CAR_Public/070509.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 9, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 91

                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY: Court Stays Class Certification Order in "Theis"
21ST CENTURY: Faces Shareholders' Suits Over AIG Merger Proposal
21ST CENTURY: Oral Arguments Conclude in "Quintana" Litigation
99c ONLY: Continues to Face Labor-Related Litigation in Calif.
99c ONLY: Seeks Stay of Calif. "Washington" Labor Litigation

ALASKA: Tours Operators Sue to Keep Sales Information Secret
ALLSTATE CORP: Court Intends to Junk EEOC I, Romero I Complaints
ALLSTATE CORP: Court Might Junk ERISA Suit Related to Shakeup
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: No Ruling Yet in Lawsuit Over Suredeposit
ATLAS VAN: Ill. Lawsuit Alleges Racketeering Act Violations

AVON PRODUCTS: Fla. Court Dismisses Marketing Fraud Lawsuit
AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
AVON PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Calif. Suit by Sales Reps.
AVON PRODUCTS: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y. Court
AVON PRODUCTS: N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal Motion Opposed

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Accused of Withholding Clients' Funds
BERNINI INC: Faces Nev. Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit
BEST BUY: Still Faces Race, Sex Discrimination Suit in Calif.
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Class Certification Mulled in Calif. Labor Suits
E.I. DU PONT: Faces Suits in W.Va., N.J. Over PFOA Contamination

E.I. DU PONT: Ia. Court Might Rule on Teflon Suit Status in 2007
E.I. DU PONT: Canada Teflon Suit Status Ruling Expected in 2007
FANNIE MAE: Investors Seek Class Certification for D.C. Lawsuit
FIRST PREMIER: Suit Alleges Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
FLORIDA ROCK: Faces Shareholder's Suit in Fla. Over Vulcan Deal

FUNNY BONE: Class Status Sought for Suit Over December Raffle
INTERVOICE-BRITE INC: Seeks Stay in Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
KELLY SERVICES: Certification Hearing Held in Calif. Labor Suit
LONE STAR: Shareholder Files Suit to Block U.S. Steel Merger
LOUISIANA: Three Colleges Receive $3.3M from $40M Settlement

MORTGAGE AMENITIES: Accused of Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach
NEW ZEALAND: War Veterans File NZ$5B Agent Orange Lawsuit
NICOR INC: Settles Objections to Ill. Cleanup Suit Settlement
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Appeals Class Certification in Injury Suit
ORTHO-CLINICAL: Recalls Cardiac Markers Yielding False Results

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Faces Race, Age Bias Lawsuit in Ark.
PPG INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of $23M Antitrust Suit Deal
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Court Mulls Appeal of "Tips" Suit Dismissal
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Transfer "Jacobs"
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Crew Appeals Dismissal of Calif. Wage Lawsuit

TIRE CHOICE: Faces Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit
TIRE KINGDOM: Accused of Violating Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Seeks Stay on Securities Suit Discovery
UNITED STATES: Ex-inmate Sues Federal Govt. Over "Slave Labor"
VITAS HEALTHCARE: Still Faces Overtime Wage Litigation in Calif.

YOUTH VILLAGES: "Teacher Counselor" Files FLSA Violations Suit


* Former Labaton Sucharow Counsel Joins A.B. Data Ltd.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
INPHONIC INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Court Stays Class Certification Order in "Theis"
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Court of Appeal in California stayed the Los Angeles Superior
Court's class certification order in the lawsuit filed by Thomas
Theis, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against 21st Century Insurance Co.

The suit was filed on June 17, 2002 in Los Angeles Superior
Court.  Plaintiff seeks California class-action certification,
injunctive relief, and unspecified actual and punitive damages.

The complaint contends that after insureds receive medical
treatment, the company used a medical-review program to adjust
expenses to reasonable and necessary amounts for a given
geographic area and the adjusted amount is "predetermined" and
"biased."

The case is consolidated with similar actions against other
insurers for discovery and pre-trial motions.

On Jan. 11, 2007, plaintiff's motion to certify a "med-pay"
class was granted.  The company filed a writ of mandate with the
Court of Appeal, challenging the trial court's certification.  

In March 2007, the Court of Appeal stayed the trial court's
order and requested briefs from the parties, according to the
company's May 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

Woodland Hills, California-based 21st Century Insurance Group --
http://www.21st.com-- is a direct-to-consumer provider of  
personal auto insurance.


21ST CENTURY: Faces Shareholders' Suits Over AIG Merger Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Insurance Group was named as a defendant in two
purported class actions that were filed in Los Angeles Superior
Court over American International Group, Inc.'s Jan. 24, 2007
merger proposal to acquire the remaining shares of company
common stock, which AIG does not yet own.

The suits, which were both filed on in January 2007, are
captioned:

      -- "Edward Bronstein v. 21st Century Insurance Group, et
         al.," and
       
      -- "Francis A. Sliwinski v. 21st Century Insurance Group,
         et al."  

They allege that the company, its directors, and AIG have, or
will, breach fiduciary duties as a result of AIG merger
proposal.  Both actions seek class action certification and
equitable relief.

Woodland Hills, California-based 21st Century Insurance Group --
http://www.21st.com-- is a direct-to-consumer provider of  
personal auto insurance.


21ST CENTURY: Oral Arguments Conclude in "Quintana" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments have concluded in a purported class action filed
by Silvia Quintana against 21st Century Insurance Co. over
medical payments in relation to her insurance contract.

The case was filed on Nov. 16, 2005 in San Diego as a purported
class action.  It names the company in four causes of action:

     -- violation of Business & Professions Section 17200,
     -- conversion,
     -- unjust enrichment and,
     -- declaratory relief

Ms. Quintana alleges that the company's demand for reimbursement
of the medical payments it made to her pursuant to her insurance
contract violates the "made-whole rule."

The company anticipates that if the matter survives the initial
pleading stage, it will be consolidated, for discovery and pre-
trial motions, with actions alleging similar facts against other
insurers.

The case is in the pleading stage and no reasonable estimate of
potential losses in the event of a negative outcome can be made
at this time.  

In July 2006, the trial court denied the company's demurrer and
motion to strike and the company has filed a writ to the Court
of Appeal for review of this decision.  

In November 2006, the Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to
show cause why the relief the company requested should not be
granted.  

Oral arguments have been concluded and the company is awaiting
the court's decision, according to the company's May 2, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Woodland Hills, California-based 21st Century Insurance Group --
http://www.21st.com-- is a direct-to-consumer provider of  
personal auto insurance.


99c ONLY: Continues to Face Labor-Related Litigation in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
99c Only Stores remains a defendant in a purported class action
that was filed in the Ventura County Superior Court in
California, alleging labor-related violations.

The suit, "Vargas v. 99c Only Stores," was filed on June 19,
2006.  Joanna Vargas filed the suit was as a putative class
action against the company and is seeking to represent its
California retail non-exempt employees.

The lawsuit alleges non-payment of wages, non-payment of
overtime wages, failure to provide or pay for meal or rest
breaks, and associated claims.

It seeks compensatory, special and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief.

The company has responded to the complaint and denied all
material allegations therein, according to the company's April
26, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006.

99 Cents Only Stores -- http://www.99only.com/-- is a deep-
discount retailer of consumable general merchandise.


99c ONLY: Seeks Stay of Calif. "Washington" Labor Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
99c Only Stores seeks to have proceedings stayed in a purported
class action that was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court in California against the company, alleging labor-related
violations.

The suit, "Washington v. 99c Only Stores," was filed on Oct. 31,
2006.  The plaintiff, Chantelle Washington, filed the putative
class action against the company seeking to represent its
California retail non-exempt cashier employees.

The lawsuit alleges the failure to provide or pay for meal or
rest breaks and associated claims.  It seeks compensatory
damages and/or penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as
equitable relief, attorney fees and interest.

The company has responded to the complaint and filed a demurrer
asserting that this action should be stayed pending the
resolution of the class action, "Vargas v. 99c Only Stores,"
according to the company's April 26, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2006.

99 Cents Only Stores -- http://www.99only.com/-- is a deep-
discount retailer of consumable general merchandise.


ALASKA: Tours Operators Sue to Keep Sales Information Secret
------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Southeast Alaska tour operators have sued the state,
claiming a cruise ship initiative passed by voters last year
violates their rights, Associated Press reports.

In the lawsuit filed Friday in Sitka Superior Court, the
plaintiffs challenge part of the law that requires them to
disclose tour-commission information, particularly where it
stipulates that cruise ship company disclose the commission it
receives or the percentage of the total sale, when the cruise
line promotes a tour.

Karen Hess, one of the tour operators, said that she's being
required to do something that no other business owner is
required to do.  For her, that's discrimination.

