among the 8,000 plaintiffs is Wilfred Pearson, who launched the
suit claiming very high levels of nickel and other metals in the
soil at his property.   

The lawsuit is at the pretrial stage and none of the allegations
against Inco have been proven in court.  A case trial that is
expected to take two months is set for September 2008.  Eric
Gillespie, legal counsel for the plaintiff, said a judgment
could come within six months after the trial ends.

"It's reasonable to suggest we will know the court's decision by
early 2009," Mr. Gillespie said.

Other plaintiff's included the District School Board of Niagara,
the Niagara Catholic District School Board, the City of Port
Colborne and the region of Niagara.  Of the six original
defendants, settlements have previously been made with four --
with one settlement with Ontario pending later this month,
according to the report.

Mr. Gillespie, plaintiffs' legal counsel, can be reached at:

          Eric Gillespie, Esq.
          Markle May Phibbs
          438 University Ave., Suite 2100
          Toronto ON, M5G 2K8
          Phone: 416-593-4385 ext. 225
          Fax: 416-593-4478


J C PENNEY: Appeals Class Certification in Tex. Insurance Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc. is appealing to the
Supreme Court of Texas the certification of a class in a
putative insurance-related class action pending against the
company and several other defendants.  

The suit is "Gayle G. Pitts, et al. v. J. C. Penney Direct
Marketing Services, Inc. (DMS), AEGON Direct Marketing Services,
Inc., and J. C. Penney Life Insurance Co. n/k/a Stonebridge
Insurance Co., No. 01-03395-F," which was filed in the 214th
Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

The class action (Texas DMS) concerns the sale of J. C. Penney
Life Insurance accidental death and dismemberment insurance over
the telephone.

The named plaintiffs allege that they did not give permission to
defendants to charge their credit cards for such insurance
premiums.

They allege that the scripted questions asked during the
telephone sales presentation are inadequate to obtain permission
to charge the customer's credit card, primarily because the
customer is not told that the insurance company already has his
or her credit card number.

The Texas DMS lawsuit originally also included as defendants J.
C. Penney Co., Inc., and J. C. Penney International Insurance
Group, Inc. The plaintiffs have since dismissed these parties.

The Texas DMS lawsuit originally also included named plaintiffs
who did not deny giving permission to charge their credit cards
for premiums, but who alleged that they had submitted claims
that were wrongfully denied.

In September 2002, the trial court certified the Texas DMS
lawsuit as a national class action.  On July 15, 2004, the Court
of Appeals for the 13th District of Texas reversed the
certification order and remanded the case to the trial court.

Plaintiffs filed a second supplemental motion for class
certification, this time seeking a Texas class only.  On Jan.
31, 2005, the trial court granted the motion, certifying a Texas
class.

Following appeal of the trial court order by the defendants, on
May 18, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the 13th District of
Texas upheld the trial court's certification of a class of Texas
consumers who purchased the accidental death and dismemberment
insurance products between 1996 and the certification date.  

The defendants have appealed the decision of the Court of
Appeals to the Supreme Court of Texas, according to J. C. Penney
Co., Inc.'s April 4, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Feb. 3, 2007.

J. C. Penney Co., Inc. on the Net: http://www.jcpenney.net/.


LIFECELL CORP: Still Faces N.J. Lawsuits Over Transplants
---------------------------------------------------------
LifeCell Corp. remains a defendant in a suit filed by Anita
Watling on Jan. 9, 2007 against Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd.  
The case purports to only involve LifeCell products.  

Initially, the company along with Biomedical Tissue Services,
Ltd. and many other defendants were named in several lawsuits,
which purport to serve as class actions for persons receiving
transplants who are not physically injured, but instead seek
medical monitoring and/or damages for emotional distress.  All
of these cases were sent to New Jersey as part of a Multi-
District Litigation.  

The company has been successful in obtaining a voluntarily
dismissal of every such class action, with the exception of one
case, "Watling et al. v. Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd."

The company reported no development in the case at its form
April 25 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is Case No. 2:07-cv-00116-WJM-RJH filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
William J. Martini with referral to Judge Ronald J. Hedges.

Representing the plaintiffs is Brian C. Allen of Anderson &
Horne, PLLC, 517 W. Ormsby Avenue, Louisville, KY 40203, Phone:
502-587-0599.

Representing the defendants is Alice B. Herrington of Woodward,
Hobson & Fulton, LLP, 101 S. Fifth Street, 2500 National City
Tower, Louisville, KY 40202-3175, Phone: 502-581-8111.


LIFECELL CORP: "Kennedy-McInnis," "Graves" Transferred to MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two class actions that were filed in Federal Court in Rochester,
New York against Biomedical Tissue Services and LifeCell Corp.
-- "Kennedy-McInnis" and "Graves" -- have been transferred to
New Jersey as part of a Multi-District Litigation.

The two suits seek compensatory damages from Biomedical Tissue
Services and all processing defendants that received and used
BTS-originated tissue, including LifeCell Corp.  They are
presently the subjects of motions to dismiss.

                   The "Kennedy-McInnis" Suit

In September 2005, the company recalled products containing
human tissue because the facility, which recovered the tissue,
Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd. of New Jersey, did not follow
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements for donor
screening to determine if risk factors for communicable diseases
existed.  The company promptly notified FDA and all relevant
hospitals and medical professionals (Class Action Reporter, Amy
18, 2006).