On May 5, Judge Larry Zervos of Sitka Superior Court granted a
temporary restraining order to stop the law from taking effect
for 10 days.  He also scheduled a hearing 8:30 a.m. Friday for
testimonies on extending the order.

Based on the news, lawmakers were to take up House Bill 217,
sponsored by Rep. Lindsey Holmes, Democratic Anchorage, which
would not force commissions to be disclosed unless they were
more than 10 percent of the cost of the total sale and also, it
would only require cruise lines to declare that other onshore
tours were available and provide contact information for
visitors centers.

Other plaintiffs are Sitka Tours owner John Litten, Gary C.
Danielson, president of White Pass and Yukon Route; Steve and
Gayla Hites of Skagway Street Car; Tom Tougas of Independent
Coach Tours and 4 Seasons Marine Services in Juneau; Shane and
Janis Horton of Chilkoot Lake Tours in Haines; Ken Dole of PM
Air in Ketchikan; John Dunlap of Allen Marine Tours in Sitka and
Tory Korn of Cape Fox Tours in Ketchikan.


ALLSTATE CORP: Court Intends to Junk EEOC I, Romero I Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
The judge in a consolidated class action in relation to The
Allstate Corp.'s agency program reorganization in 1999 has
indicated he intends to dismiss most or all of the claims
asserted in the suit.

The reorganization-related matters include:

     -- a lawsuit filed in December 2001 by the U.S. Equal
        Employment Opportunity Commission alleging retaliation
        under federal civil rights laws (the EEOC I suit); and

     -- a class action filed in August 2001 by former employee
        agents, alleging retaliation and age discrimination
        under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),
        breach of contract and ERISA violations (the Romero I
        suit).  

In March 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I
litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that,
among other things, certified classes of agents, including a
mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes
of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release
is voidable at the option of the release signer.

The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must
return to Allstate "any and all benefits received by the [agent]
in exchange for signing the release."  The court also stated
that, "on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for
claims of age discrimination."  

The EEOC and plaintiffs asked the court to clarify and/or
reconsider its memorandum and order and on January 16, 2007, the
judge denied their request.  On March 21, 2007, the judge
entered a memorandum and order tentatively indicating that he
intends to dismiss most or all of the claims asserted in the
consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation.  The case otherwise
remains pending.  


ALLSTATE CORP: Court Might Junk ERISA Suit Related to Shakeup
-------------------------------------------------------------
The judge presiding in an Employee Retirement Income Security
Act violations suit in relation to the reorganization of The
Allstate Corp. in 1999 has indicated he intends to dismiss most
or all of the claims in the suit.

Allstate is defending certain matters relating to the Company's
agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  

These matters include:

     (1) a lawsuit filed in December 2001 by the U.S. Equal
         Employment Opportunity Commission alleging retaliation
         under federal civil rights laws (the EEOC I suit); and

     (2) a class action filed in August 2001 by former employee
         agents, alleging retaliation and age discrimination
         under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),
         breach of contract and ERISA violations (the Romero I
         suit);

On March 21, 2007, the judge entered a memorandum and order
tentatively indicating that he intends to dismiss most or all of
the claims asserted in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I
litigation.  The case otherwise remains pending.  

     (3) The EEOC also filed another lawsuit in October 2004
         alleging age discrimination with respect to a policy
         limiting the rehire of agents affected by the agency
         program reorganization (the EEOC II suit).  

In EEOC II, in October 2006, the court granted partial summary
judgment to the EEOC.  Although the court did not determine that
the Company was liable for age discrimination under the ADEA, it
determined that the rehire policy resulted in a disparate
impact, reserving for trial the determination on whether the
Company had reasonable factors other than age to support the
rehire policy.  

The Company's petitions for interlocutory review of the trial
court's summary judgment order were granted.  The Company's
interlocutory appeal is now pending in the Court of Appeals for
the 8th Circuit.  

     (4) The Company is also defending a certified class action
         filed by former employee agents who terminated their
         employment prior to the agency program reorganization.  
         These plaintiffs have asserted breach of contract and
         Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims.

A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including
a worker classification issue.  

These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the
Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent
independent contractors treated as employees for benefit
purposes.  This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial
court, was the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was
reversed and remanded to the trial court in April 2005.  

On March 21, 2007, the trial judge entered a memorandum and
order tentatively indicating that he intends to dismiss most or
all of the claims asserted in this case.  

In all of these various matters, plaintiffs seek compensatory
and punitive damages, and equitable relief.  


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: No Ruling Yet in Lawsuit Over Suredeposit  
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Franklin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas has yet to rule
on a motion for summary judgment filed by Associated Estates  
Realty Corp. in a suit over its Suredeposit program.

On or about April 14, 2002, Melanie and Kyle Kopp commenced an
action against the company in the Franklin County, Ohio Court of
Common Pleas seeking undetermined damages, injunctive relief and
class action certification.  This case arose out of the
company's Suredeposit program.  

The Suredeposit program allows cash short prospective residents
to purchase a bond in lieu of paying a security deposit.  The
bond serves as a fund to pay those resident obligations that
would otherwise have been funded by the security deposit.  

Plaintiffs allege that the non-refundable premium paid for the
bond is a disguised form of security deposit, which is otherwise
required to be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-
Tenant Act.   

They further allege that certain pet deposits and other
nonrefundable deposits required by the company are similarly
security deposits that must be refundable in accordance with
Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act.  

On or about Jan. 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification.  The company subsequently filed a motion
for summary judgment.   

Both motions are pending before the court, according to the
company's May 1 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2006.


ATLAS VAN: Ill. Lawsuit Alleges Racketeering Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Van Lines, Inc. is named lead defendant in an antitrust
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Illinois.  The suit accuses movers of
reaping hundreds of millions of dollars by inflating and fixing
fuel surcharges and misrepresenting them as "costs."

Also sued are:

     -- Atlas World Group, Inc.;  
     -- Allied Van Lilnes, Inc.;  
     -- North American Van Lines, Inc.;  
     -- Sirva, Inc.;  
     -- Sirva World Wide, Inc.;  
     -- Mayflower Transit, LLC;  
     -- United Van Lines, LLC;  
     -- Unigroup, Inc.;  
     -- Bekins Van Lines, LLC;  
     -- Wheaton Van Lines, Inc.; and  
     -- American Moving and Storage Association, Inc.

Plaintiffs Gary and Laurel Moad bring this action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on their own
behalf and on behalf of all persons who purchased "Household
Goods Moving Services" from defendants or any of their
subsidiaries, during the period January 2002 through the
present, and were overcharged as a result of defendants having
artificially inflated, fixed, fraudulently misrepresented,
and/or otherwise set and manipulated an illegal fuel surcharge.

Common questions of law and fact common that the purported class
raises, include:

     (a) whether defendants have engaged in a scheme to
         improperly and unlawfully inflate the prices charged to
         their customers;

     (b) whether defendant have engaged in mail and wire fraud;

     (c) whether defendants have engaged in a pattern of
         racketeering activity;

     (d) whether the alleged Enterprise is an enterprise within
         the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4);

     (e) whether defendants' conducted or participated in the
         affairs of the Enterprise through a pattern of
         racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C.
         1962(c);

     (f) whether defendants' overt and/or predicate acts in
         violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) proximately cause injury
         to plaintiffs' and class members' business or property;

     (g) whether defendants' fraudulently concealed their
         scheme;

     (h) whether defendants have breached their implied duty of
         good faith and fair dealing;

     (i) whether defendants violated 18 U.S.C. 1962(d);

     (j) whether defendants directed, controlled, or agreed to
         facilitate the fraudulent scheme being perpetrated by
         the RICO enterprise;

     (k) whether the rates, rules and practices related to the
         transportation of household goods were "reasonable;"

     (m) whether defendants charged rates that exceed the
         applicable rate for transportation or service contained
         in a tariff published under 49 U.S.C. Section13702;

     (n) whether defendants engaged in a combination or
         conspiracy among themselves to unlawfully fix, peg,
         raise, maintain, and/or stabilize fuel surcharge prices
         charged for interstate moves within the U.S.;

     (o) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in the
         complaint, and the nature and character of the acts
         performed by defendants in furtherance of the
         conspiracy;

     (p) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section 1 of
         the Sherman Act;

     (q) whether the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
         Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 ct.al., and
         similar deceptive trade practices acts of the various
         states, has been violated;

     (r) whether the fuel surcharge agreed to and implemented by
         defendants was unlawful;

     (s) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the fuel
         surcharge prices charged for interstate moves within
         the United States during the class period;

     (t) whether the conduct of defendants, as alleged in the
         complaint, caused damages to the plaintiffs and the
         other members of the class; and

     (u) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and other members of the class.