FDA subsequently determined that patients who received tissue
implants prepared from Biomedical Tissue donors might be at a
heightened risk of communicable disease transmission, and
recommended those patients receive appropriate testing.  The
company has worked closely with FDA to execute a product recall
and set up a LifeCell-sponsored testing program.  The company
has not received any donor tissue from BTS after September 2005.

Filed on March 7, 2006, the suit seeks compensatory damages from
Biomedical Tissue and all defendants, including the company,
which received and used Biomedical Tissue-originated tissue.  
Plaintiffs are the next-of-kin of the donors who did not
authorize Biomedical Tissue to remove the tissue at issue.  
Presently, plaintiffs are objecting to the transfer to MDL
litigation in New Jersey.

The suit is "Kennedy-McInnis et al. v. Biomedical Tissue
Services, Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:06-cv-06140-DGL-MWP," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
under Judge David G. Larimer with referral to Judge Marian W.
Payson.

Representing the plaintiffs is Van Henri White of The Law Office
of Van White, 18 Grove Place, Rochester, NY 14605, Phone: 585-
271-6780, Fax: 585-271-6130, E-mail:
van.white@thelegalbrief.com.  


MCKESSON HBOC: Court Okays $72.5M Settlement by Arthur Andersen
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
approved a $72.5 million settlement of the class action "In re
McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 99-
CV-20743 RMV (PVT)."

The court held the final approval hearing on April 13, 2007.   
The court found the settlement of the claims against Arthur
Andersen LLP (AALLP) in the Litigation for the sum of $72.5
million in cash, plus accrued interest, as fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the settlement class; that the AALLP Plan of
Allocation is fair and equitable, which was previously approved
in connection with the McKesson Settlement; and approved the
application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorney's fees,
reimbursement of expenses, and interest thereon.  See:
http://www.mckessonhbocsettlement.com/.

The class consists of all persons or entities who:

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded  
        securities of HBOC during the period from Jan. 20,  
        1997 through and including Jan. 12, 1999;  

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired call options or sold put  
        options of HBOC during the period from Jan. 20, 1997  
        through and including April 27, 1999;  

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded  
        securities or call options, or who sold put options, of  
        McKesson Corporation or of McKesson HBOC, Inc. during  
        the period from Oct. 18, 1998 through and including  
        April 27, 1999; or  

     -- held McKesson common stock on November 27, 1998 and  
        still held those shares on Jan. 12, 1999, and were  
        injured thereby.

Deadline to file claims is on May 10, 2007.

The suit was filed in April 1999 against McKesson, HBOC,  
McKesson HBOC, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., Arthur Andersen, LLP,  
and certain officers or directors of McKesson or HBOC.

The litigation alleges that HBOC, and after the merger with  
McKesson, McKesson HBOC reported fraudulent revenues, income and  
assets, which caused members of the class to suffer losses.

Lead Plaintiff is the New York State Common Retirement Fund.  

The AALLP Settlement is only a partial settlement of the
Litigation, and Lead Plaintiff will continue to pursue  
claims against Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.  

The proposed Settlement Amount is in addition to the $960  
million settlement with defendants McKesson HBOC, Inc. and HBO &  
Co. previously approved by the Court.

The suit is "In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation,  
Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMV (PVT)," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Northern District of California under  
Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Patricia V.  
Trumbull.

Class counsel are:

     (1) McKesson HBOC Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o David  
         Stickney and Timothy A. DeLange, 12481 High Bluff  
         Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, California, 92130; and  

     (2) McKesson HBOC Inc Securities Litigation, c/o Leonard  
         Barrack and M. Richard Komins, both of Barrack, Rodos &  
         Bacine, 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,  
         Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Representing defendants are:  

     (1) Lyn Robyn Agre of Topel & Goodman, 832 Sansome St. 4th  
         Flr., San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 421-6140,  
         Fax: 415-398-5030, E-mail: lra@topelgoodmanc.com;

     (2) Sima Saran Ahuja of Fried Frank Harris Shriver &  
         Jacobson, One New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004,  
         Phone: (212) 820-8000;

     (3) William F. Alderman of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe,  
         405 Howard St., San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:  
         415/773-5944, Fax: 415/773-5700, E-mail:  
         walderman@orrick.com.


MEDICAL INFORMATION: No Class Status in Profit Sharing Plan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied
a motion seeking for the certification of a class in a lawsuit
against Medical Information Technology, Inc. (Meditech), which
was filed by a former employee over the company's profit sharing
plan, according to the company's April 30, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Michael Hubert, a former Meditech employee,  
filed a complaint against the Medical Information Technology  
Profit Sharing Plan, A. Neil Pappalardo, its Trustee and company  
Director, and the other five company Directors, Lawrence A.  
Polimeno, Roland L. Driscoll, Edward B. Roberts, Morton E.  
Ruderman and L.P. Dan Valente.