Plaintiffs pray that:

     -- the court determine that this action may be maintained
        as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- that the court certify the class as "all individuals or
        entities (excluding governmental entities, defendants,
        and defendants' parents, predecessors, subsidiaries,
        affiliates, agents and co-conspirators) who purchased
        Household Good Moving Services for interstate shipments
        directly from any of the defendants, defendants' co-
        conspirators, or defendants' predecessors, subsidiaries,
        affiliates or agents, at any time during the period
        within four years prior to the filing of this action;

     -- as to Count One, the court adjudge and decree that the
        contract combination and conspiracy alleged herein is a
        per se unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of
        Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     -- as to Count Two, and in the alternative, the court
        adjudge and decree that the contract, combination and
        conspiracy alleged in the complaint resulted in charges
        that exceeded the applicable rate for transportation or
        service contained in a tariff under 49 U.S.C. Section
        13702;

     -- the court adjudge and decree that defendants' conduct
        alleged in the complaint violates Section 1962(c) and
        (d) of RICO and breached their contractual obligation of
        good faith and fair dealing;

     -- the court preliminarily and permanently enjoins
        defendants and all persons acting under, in concert
        with, or for them, from continuing such conduct;

     -- the court orders defendants to pay treble the amount of
        damages suffered by plaintiffs and the class as a result
        of their violations of RICO and antitrust laws;

     -- judgment be entered against defendants, jointly and
        severally, an in favor of plaintiffs and the class for
        damages as allowed by law in an amount determined to
        have been sustained by them;

     -- the court award plaintiffs and the class actual economic
        damages equal to the amount defendants have procured
        through imposition and collection of "fuel surcharges"
        plus interest at the maximum rate permitted under the
        Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
        Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 ct.al., and similar deceptive trade
        practices acts of the various states;

     -- the court award plaintiffs and the class punitive
        damages pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
        Deceptive trade practices of the various states;

     -- the court award plaintiffs and the class attorneys' fees
        and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
        as permitted by law; and

     -- the court award plaintiffs and the class such other
        further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ea4

The suit is "Moad et al. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-02506," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq.
          Chavez Law Firm P.C.
          28 North First St., Suite 2
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Phone: (630) 232-4480
          E-mail: gkeg4@aol.com

          - and -

          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          Stephen William Fung, Esq.
          Craig S. Mielke, Esq.
          Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, LLC
          28 North First St., Suite 2
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Phone: (630) 232-6333
          E-mail: rmf@foote-meyers.com or sfung@foote-meyers.com
                  or csm@foote-meyers.com


AVON PRODUCTS: Fla. Court Dismisses Marketing Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
dismissed with prejudice the suit, "Roqueta v. Avon Products,
Inc., et al."

The case is a purported class action commenced in April 2005 in
the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The action seeks general damages, special damages and punitive
damages for alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and Florida statutes regarding
misleading advertisements, and for negligent and fraudulent
misrepresentation.  

The purported class includes "all persons who have purchased
skin care products from the Defendant that have been falsely
advertised to have an 'anti-cellulite' or cellulite reducing
effect."  The company removed the action to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida and moved to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.

In August 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff's claims for
negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, with prejudice.  The
court also dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims but granted
plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, which she has done.  

In July 2006, the court issued an order denying a motion by the
plaintiff to certify this action as a class action.  

In March 2007, the court issued an order dismissing this action
with prejudice.

The suit is "Roqueta v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., Case No.  
1:05-cv-21315-PAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Patricia A. Seitz with
referral to Judge Chris M. McAliley.

Representing the plaintiffs is Benjamin Raul Alvarez of Alvarez  
Eljaiek & Rodriguez, PL, 2601 S Bayshore Drive, Suite 700,  
Miami, FL 33133, Phone: 305-444-5885, Fax: 444-8986.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Jude Christopher Cooper of Wasserstrom Weinreb &  
         Wealcatch, Wachovia Center - Penthouse, 1909 Tayler  
         Street, Hollywood, FL 33021, Phone: 954-922-3240, Fax:
         922-3431, E-mail: jude@hollywoodcounsel.com; and

     (2) Christopher Rebel Jude Pace of Weil Gotshal & Manges,
         1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200, Miami, FL 33131,  
         Phone: 305-577-3100, Fax: 374-7159, E-mail:
         christopher.pace@weil.com; and

     (3) Jeffrey Clark Schneider of Tew Cardenas, LLP, Four  
         Seasons Tower, 1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor,  
         Miami, FL 33131-3407, Phone: 305-536-1112, Fax: 536-
         1116, E-mail: jcs@tewlaw.com.


AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. asked the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District Court of New York to dismiss a consolidated
class action filed against it and certain other defendants over
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security  
Act.

In October 2005, the company reported the filing of class
actions for alleged violations of ERISA in actions entitled:

      -- "John Rogati v. Andrea Jung, et al.;" and

      -- "Carolyn Jane Perry v. Andrea Jung, et al."  

The cases were subsequently consolidated and a consolidated
complaint for alleged violations of ERISA was filed in the
consolidated action in December 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption: "In re
Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File Number 05-CV-
06803," naming the company, certain officers, its Retirement
Board and others.  

The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
Avon Products, Inc. Personal Savings Account Plan and the Avon
Products, Inc. Personal Retirement Account Plan and on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan "for whose individual
accounts the Plan purchased or held an interest in Avon  
Products, Inc. . . . common stock from Feb. 20, 2004 to the
present."  

The consolidated complaint asserts breaches of fiduciary duties
and prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA arising out
of, inter alia, alleged false and misleading public statements
regarding the company's business made during the class period
and investments in company stock by the Plan and Plan
participants.  

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, asserting that it failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, and the plaintiffs have
opposed that motion.

The company reported no development in the case at its May 1,
2007 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master  
File Number 05-CV-06803," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joel P. Laitman of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti,
         P.C., 19 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10038, Phone:
         (212) 964-0046; and

     (2) Brian Philip Murray of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275  
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:  
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
         bmurray@murrayfrank.com.  

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Peter C. Hein Wachtell of Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West  
         52nd Street, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-403-1237,  
         Fax: (212) 403-2000, E-mail: PCHein@wlrk.com; and

    (ii) Melissa C. Rodriguez of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP,  
         (New York), 101 Park Avenue, 37th Floor, New York, NY  
         10178, Phone: 212 309-6394, Fax: 212 309-6273, E-mail:
         mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com.


AVON PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Calif. Suit by Sales Reps.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products Inc. remains a defendant in a nationwide class
action, "Blakemore, et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al.,"
which is pending in the Superior Court of the state of
California, Los Angeles County.  

Commenced in March 2003, the purported class action was filed on
behalf of Avon sales representatives who, "since March 24, 1999,
received products from Avon they did not order, thereafter
returned the unordered products to Avon, and did not receive
credit for those returned products."   

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, restitution and injunctive relief for alleged unjust
enrichment and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code.  

The company filed demurrers to the original complaint and three
subsequent amended complaints, asserting that they failed to
state a cause of action.   

The Superior Court sustained the company demurrers and dismissed
plaintiffs' causes of action except for the unjust enrichment
claim of one plaintiff.  

The court also struck plaintiffs' class allegations.  Plaintiffs
sought review of these decisions by the Court of Appeal of the
State of California and, in May 2005, the Court of Appeal
reinstated the dismissed causes of action and the class
allegations.  

In January 2006, the company filed a motion to strike the
plaintiffs' asserted nationwide class.  In February 2006, the
trial court declined to grant the motion, but instead certified
the issue to the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory basis.  

In April 2006, the Court of Appeal denied the company's motion
and instructed the trial court to consider the issue at a
subsequent point in the proceedings.

The company believes that this action is a dispute over
purported customer service issues and is an inappropriate
subject for consideration as a class action.  It did not report
any development in the case at its May 1, 2007 form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Blakemore et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., B174825,  
B175973" filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County under Judge Wendell Mortimer.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey Huron of the Huron Law  
Group, 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA  
90067, Phone: 310-284-3400, Fax: 310-772-0037, Web site:  
http://www.huronlaw.com.  


AVON PRODUCTS: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products Inc. continues to face a lawsuit filed by a
retired employee of Avon who, before retirement, had been on
paid disability leave for approximately 19 years.

The suit, "Kendall v. Employees' Retirement Plan of Avon
Products and the Retirement Board" is a purported class action
commenced in April 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  

The initial complaint alleged that the Employees' Retirement
Plan of Avon Products violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and, as a consequence, unlawfully reduced the
amount of plaintiff's pension.

Plaintiff sought a reformation of the Retirement Plan and
recalculation of benefits under the terms of the Retirement
Plan, as reformed for plaintiff and for the purported class.  In
November 2003, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
additional Retirement Plan violations of ERISA and seeking,
among other things, elimination of a social security offset in
the Retirement Plan.