The complaint is purportedly brought on Plaintiff's own behalf  
and on behalf of a purported class consisting of "all  
participants in the [Plan] who have received any distribution  
since Jan. 1, 1998 and who did not receive the fair value of  
their benefits."  The complaint alleges that:  

     -- the Trustee and Directors are fiduciaries of the
        Plan in valuing Meditech's common stock for purposes of  
        redemption and payment of a participant's benefits  
        under the Plan;  

     -- the Directors, in connection with an annual  
        contribution of the company's common stock to the Plan,  
        have undervalued the company's common stock and have  
        not paid retiring or terminating participants in the  
        Plan the fair value of their interests in the Plan;  

     -- Meditech's founders and controlling shareholders,  
        including some of the Directors, have been buyers of  
        Meditech common stock and have benefited from the low  
        price established by Mr. Pappalardo and approved  
        without adequate care by the other Directors;  

     -- Mr. Pappalardo is not independent and that neither
        he nor the other Directors have relied upon an  
        independent appraiser;  

     -- by failing to fairly value the benefits due each  
        employee participating in the Plan upon his or her
        termination, that all of the defendants violated their  
        fiduciary duties to the participants of the Plan and  
        that as a result Plaintiff and members of the purported  
        class are due benefits from the Plan; and  

     -- the Directors violated fiduciary duties to the
        participants of the Plan in violation of the Employee  
        Retirement Income Security Act.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action, a judgment  
against the defendants, a permanent injunction ordering the Plan  
to consult an outside appraiser in valuing the plan's assets,  
removal of Mr. Pappalardo as the Plan Trustee, and damages,  
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 20, 2006, the judge dismissed the breach of fiduciary  
duty claims brought against the individual defendants.   

The remaining claim is an ERISA benefits claim against the plan,  
the plan's trustee, and the company.  The judge did not rule on  
the plaintiff's request for the complaint to be a class action.

During March 2007 the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
the complaint to be certified as a class action.  

The suit is "Hubert v. Medical Information Technology Profit  
Sharing Plan, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-10269-RWZ," filed in the  
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under  
Judge Rya W. Zobel.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Michael A. Collora, Esq.
         Dwyer & Collora, LLP
         Federal Reserve Bldg., 600 Atlantic Ave., 12th Floor,
         Boston, MA 02210
         Phone: 617-371-1002
         Fax: 617-371-1037
         E-mail: mcollora@dwyercollora.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Kevin P. Martin, Esq.
         Goodwin Proctor, LLP
         Phone: 617-570-1000
         Fax: 617-523-1231
         E-mail: Kmartin@goodwinprocter.com


MENU FOODS: Rob Pierce Files Penna. Suit Over Tainted Pet Food
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Peirce, of the law firm Robert Peirce & Associates, has
filed a class action on behalf of all Pennsylvania purchasers of
pet food recalled by Menu Foods, Inc., The Sewickley Herald
reports.

According to Mr. Pierce, a family in Lawrence County whose cat
got ill causing $5,000 in medical bills has retained his
services.  He seeks to recover in the class action the purchase
price as well as any veterinarian bills.

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

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

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

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

To contact Mr. Peirce:

          Robert Peirce, Esq.
          Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C.
          2500 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-1918
          Phone: 1-877-272-9171
          Fax: 412-281-4229


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: June Hearing Set for Wash. Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2007 trial is slated for a putative consumer fraud class
action pending against NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., a subsidiary of
Novastar Financial, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

Filed in December 2005, the suit argued that the company failed
to disclose prior to closing that a broker payment would be made
on their loans, which was an unfair and deceptive practice in
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

The suit sought a return of fees paid on the affected loans,
excess interest charged, and damage to plaintiffs' credit and
finances, treble damages as provided in the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and attorney fees.

On Oct. 31, 2006, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
to certify a Washington state class.

NovaStar Mortgage sought to appeal the grant of class
certification; however, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 9th Circuit denied the request for interlocutory appeal so
review of the class certification order must wait until after a
final judgment is entered, if necessary.  

The case is set for trial in June 2007, according to the
Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2007-1's April 30, 2007
Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the monthly distribution period from March 27,
2007 to April 25, 2007.

The suit is "Pierce, et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., Case No.
3:05-cv-05835-RJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Robert J. Bryan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq.
         The Law Office Of Matthew Bergman
         705 2ND Avenue, Suite 1601
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-957-9510
         E-mail: matt@bergmanlegal.com

              - and -

         Ari Y. Brown, Esq.
         Bergman & Frockt
         705 Second Avenue, Ste. 1601
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-957-9510
         E-mail: ari@bergmanlegal.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Donald C. Brown, Jr. Esq.
         Weiner Brodsky Sidmann Kider
         1300 19TH St., NW, 5th Fl.
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: 202-628-2000
         E-mail: brown@wbsk.com

              - and -

         Sal Mungia, Esq.
         Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca Peterson & Daheim
         P.O. BOX 1157
         Tacoma, WA 98401-1157
         Phone: 253-620-6500
         Fax: 1-253-620-6565
         E-mail: smungia@gth-law.com


PRAXAIR INC: Faces 8 Suits by Welders Seeking Medical Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------
Praxair Inc. is a co-defendant with many other companies in 695
lawsuits (as of March 31, 2007) alleging personal injury caused
by manganese contained in welding fumes.

There were a total of 4,216 individual claimants in these cases.  
The cases were pending in several state and federal courts.  The
federal cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and, in most
instances, punitive damages.  In the past, Praxair has either
been dismissed from the cases with no payment or has settled a
few cases for nominal amounts.

There also are eight proposed class actions seeking medical
monitoring on behalf of welders.  None of the class actions have
been certified.  No reserves have been recorded for these cases
as management does not believe that a loss from them is probable
or reasonably estimable.


PRESSTEK INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in N.H.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Presstek, Inc. together with certain of its executive officers,
continues to be named as defendants in a purported securities
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire.

The company was served with the complaint on Oct. 26, 2006.

The suit claims to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
Presstek's common stock during the period from July 27, 2006
through Sept. 29, 2006.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and
the other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The company reported no development in the case at its April 24,
2007 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006

The suit is "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00377-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire under Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St., Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617 439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134
          E-mail: ted@shulaw.com or tshapiro@shulaw.com; and

          Mark L. Mallory, Esq.
          Mallory & Friedman PLLC
          8 Green St., Concord, NH 03301
          Phone: 228-2277
          E-mail: mark@malloryandfriedman.com

Representing defendants is Robert E. McDaniel of McDaniel Law
Offices, 755 North Main St., Laconia, NH 03246, Phone: 603 527-
0520, Fax: 603 279-0540, E-mail: remcdanielesq@aol.com.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Court Dismisses Certain Claims in "Marshall"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of Delaware for New Castle
County has partially dismissed the class action, "Marshall, et
al. v. priceline.com, Inc."

On Feb. 17, 2005, Jeanne Marshall and three other individuals
filed the suit on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
allegedly similarly situated consumers.  

The complaint alleged that the company violated the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, Section 2511, et
seq., relating to its disclosures and charges to customers to
cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances
nationwide, and service fees.  

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on April 21, 2005.   
It also moved to stay discovery until a determination of its
motion to dismiss the complaint and the court granted that stay
on May 11, 2005.  

On June 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
asserts claims under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and for
breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing.  The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Oct. 31, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed all claims
arising under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act.  

The court also dismissed all claims for breach of contract and
the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing that relate to
company's charges for service fees.  

The court denied the company's motion to dismiss the breach of
contract and implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims
as they relate to the company's charges to consumers to cover
taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances.

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


PRIVATE CARE: Faces Fla. Suit Over Fair Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Private Care, Inc. has been named defendant in a class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida over violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Lead plaintiff Eileen Moyton bring this action on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated Private Care employees, to
recover unpaid back wages, unpaid overtime compensation, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.

The complaint alleges that from approximately May 1, 2004 to
Dec. 29, 2006, Private Care employed Ms. Moyton, and others, in
the aforesaid enterprise for workweeks longer than 40 hours and
failed to compensate them for their employment in excess of 40
hours per week at a rate of at least on-half and/or one and one-
half times the regular rate at which they were employed.  The
defendants also allegedly failed to pay them the applicable
minimum hourly rate.

As a result of the underpayments of wages, Private Care is
allegedly indebted to Ms. Moyton and others for unpaid minimum
wages and overtime compensation and back pay.

Ms. Moyton estimates that Private Care owes her in the minimum
amount of $15,065, which the company has refused to pay.

Plaintiff demands judgment agains Private Care for a minimum
estimate of $15,065, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and trial by jury
of all issues.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e7c

The suit is "Moyton v. Private Care Inc. et al, Case No. 9:07-
cv-80381-KLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp, with
referral to Judge Ann E. Vitunac.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Joseph Bilotta, Esq.
          Vassallo & Bilotta
          1630 S Congress Avenue, Suite 201
          Palm Springs, FL 33461
          Phone: 561-432-1994
          Fax: 432-1117
          E-mail: joeb@vassallobilotta.com


QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Cellular Phone Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM, Inc., along with many other manufacturers of wireless
phones, wireless operators and industry-related organizations,
was named as a defendant in several purported class actions, and
several individually filed actions pending in Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Washington D.C., and Louisiana, seeking monetary
damages arising out of its sale of cellular phones.

The courts that have reviewed similar claims against other
companies to date have held that there was insufficient
scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims in those cases.

QUALCOMM, Inc. -- http://www.qualcomm.com-- designs,  
manufactures, and markets digital wireless telecommunications
products and services based on its code division multiple access
technology and other technologies.


QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Ala. Lawsuit Over Alleged RESPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quicken Loans, Inc. is facing a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama accusing it
of taking unearned fees for services it did not perform on
mortgage loans.

Lead plaintiffs, Vincent L. Johnson and Angela L. Johnson, claim
that on Aug. 12, 2006, entered into two mortgage transactions
with Quicken.  One was a first mortgage the other was a second
mortgage.  Quicken charged the Johnsons for appraisal services
in the amount of $80.00 on both the first and second mortgage.  
However, there was only one property to be appraised and one
appraisal service performed.  The second $80.00 charge was a
duplicative and unearned fee.

Plaintiffs further claim they entered into agreements for two
mortgage loans from Quicken on one piece of real property.  The
loans were obtained in a consumer credit transaction and were
primarily for personal, family or household purposes and the
mortgages were all secured by the Plaintiffs' and the Class
Members' respective dwellings.

The Plaintiffs' two mortgage loans were closed and settled
simultaneously on July 18, 2006.  Quicken charged plaintiffs for
"TSI Appraisal Services" in the amount of $80.00 on line item
888 on the standard HUD-1 settlement statement on both mortgage
loans.

The service for which the two charges were made is a one-time
service, paid for on the first mortgage and applicable to the
second mortgage when that second mortgage is closed on the same
day as a first mortgage.