The purported class includes "all Plan participants, whether
active, inactive or retired, and their beneficiaries and/or
Estates, with one hour of service on or after Jan. 1, 1976,
whose accrued benefits, pensions or survivor's benefits have
been or will be calculated and paid based on the Plan's unlawful
provisions."

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which motion is still pending before the
court, according to the company's May 1, 2007 form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.


AVON PRODUCTS: N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal Motion Opposed
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against
Avon Products Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York is opposing a motion by the company to
dismiss the suit.

In August 2005, the company reported the filing of class action
complaints for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
in actions:

     -- "Nilesh Patel v. Avon Products, Inc. et al.," and

     -- "Michael Cascio v. Avon Products, Inc. et al.,"         

which subsequently have been consolidated.

A consolidated amended class action complaint for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the
consolidated action in December 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Master File Number 05-CV-
06803) under the caption "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities
Litigation naming Avon, an officer and two officer/directors."

The consolidated action, brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Feb. 3, 2004 and Sept. 20, 2005,
seeks damages for alleged false and misleading statements
"concerning Avon's operations and performance in China, the U.S.
. . . and Mexico."

The consolidated amended complaint also asserts that during the
class period certain officers and directors sold shares of the
company's common stock.  

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint, asserting, among
other things, that it failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, and the plaintiffs have opposed that motion.

The company reported no development in the case at its May 1,
2007 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation,  
Case No. 1:05-cv-06803-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A.  
Kaplan.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Brian Philip Murray of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275  
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:  
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:  
         bmurray@murrayfrank.com; and  

     (2) Joel P. Laitman of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti,  
         P.C., 19 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10038, Phone:  
         (212) 964-0046.

Representing the defendants is Peter C. Hein of Wachtell,  
Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019,  
Phone: 212-403-1237, Fax: (212) 403-2000, E-mail:  
PCHein@wlrk.com.


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Accused of Withholding Clients' Funds
----------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP filed a class action
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against The Bank of
Nova Scotia.

The suit is filed on behalf of persons who have maintained a
bank account with defendant and have:

     (1) made one or more deposits into their bank account at
         any time between May 4th, 2001 and May 4th, 2007;
         and

     (2) were not able to access their funds immediately upon
         such deposit because the defendant held their funds.

The law firms are seeking to pursue remedies against the
Defendant for common law breach of contract, breach of common
law duty/agency, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligence.

Generally, the statement of claim alleges that the Defendant
wrongfully withheld certain of its clients' funds on deposit
with Defendant, i.e., checks, wire transfers, or other deposits,
after the Defendant had already received payment on such deposit
(such payment received from the source or payor financial
institution in respect of such deposit).

For more information, contact:

          Henry Juroviesky, Esq.
          Juroviesky and Ricci LLP
          Phone: (416) 481-0718
          Fax: (416) 481-1792
          Email: info@jrclassactions.com


BERNINI INC: Faces Nev. Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernini Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Najat Sanad, Ousman Gueye and Abdel Kader Elouti
filed this complaint on behalf of all current and former Nevada-
based employees having a title of Inside Sales Clerks and/or
other similarly designated titles, who have worked for Defendant
Bernini within the last four years.

This complaint is brought on behalf of all current and former
employees of Bernini nationwide, who are similarly situated
pursuant to the FLSA Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), et, seq.,
which provides that all non-exempt employees are to receive
compensation at a rate of not less than one and one-half times
the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours
in a work week, and that accurate records be kept of hours and
compensation.

The complaint alleges that for at least three years prior to the
filing of the complaint, defendants have willfully committed
widespread violations of the FLSA by failing to pay plaintiffs
and nationwide FLSA collective plaintiffs lawful minimum wage
and overtime hours, and by failure to make, keep and preserve
accurate records required by FLSA, including records sufficient
to accurately determine the wages and hours of employment
pertaining to plaintiffs and nationwide FLSA collective
plaintiffs.

Further, it alleges that defendants intentionally and willfully
misclassified (and continue to misclassify) non-exempt Inside
Sales Clerks and/or equivalent positions as salaried exempt
employees. Defendants are liable for failing to properly
compensate Plaintiffs, Nevada Class Members, and Nationwide FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs for minimum wage and overtime worked.

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

     (a) whether the Nevada Class Members qualify for exempt
         status under the inside or outside salesperson
         exemption;

     (b) whether the Nevada Class Members qualify for exempt
         status under the administrative exemption;

     (c) the extent to which Defendants analyzed the duties and
         responsibilities of the Nevada Class Members before
         classifying them as exempt;

     (d) the number of hours per week and per day Nevada Class
         Members were/are expected to work;

     (e) defendants' expectations as to the duties and
         responsibilities of the Nevada Class Members and
         whether these expectations are reasonable under the
         circumstances;

     (f) whether the various tasks performed by the Nevada Class
         Members qualify as exempt or non-exempt tasks;

     (g) the number of denied meal and rest periods for Nevada
         Class Members over the relevant time period and the
         amount of pay owing and unpaid;

     (h) whether Defendants' withholding of overtime pay was
         willful;

     (i) whether Defendants failed to keep adequate records for
         the members of the Illegal Records Subclass pursuant to
         NRS 608.115 and the consequence for such statutory
         violations if Defendants did not;

     (j) whether Defendants' conduct in reducing the commissions
         of Nevada Class Members was unlawful and/or unjust;

     (k) whether members of the Nevada Class and Subclasses are
         entitled to compensatory damages, and if so, the means
         of measuring such damages;

     (l) whether the members of the Nevada Class and Subclasses
         are entitled to injunctive relief;

     (m) whether the members of the Nevada Class and Subclasses
         are entitled to restitution;

     (n) whether the members of the Nevada Class and Subclasses
         are entitled to liquidated damages;

     (o) whether Defendants are liable for pre-judgment
         interest; and

     (p) whether Defendants are liable for attorneys' fees and
         costs.

Plaintiffs pray:

     -- that the Court issue an Order certifying the Nevada
        Class and Nevada Subclasses herein, appointing the named
        Plaintiff as representative of all others similarly
        situated, and appointing the law firm representing the
        named Plaintiff as counsel for the members of the Nevada
        Class and Subclasses and Nationwide FLSA Collective
        Plaintiffs;

     -- As to the First Cause of Action for Overtime Pay (for
        Nevada Overtime Subclass A):
        
          * for payment of overtime pay;
          * for interest as authorized by law;
          * for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and
            costs;

     -- as to the Second Cause of Action for Restitution of
        Overtime (for Nevada Overtime Subclass A):

          * for restitution of overtime pay;
          * for interest as authorized by Law;
          * for an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs;

     -- as to the Third Cause of Action for Restitution of
        Overtime (for Nevada Overtime Subclass B):

          * for restitution of overtime pay;
          * for interest as authorized by law;
          * for an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs;

     -- as to the Fourth Cause of Action for Overtime Wages (for
        Nevada Overtime Subclass C):

          * for payment of overtime wages;
          * for interest as authorized by law;
          * for an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs;

     -- as to the Fifth Cause of Action for Restitution of
        Overtime (for Nevada Overtime Subclass C):

          * for restitution of overtime pay;
          * for interest as authorized by law;
          * for an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

     -- as to the Sixth Cause of Action for Meal Period
        Violations on Behalf of the Nevada Class:

          * for payment of meal period pay;
          * for interest as authorized by law;
          * for an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs;

     -- as to the Seventh Cause of Action for Rest Period
        Violations:

          * for payment of rest period pay;
          * for interest as authorized by law;
          * for an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs;

     -- as to the Eighth Cause of Action for Illegal Record
        Keeping on Behalf of the Nevada Class:

          * for penalties as authorized by law;
          * for injunctive relief to ensure Defendants'
            compliance with the law;
          * for an award of costs and reasonable attorneys'
            fees;

     -- as to the Ninth Cause of Action for Conversion:

          * for the return of all sums wrongfully converted;
          * for interest as authorized by law;
          * for an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs;

     -- as to the Tenth Cause of Action for Violation of the
        FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.:

          * for Designation of this action as a collective
            action on behalf of the Nationwide FLSA Collective
            Plaintiffs (asserting FLSA claims) and prompt
            issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
            216(b) to all similarly situated members of the FLSA
            Opt-In Class, apprising them of the pendency of this
            action, and permitting them to assert timely FLSA
            claims in this action by filing individual Consent
            to Sue forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b);

          * judgment against Defendants for an amount equal to
            the named Plaintiffs and the Nationwide FLSA
            Collective's unpaid back wages at the applicable
            overtime;

          * an equal amount to the overtime damages as
            liquidated damages;

          * all costs and attorney's fees incurred prosecuting
            this claim;

          * an award of prejudgment interest (to the extent
            liquidated damages are not awarded);

          * leave to add additional plaintiffs by motion, the
            filing of written consent forms, or any other method
            approved by the Court; and

          * such further relief as the Court deems just and
            equitable.