No additional appraisal service is needed, performed or provided
when two mortgage loans are closed on the same day.  Although
the Johnson's HUD-1 for their second mortgage shows an $80.00
fee on line 888 as "TSI Appraisal Services" that charge is in
actuality a duplicative charge for which no additional service
was provided, the suit alleges.

This action is properly brought as a Plaintiff Class Action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of all persons nationwide
and within the territories of the U.S. who satisfy the following
criteria:

     (a) that, on the same date, closed two mortgage loans on
         one piece of real property with Quicken Loans, Inc.,
         which loans were secured by a first or second mortgage
         on residential real property used by them as their
         principal dwelling; and

     (b) were charged a "TSI Appraisal Services" fee on both
         mortgage loans; and

     (c) the class period shall extend back to a date one year
         prior to the filing of this suit.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant, as follows:

     -- for an Order appointing the undersigned counsel to act
        as interim Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
        to act on behalf of the putative Class before the
        determination of whether to certify the Class under Fed.
        R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) is made;

     -- for an Order certifying that this action may be
        maintained as a Plaintiff class action, as defined
        above, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b) and 23(b)(3);

     -- for an Order appointing the Plaintiffs to act as
        representatives of the Class Members and the Class;

     -- for an Order appointing the undersigned counsel as Class
        Counsel;

     -- for an Order directing that reasonable notice of this
        Class action be given to all members of the Class at the
        Appropriate time after discovery and dispositive motions
        have been resolved;
     
     -- that the Court convene a jury trial;

     -- for violating RESPA, an Order finding that the Defendant
        is liable as a matter of law to each member of the Class
        for actual damages;

     -- for violating RESPA, an Order awarding treble damages to
        the Class Members;

     -- For a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, together
        with its officers, directors, employees, agents,
        partners or representatives, successors, affiliates and
        any and all persons acting in concert with them or by
        agreement with them from directly or indirectly engaging
        in the wrongful acts and practices described above, all
        for the benefit of the Class Members;

     -- for an order directing disgorgement or restitution
        against Defendant as to each Class Member and the
        imposition of an equitable constructive trust over such
        amounts for the benefit of the Class Members;

     -- a judgment of monetary damages against Defendant as to
        each Plaintiff for not only such prohibited or excess
        fees, but for all interest that has been contracted for
        or charged or paid by each of the Class Members, through
        the date of judgment or settlement and the value of such
        interest that is due and owing in the future;

     -- for a judgment of punitive damages against the Defendant
        in a sum that is fair and reasonable;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law and  
        statute;

     -- for pre-and-post judgment interest as provided by law in
        amount according to proof at trial;

     -- for an award of costs and expenses incurred in this
        action; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the Court may deem
        necessary and proper.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
    
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e7e

The suit is "Johnson et al. v. Quicken Loans, Inc., Case No.
1:07-cv-00311-CG-C," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama under Judge Callie V. S. Granade
with referral to Judge William E. Cassady.

Representing plaintiffs is:

John W. Sharbrough, III, Esq.
P. O. Box 996
Mobile, AL 36601
Phone: 251-432-1413
Fax: 251-432-5297
      E-mail: john@sharbroughlawfirm.com


RED HAT: Discovery in N.C. Securities Lawsuit to End September
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit pending
against Red Hat, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina is scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21,
2007.  

In the summer of 2004, 14 class actions were filed against the
company and several of its present and former officers on behalf
of investors who purchased the company's securities during
various periods from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.

All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina.  In each of the actions,
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's common stock during some or all of the period from
June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.

All of the claims arise in connection with the company
announcement on July 13, 2004 that it would restate certain of
its financial statements.

One or more of the plaintiffs assert that certain present and
former officers and the company variously violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial
statements that the company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the individual defendants from
trading in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the
company's chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer of certain compensation and profits from trading in the
company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class actions were
consolidated into a single action referenced as "In re Red Hat,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-CV-473 BR.  

Lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the case have now been
designated, and on May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint.

On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the
individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Also on that date PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant,
filed a separate motion to dismiss.  On May 12, 2006, the court
issued an order granting the motion to dismiss the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act claims against several of the individual
defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act claims against the company, its chief
executive officer and its former chief financial officer.

The court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in
their entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss.  A
scheduling order has been entered in the matter, and discovery
is scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21, 2007.  

On Nov. 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Subsequent to the filing of that motion, several
plaintiffs have withdrawn as potential class representatives,
and the company has opposed the certification of the remaining
proposed class representatives.

The suit is "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-473," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina under Judge W. Earl Britt.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         William Webb
         The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm,
         P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC 27602
         Phone: 919-831-8700
         E-mail: woodywebb@wwedmisten.com

Representing the company is:
        
         Pressly M. Millen
         Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Esq.
         P.O. Box 831
         Raleigh, NC 27602
         Phone: 919-755-2135
         E-mail: pmillen@wcsr.com


SAMSON RESOURCES: Parties Reach Settlement in "Scott" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action, "Robert W. Scott, Individually and
as Managing Member of R.W. Scott Investments, LLC v. Samson
Resources Co., Case No. C-01-385," have settled the case, which
is pending in the District Court of Sweetwater County, Wyoming.

The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that
the Samson Resources Co., an affiliate of Samson Investment Co.,
deducted from its payments to royalty and overriding royalty
owners certain charges, which were improper under the Wyoming
royalty payment statutes.  

A number of these royalty and overriding royalty payments
burdened the interests of the Geodyne Energy Income Limited
Partnership II-C and Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership
II-D (II-C and II-D Partnerships).  

In February 2003, the company made a supplemental payment to the
royalty and overriding royalty interest owners who were
potential class members of amounts, which were then thought to
have been improperly deducted, plus statutory interest thereon.

The applicable portions of these payments, $2,548.31 and
$26,768.96, respectively, were recouped from the II-C and II-D
Partnerships in the first quarter of 2003.  The lawsuit also
alleges that company's check stubs did not fully comply with the
Wyoming Royalty Payment Act.  

On May 13, 2005 the trial court certified this lawsuit as a
class action and denied the company's motion for summary
judgment.  On June 25, 2005 the Wyoming Supreme Court denied the
company's request for it to review these decisions.

According to the Geodyne Energy Income Ltd. Partnership II A's
April 16, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
Samson and the plaintiffs have reached agreement to settle all
of the plaintiffs' remaining claims in this lawsuit, and Samson
expects a formal settlement agreement to be executed during
April 2007.  

The settlement calls for an additional royalty payment of
$1,000,000 and is subject to court approval.  Plaintiffs'
counsel, subject to court approval, is responsible for
determining the allocation of the $1,000,000 among the various
class members after deduction of litigation costs and attorneys'
fees.  

Oklahoma-based Samson Investment Co. -- http://www.samson.com--  
is an independent oil and gas entity with exploration,
development and production activities in Canada, the U.S. (16
states), as well as in Australia and the UK.


SHELHIGH INC: FDA Wants All Shelhigh Medical Devices Recalled
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration  issued a formal written
request to Shelhigh, Inc. to recall all its medical devices
remaining in the marketplace, including hospital inventories,
because of sterility concerns.

On April 17, 2007, U.S. Marshals, at FDA's request, seized all
medical devices including components at Shelhigh's Union, N.J.
facility after finding significant deficiencies in the company's
manufacturing processes.  During the seizure, Shelhigh was asked
to perform a voluntary recall of its products, but the company
declined.

"Since these are critical devices implanted into seriously-ill
patients, ensuring their sterility is absolutely essential to
prevent infection," said Daniel Schultz, M.D., director, FDA's
Center for Devices and Radiological Health.  "FDA will continue
to provide up-to-date information to patients and physicians
about this ongoing public health matter."

The company's deficiencies, described in a complaint filed with
the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, may compromise the safety
and effectiveness of the devices.  Shelhigh's own records
indicate a number of sterility test failures and that its
testing and retesting procedures were not properly performed.

Shelhigh devices are used in infants, children and adults.  The
products include pediatric heart valves, tube-like devices for
blood flow (conduits), surgical patches, dural patches to aid in
tissue recovery after neurosurgery, annuloplasty rings to help
repair heart valves, and arterial grafts.

FDA recommends that doctors and hospitals consider using
alternative products.  Physicians and patients concerned about
Shelhigh devices and want to know more about the company's
products can visit: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/041907-
shelhigh.html.
      
Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use
of these products may be reported to FDA's MedWatch Adverse
Event Reporting program:

     Online: (http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm);
     Fax: (800-332-0178); or
     Regular Mail (use postage-paid FDA form 3500 available at:     
     http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmand mail to       
     MedWatch, FDA,
     5600 Fishers Lane
     Rockville, MD 20852-9787


SMALL WORLD: Recalls Townhouse Toys with Pieces that can Detach
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Small World Toys, of Culver City, Calif., is voluntarily
recalling about 8,800 IQ Preschool Take-Apart Townhouse toys.

The firm said that small magnets used to connect the wooden
pieces to the sides of the townhouse can fall out.  Magnets
found by young children can be swallowed or aspirated.  If more
than one magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract each other
and cause intestinal perforations or blockages, which can be
fatal.

CPSC and Small World Toys have received two reports of magnets
coming off of the townhouse pieces.  No injuries have been
reported.

These wooden toys, for children ages "18+ months," are shaped
like houses measuring 8.5 inches high by about 4.5 inches wide.  
They have nine pieces that children can disassemble and
reassemble.  Each house has a green chimney and a blue and
yellow striped pillar with a purple base at each corner.  The
sides of the house have four removable panels of different
shapes with red knobs that children use to pull the panels off.  
"IQ PreschoolT" appears on the side of the house below the blue
and green rectangular panel.  Model number 2408808 appears on
the packaging.

These toys were manufactured in China and were sold at toy
stores and various other retailers nationwide and through
catalogs from December 2004 through February 2007 for about $21.

Consumers are advised to take these toys away from children
immediately and contact the firm to obtain a free replacement
product.  

Product's photo:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07179.html

For additional information, contact Small World Toys at (800)
421-4153 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday,
visit their Web site at http://www.smallworldtoys.comor e-mail  
the firm at townhouserecall@smallworldtoys.com  


STARWOOD HOTELS: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Obligatory Tipping
------------------------------------------------------------
Starwood Hotels & Resorts has been named a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington
for King County challenging the hotel's "forced tipping," The
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiff's claims arise out of Starwood's policy and practice
of charging and collecting from plaintiff and other customers of
Starwood hotels a mandatory "Bell Gratuity" and mandatory
"Housekeeping Gratuity" in addition to the quoted rate for a
room.