     -- as to the Eleventh Cause of Action for Injunctive
        Relief:

          * for an accounting, under administration of
            Plaintiffs and/or the receiver and subject to Court
            review, to determine the amount to be returned by
            Defendants, and the amounts to be refunded to
            members of the Nevada Class and Subclasses who are
            owed monies by Defendants;

          * for an Order requiring Defendants to identify each
            of the members of the Nevada Class and Subclasses by
            name, home address, and home telephone number;

          * for an Order requiring Defendants to make full
            restitution and payment to its present and former
            employees;

          * for the creation of an administrative process
            wherein each injured member of the Class and
            Subclasses may submit a claim in order to receive
            his/her money;

          * for all other appropriate declaratory and equitable
            relief;
          * for interest to the extent permitted by law;
          * for an award of attorneys' fees and costs incurred
            in the investigation, filing and prosecution of this
            action and any other applicable provision of law;

     -- As to the Twelfth Cause of Action for Declaratory
        Relief:

          * for a Declaration of the respective rights and
            responsibilities of the parties;
          * that Defendants be ordered to pay and judgment be
            entered for to Plaintiffs;
          * for reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred;
        
        and

     -- for such other and further relief that the Court may
        deem just and proper.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ea7

The suit is "Sanad et al. v. Bernini, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-00587-PMP-GWF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
U.S. District Court of Nevada, under Judge Philip M. Pro with
referral to Judge George W. Foley, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jesse M. Sbaih, Esq.
          Jesse Sbaih & Associates, Ltd.
          701 N. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 200
          Henderson, NV 89074
          Phone: (702) 990-3489
          Fax: (702) 990-3498
          E-mail: jsbaih@sbaihlaw.com


BEST BUY: Still Faces Race, Sex Discrimination Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. remains a defendant in a purported sex and
race discrimination class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On Dec. 8, 2005, the suit, "Jasmen Holloway, et al. v Best Buy  
Co., Inc.," was filed, alleging that the company discriminates  
against women and minority individuals on the basis of gender,  
race, color and/or national origin with respect to the company's  
employment policies and practices.  

The action seeks an end to discriminatory policies and  
practices, an award of back and front pay, punitive damages and  
injunctive relief, including rightful place relief for all class  
members.

The company reported no development in the case at its May 2,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 3, 2007.

The suit is "Holloway et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No.  
3:05-cv-05056-MEJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of California under Judge Maria-Elena James.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joshua Konecky, Esq.
         Clint J. Brayton, Esq.
         Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
         W.H. Hank Willson, IV Esq.
         Schneider & Wallace
         180 Montgomery St., Suite 2000
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: (415) 421-7100
         Fax: (415) 421-7105
         E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
         cbrayton@schneiderwallace.com
         tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
         wwillson@schneiderwallace.com

              - and -

         Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
         James M. Finberg, Esq.
         Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
         Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
         Gena E. Wiltsek, Esq.
         Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery St., 30th Floor,     
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415/956-1000
         Fax: 415-956-1008
         E-mail: ecervantez@lchb.com
         JFinberg@lchb.com  
         blee@lchb.com


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Class Certification Mulled in Calif. Labor Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
No determination with respect to class certification has been
made in two purported class actions against Domino's Pizza, LLC
that were coordinated in Orange County Superior Court.

The suits are related to employment practices and wage and hour
complaints brought by former employees.

On June 10, 2003, a suit, "Vega v. Domino's Pizza LLC," was
filed, in Orange County Superior Court, alleging that the
company failed to provide meal and rest breaks to the company's
employees.  No determination with respect to class certification
has been made.

On Aug. 2, 2006, "Roselio v. Domino's Pizza LLC," was filed, in
Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging similar claims as
set out in the Vega lawsuit.  

On Feb. 14, 2007, the two actions were coordinated in Orange
County Superior Court.  No determination with respect to class
certification has been made according to the company's May 2,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 25, 2007.

Domino's Pizza, LLC on the Net: http://www.dominos.com/.


E.I. DU PONT: Faces Suits in W.Va., N.J. Over PFOA Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. is a defendant in three purported
class actions pending in West Virginia and New Jersey with
regards to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination,
according to the company's May 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.   

In the second quarter of 2006, three purported class actions
were filed alleging that drinking water had been contaminated by
PFOA in excess of 0.05 ppb due to alleged releases from certain
company plants.

One of these cases was filed in West Virginia state court on
behalf of customers of the Parkersburg City Water District, but
was removed on DuPont's motion to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia.  The other two purported
class actions were filed in New Jersey.

One of the New Jersey cases was filed in federal court on behalf
of individuals who allegedly drank water contaminated by
releases from DuPont's Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New
Jersey.  

The second was filed in state court on behalf of customers
serviced primarily by the Pennsville Township Water Department
and was removed to New Jersey federal district court on DuPont's
motion.

The New Jersey cases have been combined for purposes of
discovery and the complaints have been amended to allege that
drinking water had been contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.04
ppb.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com/--  
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.


E.I. DU PONT: Ia. Court Might Rule on Teflon Suit Status in 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on the issue of whether several lawsuits filed against
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. in Iowa federal court over the
company's cookware with Teflon non-stick can proceed as class
actions is expected in 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, 23 intrastate class actions have been
filed on behalf of consumers who have purchased cookware with
Teflon non-stick coating in federal district courts against the
company.

The actions were filed on behalf of consumers in Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.  

Two of the 23 actions were filed in California.  By order of the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, all of these actions
have been combined for coordinated and consolidated pre-trial
proceedings in federal district court for the Southern District
of Iowa.

The proceedings in this court will include the central question
of whether these cases can proceed as class actions.  A ruling
on this issue is expected in 2007.

The actions allege that DuPont violated state laws by engaging
in deceptive and unfair trade practices by failing "to disclose
to consumers that products containing Teflon were or are
potentially harmful to consumers" and that DuPont has liability
based on state law theories of negligence and strict liability.

The actions allege that Teflon contained or released harmful and
dangerous substances; including a chemical (PFOA) alleged to
have been determined to be "likely" to cause cancer in humans.

The actions seek unspecified monetary damages for consumers who
purchased cooking products containing Teflon, as well as the
creation of funds for medical monitoring and independent
scientific research, attorneys' fees and other relief.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com/--  
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.


E.I. DU PONT: Canada Teflon Suit Status Ruling Expected in 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on the issue of whether several lawsuits filed against
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. in the Superior Court for the
Province of Quebec, Canada over the company's cookware with
Teflon non-stick can proceed as class actions is expected in
2007.

In December 2005, a motion was filed by a single named plaintiff
in the case, seeking authorization to institute a class action
on behalf of all Quebec consumers who have purchased or used
kitchen items, household appliances or food-packaging containing
Teflon or Zonyl non-stick coatings.  A ruling on this motion is
expected from the Court in 2007.  

The plaintiff withdrew its 2006 motion to include all Canadian
consumers, not just Quebec residents, of these products as part
of the class.  

Damages are not quantified, but are alleged to include the cost
of replacement products as well as one hundred dollars per class
member as exemplary damages, according to the company's May 2,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.   

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com/--  
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.


FANNIE MAE: Investors Seek Class Certification for D.C. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated shareholder lawsuit, "In Re:
Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01639," are
seeking class-action status for the case, which is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae).

Beginning on Sept. 23, 2004, 13 separate complaints were filed
by holders of the company's securities against Fannie Mae, as
well as certain of its former officers, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York and the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio.

The complaints in these lawsuits purport to have been made on
behalf of a class of plaintiffs consisting of purchasers of
Fannie Mae securities between April 17, 2001 and Sept. 21, 2004.

The complaints alleged that the company and certain of the
company's  officers, including Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard and Leanne Spencer, made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material facts in violation of the federal
securities laws. Plaintiffs' claims were based on findings
contained in the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight's (OFHEO) September 2004 interim report regarding its
findings to that date in its special examination of the
company's  accounting policies, practices and controls.

All of the cases were consolidated and/or transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on March 4, 2005 against the
company and former officers Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard and Leanne Spencer.

The court entered an order naming the Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio
as lead plaintiffs.  

The consolidated complaint generally made the same allegations
as the individually-filed complaints, which is that the company
and certain of its former officers made false and misleading
statements in violation of the federal securities laws in
connection with certain accounting policies and practices.

More specifically, the consolidated complaint alleged that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, largely
with respect to accounting statements that were inconsistent
with the GAAP requirements relating to hedge accounting and the
amortization of premiums and discounts.

Plaintiffs contend that the alleged fraud resulted in
artificially inflated prices for the company's common stock.
They seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other fees
and costs.

Discovery commenced in this action following the denial of the
motions to dismiss filed by the company and the former officer
defendants on Feb. 10, 2006.

On April 17, 2006, the plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action filed an amended consolidated complaint against the
company and former officers Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard and Leanne Spencer, that added purchasers of publicly
traded call options and sellers of publicly traded put options
to the putative class and sought to extend the end of the
putative class period from Sept. 21, 2004 to Sept. 27, 2005.

The company and the individual defendants filed motions to
dismiss addressing the extended class period and the deficiency
of the additional accounting allegations.

On Aug. 14, 2006, while those motions were still pending, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding KPMG LLP and
Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. as additional defendants and adding
allegations based on the May 2006 report issued by OFHEO and the
February 2006 report issued by Paul Weiss.

The company's answer to the second amended complaint was filed
on Jan. 16, 2007.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification on May 17, 2006 and briefing on the motion was
completed on March 12, 2007, according to the company's May 2,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-01639," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia under Judge Richard J. Leon.
  
Plaintiff firms named in the complaint are:  

          Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA, 2109
          Phone: 617.542.8300
          Fax: 617.230.0903
          E-mail: info@bermanesq.com
  
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,         
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone:  202.408.4600
          Fax: 202.408.4699
          E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com

               - and -
  
          Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A.
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street,  
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513.621.026
          Fax: 513.381.2375
          E-mail: wsbclaw@aol.com


FIRST PREMIER: Suit Alleges Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Premier Bank is facing a class-action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois over
alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Lead plaintiff Meredith L. Cunningham accuses the bank of
illegally gaining access to consumer credit reports to make
unsolicited offers of credit or mortgage refinancing.

The suit is "Cunningham v. First Premier Bank, Case No. 1:07-cv-
02498," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, under Judge Blanche M. Manning.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Alex Hageli, Esq.
          Law Office of Alex M. Hageli
          435 South Cleveland Avenue Suite 306
          Arlington Heights, IL 60005
          Phone: 847-630-5710
          E-mail: alex@hageli.com


FLORIDA ROCK: Faces Shareholder's Suit in Fla. Over Vulcan Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Rock Industries, Inc., and the members of its board of
directors were named in a purported shareholder class action
complaint filed in the Duval County Circuit Court on March 6,
2007 in relation to a merger agreement wherein Vulcan Materials
Co. would acquire the company.  

The suit, "Dillinger v. Florida Rock, et al., Case No. 16-20007-
CA-001906," seeks to enjoin the merger and alleges, among other
things, that the directors have breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the company's shareholders by attempting to sell the
company to Vulcan for an inadequate price, according to the
company's May 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.   

Florida Rock Industries, Inc. -- http://www.flarock.com/--  
operates in three segments: construction aggregates, concrete
products, and cement and calcium products.


FUNNY BONE: Class Status Sought for Suit Over December Raffle
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chad Johnson is now a defendant
in a lawsuit involving the Funny Bone Comedy Club in Newport,
The Cincinnati Post reports.

Plaintiffs suing Funny Bone Comedy Club in Newport have amended
their complaint, adding Chad Johnson as defendant, and are
seeking class-action status for their suit.

Thomas J. Monahan of Cincinnati initiated the lawsuit with Funny
Bone as the original defendant.  He sued the club for allegedly
reneging their word to give away a 2006 Lexus of Mr. Johnson, as
a giveaway as host of a comedy showcase, at a Dec. 19 raffle in
the club.

The amended suit filed Thursday in Campbell Circuit Court says
that Mr. Johnson unexpectedly gave his girlfriend the major
prize for the raffle he conducted at the club, a Lexus worth
about $40,000.  The club goers claim that their tickets were
supposed to entitle them to a chance of winning the alleged car.

The revised complaint also alleges that some of the club goers
who won in the raffle draw never received their prizes, like a
trip to the Pro Bowl in Hawaii.

Representing the plaintiffs:

          Eric C. Deters, Esq.
          5247 Madison Pike
          Independence, KY 41051
          Phone: 859-363-1900


INTERVOICE-BRITE INC: Seeks Stay in Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
InterVoice-Brite, Inc. filed a motion to stay discovery in
"David Barrie, et al. v. InterVoice-Brite, Inc., et al.; No. 3-
01CV1071-D," pending a 5th Circuit's decision on an appeal
against the certification of the suit.  The case is pending in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division.

Several related class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers
of common stock of Intervoice during the period from October 12,
1999 through June 6, 2000.

Plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into one
proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5 against the company as well as certain named current and
former officers and directors of Intervoice on behalf of the
alleged class members.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs claim that the company and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the
financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger
with Brite Voice Systems, Inc. and the alleged future business
projections of Intervoice.

Plaintiffs have asserted that these alleged statements resulted
in artificially inflated stock prices.

The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint because
it lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet
the pleading standards applicable to federal securities
litigation.  The Plaintiffs' appealed the dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which affirmed the
dismissal in part and reversed in part.  The 5th Circuit
remanded a limited number of issues for further proceedings in
the District Court.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice
stock during the Class Period between Oct. 12, 1999 and June 6,
2000.  On Nov. 14, 2006, the 5th Circuit granted the company's
petition to appeal the District Court's decision to grant
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

Based on the 5th Circuit's decision to accept the company's
appeal, the company filed a motion to stay further discovery
pending the 5th Circuit's decision on the merits of the
company's appeal.  Plaintiffs filed a brief opposing the
company's motion to stay further discovery, and the company
filed a reply brief in support of the company's motion.  

The company is in the process of continuing to produce documents
in response to the Plaintiffs' request for production while the
company awaits the District Court's decision on a motion for a
stay.  

The suit is "Barrie, et al. v. Intervoice Brite Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:01-cv-01071," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division under Judge Ed
Kinkeade.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
          Stanley Mandel & Iola
          3100 Monticello Ave, Suite 750
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Phone: 214/443-4301
          Fax: 214/443-0358
          E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com
   
          - and -

         Lauren M. Winston, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         San Francisco, 100 Pine St, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415/288-4545.  

Representing the defendants is:

          Timothy R. McCormick, Esq.
          Thompson & Knight
          1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 3300,
          Dallas, TX 75201-4693
          Phone: 214/969-1103
          Fax: 214/880-3253
          E-mail: timothy.mccormick@tklaw.com


KELLY SERVICES: Certification Hearing Held in Calif. Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc. remains the subject of a putative class
action brought on behalf of employees working in the State of
California.

The claims in the lawsuit relate to alleged misclassification of
personal attendants as exempt and entitled to overtime under
state law and alleged technical violations of a state law
pertaining to information furnished on employee pay stubs.

A hearing relating to plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was held on March 5, 2007 and the parties are awaiting the
decision of the state court with respect to the motion,
according to the company's May 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 1, 2007.   

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a  
global temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and
territories throughout the world.
     

LONE STAR: Shareholder Files Suit to Block U.S. Steel Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Lone Star Technologies, Inc. is facing a class action filed by a
shareholder opposing a merger agreement entered by the company
with U.S. Steel Corp.

Lone Star announced on March 29, 2007, that it had entered into
a definitive agreement under which U.S. Steel will acquire Lone
Star.

On March 29, 2007, Frank Capovilla, on behalf of himself and
holders of Lone Star's common stock, filed a purported
shareholder class action petition in the District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, under that court's docket number DC-07-
02979, against Lone Star and the individual members of the Board
of Directors.  

The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief related to
the company's potential acquisition by U.S Steel.  Specifically,
the petition alleges self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duties
in connection with Lone Star's Board of Directors' approval of
the merger.

The purported plaintiffs seek: a declaration that the merger
agreement is unenforceable; an injunction to enjoin the merger
from going forward; and the imposition of a constructive trust
in favor of the purported plaintiffs upon any benefits
improperly received by the defendants.


LOUISIANA: Three Colleges Receive $3.3M from $40M Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Southern University will share in a nearly $3.5 million fund
left from the settlement of a 1997 Mississippi River barge
accident, Louisiana Weekly reports.

According to Baton Rouge lawyer Walter Dumas, the lawyers
involved in the suit reached a unanimous decision to give what
was extra in a $40 million settlement of the suit to:

     -- Southern University, $2.3 million;

     -- Louisiana State University, nearly $700,000;

     -- Baton Rouge Community College, $345,000; and

     -- Baton Rouge Area Foundation, nearly $70,000.

The amounts were awarded to the schools at a presentation on
April 30.

The lawsuit originated in March 1997, when a barge owned by
Ingram Barge Co. overturned south of U.S. 190 Mississippi River
Bridge.  Gallons of toluene and benzene got spilled, harming
people's health, forcing some to leave their homes and close
their businesses.

The plaintiffs in the suit were awarded $40 million in damages.


MORTGAGE AMENITIES: Accused of Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mortgage Amenities Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
over alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Plaintiff James A. Zawacki accuses the company of illegally
gaining access to consumer credit reports to make unsolicited
offers of credit or mortgage refinancing.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated persons within the U.S. to whom Mortgage
Amenities sent or caused to be sent mailers on or after a date
two years prior to the filing of this action.

Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment against
defendant, including where appropriate:

     -- actual damages,
     -- statutory damages,
     -- punitive damages,
     -- attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action, and
     -- any other relief the court deems just and proper

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ea9

The suit is "Zawacki v. Mortgage Amenities Corp., Case No. 1:07-
cv-02501," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, under Judge William T. Hart.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Alex Hageli, Esq.
          Law Office of Alex M. Hageli
          435 South Cleveland Avenue Suite 306
          Arlington Heights, IL 60005
          Phone: 847-630-5710
          E-mail: alex@hageli.com


NEW ZEALAND: War Veterans File NZ$5B Agent Orange Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
War veterans planning to file a class action against the
government and ex-ministers have hired Australia's Slater and
Gordon to represent them in a case regarding exposure to the
lethal Agent Orange, Stuff.co.nz News.

Agent Orange is a defoliant used during the war in Southern
Vietnam to ruin the enemy's jungle cover and food crops as well.

The to-be defendants in the lawsuit are Prime Minister Helen
Clark and former PMs Geoffrey Palmer, Mike Moore, Jim Bolger and
Jenny Shipley, former ministers and governors general.

Based on the news, the lawsuit will claim that consecutive
governments and officials since 1962 were guilty of
"malfeasance" -- breaking the law and bringing harm to others
while in office -- and failed to provide duty of care to
veterans.

According to Defense Minister Phil Goff, two veterans'
organizations -- the Ex-Vietnam Services Association and the
Returned Services Association -- have reached a NZ$30M
settlement with the government last December, which also
included an apology from the prime minister and compensation.

He further said it was very strange that the Vietnam Veterans'
Action Group was launching this class action now, after veterans
had been consulted and their representatives had already reached
a settlement.  He's not convinced that they're acting in good
faith and strongly believes that the lawsuit will not succeed.


NICOR INC: Settles Objections to Ill. Cleanup Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor Inc. reached an agreement in principle to settle an
objection in the settlement of a lawsuit in relation to the
cleanup of a former manufactured gas plant site in Oak Park,
Illinois.

In December 2001, a purported class action was filed against
Exelon Corp., Commonwealth Edison Co. (ComEd) and Nicor Gas in
the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging, among other things,
that the cleanup of a former manufactured gas plant site in Oak
Park, Illinois was inadequate.  

Since then, additional lawsuits have been filed related to this
same former manufactured gas plant site.  These lawsuits seek,
in part, unspecified damages for property damage, nuisance, and
various personal injuries that allegedly resulted from exposure
to contaminants allegedly emanating from the site, injunctive
relief to compel the defendants to engage in various clean-up
activities and punitive damages.  

An agreement in principle to settle the purported class action
has been reached and, as of March 31, 2007, the company has a
$2.3 million liability recorded in connection with this matter.  

The proposed class action settlement was approved by the trial
court.  An appeal was filed by one objector.  In March 2007, the
company reached an agreement in principle to settle the
objector's claim.  


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Appeals Class Certification in Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Co. is appealing the certification of a
class in one of the lawsuits filed against it, which alleges
that the company, damaged plaintiffs as a result of its
services.

Some lawsuits or arbitrations have been filed, including:

     * "Ernest W. Warren and Dolores G. Warren, et al. v. Orkin
        Exterminating Co., Inc., et al.," and

     * "Francis D. Petsch, et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Co.,
        Inc., et al.,"

in which the plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class.  
The cases originate in Georgia and Florida.

In Warren, the Superior Court of Cobb County, Marietta, Georgia,
ruled in August 2006, certifying the class action against Orkin.
Orkin is appealing this ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Rollins, Inc. reported no development in the matter in its April
30 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Orkin, Inc. on the Net: http://www.orkin.com.


ORTHO-CLINICAL: Recalls Cardiac Markers Yielding False Results
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. of Paritan, New Jersey, has
initiated a voluntary, nationwide recall of two lots of a
diagnostic test used by physicians to aid in the diagnosis of
injury to heart muscle and/or heart attack because of shifts in
test results that could contribute to a missed diagnosis of
myocardial infarction.

The company initiated the voluntary recall of the VITROS
Immunodiagnostic Products Troponin I Reagent Pack, Lots 3151 and
3170, after a small number of clinical laboratories
administering the test reported shifts in quality control
results.

An investigation by Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics determined that
the potential existed for false negative troponin-I results at
very low levels of troponin elevation.  A false negative test
result would indicate that a person has not had a heart attack
or heart muscle injury when in fact they have.  Ortho-Clinical
Diagnostics is working to identify the root cause of the
reported issue.

The recall is limited to the VITROS Immunodiagnostic Products
Troponin I Reagent Pack, Lots 3151 and 3170 only.  Clinical labs
in possession of these lots have been contacted via phone, fax
and overnight mail by the company and instructed to (a)
discontinue use of this product and (b) notify healthcare
providers who ordered the test in recent weeks.  The identified
product lots were distributed to clinical labs in the U.S. and
outside the U.S. between January and March of 2007.  Replacement
product has been provided to clinical labs with the affected
product lots.

A troponin I test is usually ordered, along with other cardiac
tests, in the hospital to determine if a patient has had a heart
attack or injury to heart muscle.  The test, conducted using a
sample of the patient's blood, aids in the diagnosis of
myocardial injury or infarction.  The results of troponin I
tests should be used in conjunction with other diagnostic
information including other cardiac markers, ECG, clinical
observations and symptoms.

Ortho Clinical-Diagnostics has reported the action to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.  No injuries have been reported to
date.

Clinical laboratories with questions may contact the company at
1-800-421-3311.

Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product,
and/or quality problems should also be reported to the FDA's
MedWatch Program by phone: 1-800-FDA-1088; Fax: at 1-800-FDA-
0178; Mail: MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville,
MD 20852-9787, or on the MedWatch Web site at
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Faces Race, Age Bias Lawsuit in Ark.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Inc. continues to face a racial and age
discrimination class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas.

On Dec. 31, 2003, the company, together with ConAgra Poultry
Co., was served with a purported class action complaint filed by
Angela Goodwin, Gloria Willis, Johnny Gill, Greg Hamilton,
Nathan Robinson, Eddie Gusby, Pat Curry, on behalf of persons
similarly situated.  

The suit alleges racial and age discrimination at one of the
facilities the company acquired from ConAgra.  Two of the named
plaintiffs, Greg Hamilton and Gloria Willis, were voluntarily
dismissed from this action.

The company reported no development in the case at its May 1,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2007.      

The suit is "Goodwin, et al. v. Conagra Poultry Co., et al.,
case no. 1:03-cv-01187-HFB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas, under Judge Harry F.
Barnes.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Carolyn B. Witherspoon, Esq.
         Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, P.C.
         500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 200
         Little Rock, AR 72201
         Phone: (501) 371-9999
         Fax: (501) 371-0035
         E-mail: cspoon@cgwg.com

         Rickey H. Hicks, Esq.
         Hicks Law Firm, Attorney at Law
         523 South Louisiana, Suite M100
         Little Rock, AR 72201
         Phone: 501-372-1310
         Fax: 501-372-1477
         E-mail: hickslawoffice@yahoo.com

         Lloyd W. Kitchens, III, Esq.
         Welch and Kitchens, LLC
         One Riverfront Place, Suite 413
         Little Rock, AR 72901
         Phone: (501) 978-3030
         Fax: (501) 978-3050
         E-mail: tkitchens@welchandkitchens.com
         mwelch@welchandkitchens.com

         Robert Pressman, Esq.
         22 Locust Avenue
         Lexington, MA 02421,
         Phone: (781) 862-1955

         Allen P. Roberts, Esq.
         Attorney at Law
         P.O. Box 280,
         Camden, AR 71701
         Phone: (870) 836-5310
         Fax: (870) 836-9662
         E-mail: allenroberts@cablelynx.com

         John W. Walker, Esq.
         John W. Walker, P.A.
         1723 Broadway
         Little Rock, AR 72206
         Phone: 501-374-3758
         Fax: 501-374-4187
         E-mail: johnwalkeratty@aol.com

Representing the company are:

         Adam T. Dougherty, Esq.
         Kimberly F. Rich, Esq.
         Mark D. Taylor, Esq.
         Baker & McKenzie
         2001 Ross Avenue, 2300 Trammell Crow Center
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Phone: (214) 978-3000
         Fax: (214) 978-3099
         E-mail: adam.t.dougherty@bakernet.com
         kimberly.f.rich@bakernet.com
         mark.d.taylor@bakernet.com


PPG INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of $23M Antitrust Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to approve a $23 million settlement reached by PPG
Industries, Inc. in a suit alleging it violated antitrust rules
in its operation in the U.S. automotive refinish industry.