The complaint alleges that when prospective customers make
reservations at a Starwood hotel they are quoted a per-night
room rate, plus taxes.   They are not informed that, in addition
to the quoted per-night room rate, Starwood will assess certain
other mandatory charges, specifically, a mandatory "Bell
Gratuity" and a mandatory "Housekeeping Gratuity."

Hotel guest and lead plaintiff, James Shulevitz, claims he
booked a room for two nights at The Phoenician in Scottsdale for
$325 a night plus tax. On checking out, he says, the hotel
billed him $14 a night for a mandatory "bell gratuity" and $4 a
night for a "housekeeping gratuity" - plus more tax.

He says that's deceptive and illegal unjust enrichment and it's
not a tip if it's obligatory.

He alleges the practice is a breach of contract and unfair
business practice if customers are forced to tip without
informing them first.

The suit is filed on behalf of all persons who:

     (a) stayed for one or more nights lodging at a hotel owned,
         operated or managed by Starwood Hotels & Resorts
         Worldwide, Inc., pursuant to a reservation made prior
         to check-in;

     (b) were charged a "Bell Gratuity" or a "Housekeeping
         Gratuity" in addition to the quoted per-night room
         rate; and

     (c) paid a "Bell Gratuity" or a "Housekeeping Gratuity."

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (i) whether Starwood, pursuant to a common practice or
         policy, has wrongfully assessed upon and collected from
         the plaintiff class monies denominated as a mandatory
         "Bell Gratuity" or a mandatory "Housekeeping Gratuity"
         in addition to the quoted per-night hotel room rate;

    (ii) whether Starwood's practice of assessing and collecting
         a mandatory "Bell Gratuity" or "Housekeeping Gratuity"
         constitutes a breach of the lodging contract
         established by the customer's reservation;

   (iii) whether Starwood's acts and practices in assessing and
         collecting a "Bell Gratuity" or a "Housekeeping
         Gratuity" were unfair and/or deceptive within the
         meaning of the Washington Consumer Protection Act,
         chapter 19386 RCW (CPA) and/or the analogous and
         applicable consumer protection statutes of other
         states;

    (iv) whether Starwood's assessment and collection of a "Bell
         Gratuity" or a "Housekeeping Gratuity" caused members
         of the plaintiff class injury; and

     (v) whether members of the plaintiff class are entitled to
         damages and/or other relief against Starwood for breach
         of contract, violation of the CPA, or unjust
         enrichment.

Plaintiff requests relief as follows:

     -- that the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class action;

     -- that the court declare that Starwood's actions, detailed
        in the complaint, including without limitation its
        assessment and collection of mandatory "Bell Gratuities"
        or "Housekeeping Gratuities" in addition to the quoted
        per-night room rate, constitute a breach of Starwood's
        lodging contracts with its customers, that Starwood's
        actions are unfair or deceptive acts or practices
        declared to be unlawful by RCW 19.86.020 and/ or the
        analogous and applicable consumer protection statutes,
        and that Starwood's action have unjustly enriched
        Starwood and/or its affiliates, all to the injury of
        plaintiff and the class;

     -- that plaintiff and the members of the class be awarded
        their actual damages;

     -- that plaintiff and the members of the class be awarded
        treble, exemplary, or punitive damages pursuant to RCW
        19.86.090 and/or the analogous and applicable consumer
        protection statutes of other states;

     -- that plaintiff and the members of the class be awarded
        prejudgment interest on the damages awarded;

     -- that plaintiff and the members of the class be awarded
        reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit pursuant to
        RCW 19.86.090 and/or the analogous and applicable
        consumer protection statutes of other states, or other
        applicable law;

     -- that Starwood be enjoined, preliminary and permanently,
        from engaging in further assessing or collection of
        mandatory "Bell Gratuities" or Housekeeping Gratuities"
        in addition to the quoted per-night room rate; and

     -- that plaintiff and the members of the class be granted
        such other relief as may be deemed just and proper by
        the court.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e7b

The suit is "James Shulevitz et al. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 07-2-13965-6SEA," filed in the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jeff Thomas
          Mark A. Wilner
          Gordon Murray Tilden LLP
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4000
          Seattle, WA 98154-1007
          Phone: (206) 467-6477
          Fax: (206) 467-6292


VISTAPRINT LTD: Cal. Appeals Court Affirms Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals affirmed the Los Angeles
Superior Court's final approval of the settlement in a consumer
class action pending against a subsidiary of VistaPrint, Ltd.
and its predecessor corporation, according to the company's
April 30, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

The complaint alleges that the shipping and handling fees the
company charges for free products are excessive and in violation
of sections of the California Business and Professions Code.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted preliminary
approval of a proposed settlement on April 29, 2005 and, on June
17, 2005, gave final approval to the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to change
the term "shipping and handling" to "shipping and processing" on
its Web site, to provide all class members who purchase business
cards from the company for a two year period in the future the
opportunity to receive additional cards at reduced rates, and to
pay reasonable attorneys fees to plaintiffs' counsel.

In August 2005, an objector to the settlement filed an appeal of
the court's final approval of the settlement.

On Feb. 28, 2007, the California Court of Appeals ruled in favor
of the company, affirming the Superior Court's final approval of
the settlement.  

The period for the objector to appeal the Court of Appeals'
decision passed without any appeal being filed, and the
effective date of the settlement is April 9, 2007.

VistaPrint, Ltd. -- http://www.vistaprint.com/-- is an online  
supplier of graphic design services and customized printed
products to small businesses and consumers worldwide with over
7,000,000 customers served in more than 120 countries.


WESTERN POWER: Denmark Town Locals to Sue Over Blackouts
--------------------------------------------------------
Some residents of the town of Denmark in Australia are
considering launching a class action against Western Power in a
bid to force the utility to improve electricity supplies along
the south coast, The West Australian reports.

Approximately 60 aggravated residents gathered for a public
meeting over major power outages last Easter.  They unanimously
supported the idea of filing a class action against Western
Power.

Western Power and the government are planning to apply a
headworks charge to cover electrical upgrades at the edge of the
grid as a method of making payments for the infrastructure
equitable.  The estimated $2 million improvements to power
supplies to Denmark and Walpole is expected finished before next
Easter.

Gail Guthrie, Denmark Chamber of Commerce president, said it was
unfair that power supplies in Margaret River were being improved
at no cost to locals while Denmark and Walpole would have to
contribute to upgrades and suffer during frequent blackouts.  
She also added that they experience either power surges or
outages every weekend.

The company admitted the Easter blackouts were due to equipment
failure.  They also assured the residents that they are
currently working on the problem and that there will be enough
electricity all through winter until next Easter.

Based on the report, fifteen compensations claims had been
received and six had been approved.


ZIMBABWE: Newspaper Workers Sue Employer Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Workers at insolvent Zimbabwe Mirror Newspapers filed a lawsuit
against the company to claim unpaid wages over the past two
months, the Zimbabwean reports.

The workers, who have not been paid for two straight months
since March, claim that the board members of the newspaper
companies and their subsidiaries, Daily Mirror and Sunday
Mirror, threaten those who ask about their pending salaries.

The companies became broke, nearly ZWD$100B in debt, when the
Central Intelligence Organization took over the company from
entrepreneur Ibbo Mandaza.  However, based on some reports,
Central Bank is ready to provide cash to the newspaper group.

According to Shamiso Sibotshiwe, spokesperson for the plaintiff,
they were forced to take the matters to court after the company
unlawfully failed to pay workers two months in a row despite
assurances at the time of the temporary closure of the newspaper
group that workers would continue to receive their salaries.  


* Bridegeport Class Action Management Conference Set May 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bridegeport Continuing Education will host a Class Action
Litigation seminar on May 18, 2007 at the Westin Bonaventure
Hotel in Los Angeles, California.

This seminar is designed for transactional and litigation
attorneys, in both private practice and corporate counsel.  

This program will cover the latest developments in the law of
federal class actions, California class actions and class
actions in hotbed states.  The class action is a unique animal
in the legal world that requires exceptional and specific skills
in researching, writing, case management, and client contact.

This workshop was designed to give the practicing attorney and
in-house counsel a comprehensive overview of each step in the
process, with an emphasis on the procedural rules.  The program
will also cover Prop. 64 and its effect on the UCL and class
actions.

This program is designed for civil trial lawyers, in-house
counsel who supervises trials and appeals, and counseling
attorneys.

The Program includes breakfast and handouts. This unique, fast-
paced program will incorporate both plaintiff and defense
perspectives.  Topics include:

     * CAFA Update
     * Class Actions Case Update
     * Life after Certification
     * Defeating Certification
     * Settlement or Trial
     * An Update on the Injunction Remedy
     * Finding & Replacing Class Representatives
     * Competing Class Filings
     * Class-Wide Arbitration Agreements
     * Recovering Attorney's Fees

PROGRAM AGENDA

8:30 - 9:00    Registration & Continental Breakfast

9:00 - 9:30    Case Law Update
                    Thomas Miller of RKMC

9:30 - 10:15   Finding and Replacing Class Representatives
                    Brian Strange of Strange and Carpenter  
                    Seth Piece of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp

10:30 - 11:15  Strategies for Seeking & Defeating Class
               Certification
                    Michael Mallow of Loeb & Loeb
                    Susan Abintata of the Quisenberry Law Firm

11:15 -12:00   Life After Certification
                    Amanda Horn, Esq. of the Garden City Group
                    others to be named

Lunch (on your own)

1:15 - 2:15    Competing Class Filings: Who is In Charge Here?
                    Ted Pintar of Lerach Coughlin

2:15 - 3:15    Settlement or Trial?
                    Lisa Simonetti of Strook Strook and Lavan

3:30 -4:30     Getting Paid - The Reasoning Behind Attorneys
               Fees
                    Marc Primo of the Initiative Legal Group

Registration Fees  
  
              Early $325 until April 13
              Regular $350 after March 30
              Late $395 after May 16

To register and for additional seminar information:
http://reconferences.com/upcomingprograms1.html

Bridegeport Continuing Education --
http://reconferences.com/index.html-- has been a provider of  
professional continuing education programs throughout the
western U.S. since 1997.  Their conferences and seminars focus
on emerging legal issues of vital import to attorneys, real
estate professionals, accountants, consultants and government
enforcement agencies.

Each conference is chaired by a distinguished faculty.  The
presentations are richly augmented with written materials,
including the latest in pending or passed legislation affecting
practitioners or clients active in the topic area.

For more information, contact:

          Bridegeport Continuing Education
          Phone: (818) 783-7156
          E-mail: info@bridgeportce.com
          Website: http://reconferences.com/index.html


                            *********


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  * * *