Approximately 60 cases alleging antitrust violations in the
automotive refinish industry have been filed in various state
and federal jurisdictions.

The approximately 55 federal cases have been consolidated as a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

Certain of the defendants in the federal automotive refinish
case have settled.  The automotive refinish cases in state
courts have either been stayed pending resolution of the federal
proceedings or have been dismissed.

Neither PPG's investigation conducted through its counsel of the
allegations in these cases nor the discovery conducted in the
case has identified a basis for the plaintiffs' allegations that
PPG participated in a price-fixing conspiracy in the U.S.
automotive refinish industry.

PPG's management continues to believe that there was no
wrongdoing on the part of the company and that it has
meritorious defenses in the federal automotive refinish case.

Nonetheless, it remained uncertain whether the federal court
ultimately would dismiss PPG, or whether the case would go to
trial.

On Sept. 14, 2006, PPG agreed to settle the federal class action
for $23 million to avoid the ongoing expense of this protracted
case, as well as the risks and uncertainties associated with
complex litigation involving jury trials.  

PPG recorded a charge for $23 million in the third quarter of
2006.  Although a formal settlement agreement has been executed
and the $23 million was paid into escrow on Jan. 3, 2007,
necessary court proceedings will follow before the settlement is
final and non-appealable, according to 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 suit is "In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust  
Litigation, MDL-1426," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Richard Barclay  
Surrick.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Court Mulls Appeal of "Tips" Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has yet to rule  
on plaintiffs' motion seeking a review of a dismissal of a  
purported class action against Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. and  
one of its cruise brands.

Filed in April 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern  
District of Florida, the suit alleges that the company's  
Celebrity Cruises Lines improperly requires its cabin stewards  
to share guest gratuities with assistant cabin stewards.   

The suit seeks payment of damages including penalty wages under  
46 U.S.C. Section 10113 of U.S. law and interest.

In March 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss  
the suit.  In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the  
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

The company reported no development in the case at its May 1,
2007 form 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. on the Net:  
http://www.royalcaribbean.com.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Transfer "Jacobs"
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. to transfer an
intellectual rights class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida remains
pending.

The suit was filed on January 2006.  It alleges that the company
infringed rights in copyrighted works and other intellectual  
property by presenting performances on company cruise ships  
without securing the necessary licenses.   

The suit seeks payment of damages, disgorgement of profits and a  
permanent injunction against future infringement.  

In April 2006, the company filed a motion to sever and transfer  
the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of  
Florida.   

The motion is pending, according to the company's May 1, 2007
form 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Jacobs et al. v. Carnival Corp., et al., Case No.  
1:06-cv-00606-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of New York under Judge Deborah A. Batts.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Howard J. Schwartz Porzio,  
Bromberg & Newman, P.C., (NJ), 156 West 56th St., New York, NY  
10019-3800, Phone: (212) 265-6888, E-mail:  
hjschwartz@pbnlaw.com.   

Representing the defendants is Frank W. Ryan of Nixon Peabody,  
LLP, 437 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 940-
3129, Fax: (866) 947-2289, E-mail: fryan@nixonpeabody.com.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Crew Appeals Dismissal of Calif. Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action "Michael Rogers, et al.
v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, et al.," are appealing the
dismissal of their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on July 2006.  It alleges that the
company failed to timely pay crew wages and failed to pay proper
crew overtime.

It seeks payment of damages, including penalty wages under 46
USC Section 10313 and equitable relief damages under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

In December 2006, the District Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the claim and held that it should be
arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in Royal
Caribbean's collective bargaining agreement.

In January 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The company reported no development in the case at its May 1,
2007 form 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

The suit is "Michael Rogers, et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruise
Lines, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04574-SVW-E," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Stephen V. Wilson with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph S. Farzam, Esq.
          Farzam and Associates
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1345
          Los Angleles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-226-6890
          E-mail: farzam@lawyer.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Sanford L. Bohrer, Esq.
          Holland & Knight
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-374-8500
          E-mail: sandy.bohrer@hklaw.com


TIRE CHOICE: Faces Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tire Choice & Total Car Care Co. and Hennelly Tire & Auto,
Inc. are facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida over alleged Labor Code
violations.

Plaintiff Brian Watkins, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, brought this action to recover from Tire
Choice Company and Hennelly Tire unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, as
well as for declaratory and injunctive relief, under the
provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et.seq., and
specifically under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The complaint alleges the pay practices of the defendants
violated the FLSA by failing to properly pay overtime to
plaintiff, and those other current and former employees
similarly situated to plaintiff, for those hours worked in
excess of 40 hours.

It further alleges that during the three years preceding the
filing of the suit, Tire Choice has:

     (1) employed and continues to employ individuals similarly
         situated to plaintiff (i.e. service managers)
         throughout Florida;

     (2) classified and continue to classify these employees as
         exempt for purposes of overtime compensation
         eligibility; and

     (3) suffered or permitted to be suffered, with knowledge,
         hours of service by these employees in excess of 40
         during one or more workweeks, for which defendants
         failed to properly pay additional overtime premiums.  
         
The suit contends plaintiff and all others similarly situated
are entitled to be paid time and one-half for each hour worked
in excess of 40 per workweek and to have such overtime
calculated in accordance with Federal Regulations, to include
commission/bonus payments earned in the appropriate workweek in
the calculation of the regular rate for the purposes of
determining overtime entitlement.  

Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for the wages and
overtime payments due them for the hours worked by them for
which they have not been properly compensated, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and for
all other relief the court deems just and proper.

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

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

The suit is "Watkins v. The Tire Choice & Total Car Care Co. et
al., Case No. 8:07-cv-00766-RAL-MAP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Richard A.
Lazzara, with referral to Judge Mark A. Pizzo.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Robin I. Cohen, Esq.
          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Gora, P.A.
          Corporate Centre at Boca Raton
          7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Phone: 561/477-7800
          Fax: 561/477-7722
          E-mail: ricohen@sbwlawfirm.com or
                  drlevine@sbwlawfirm.com


TIRE KINGDOM: Accused of Violating Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tire Kingdom, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over
alleged Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Tyrus Green brings this action to recover from the
Tire Kingdom unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as for declaratory
and injunctive relief, under the provisions of the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et. seq., and specifically under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).

The complaint alleges that at all times pertinent to the
complaint, defendant failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. Section
201-9-19 in that plaintiff and those current and former
employees similarly situated to plaintiff, while employed by
Tire Kingdom under the title and auspices of "service managers",
and classified as exempt for purposes of overtime compensation
eligibility, performed hours of service for defendant in excess
of 40 during one or more workweeks, for which defendant failed
to properly pay additional overtime premiums.

The complaint further alleges that plaintiffs are and were
inappropriately and improperly classified as exempt employees,
inasmuch as at not time material hereto did they have management
as their primary duty.

It contends that in the course of their employment, plaintiffs
worked the number of hours required of them, many times in
excess of 40, but were not properly paid overtime.

The suit alleges the pay practices of Tire Kingdom violated the
FLSA by failing to properly pay overtime to plaintiffs for those
hours worked in excess of 40.

The suit claims that during the three years preceding the filing
of this lawsuit, Tire Kingdom has:

     (1) employed and continues to employ individuals similarly
         situated to plaintiff (i.e. service managers)
         throughout Florida;

    (2) classified and continues to classify these employees as
        exempt for purposes of overtime compensation
        eligibility; and

    (3) suffered or permitted to be suffered, with knowledge,
        hours of service by these employees in excess of 40
        during one or more workweeks, for which defendant failed
        to properly pay additional overtime premiums.

Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to be paid time and one-half
for each hour worked in excess of 40 per workweek and to have
such overtime calculated in accordance with Federal Regulations,
to include commission/bonus payments earned in the appropriate
workweek in the calculation of the regular rate for the purposes
of determining overtime entitlement.

They demand judgment against defendant for the wages and
overtime payments due them for the hours worked by them for
which they have not been properly compensated, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and for
all other relief the court deems just and proper.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1eb0

The suit is "Green v. Tire Kingdom,Inc., Case No. 0:07-cv-60635-
MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois under Judge Marcia G. Cooke.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Robin Ilene Cohen, Esq.
          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          Shapiro Blasi Wasserman & Gora PA
          7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Phone: 561-477-7800
          Fax: 477-7722
          E-mail: ricohen@sbwlawfirm.com or
                  drlevine@sbwlawfirm.com


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Seeks Stay on Securities Suit Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
A joint motion to stay discovery schedules in a consolidated
securities fraud class action against Transkaryotic Therapies
Inc. has been entered.

In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported
class actions against:

     -- TKT, which was acquired by Shire, PLC, on July 27, 2005;  
        and  

     -- Richard Selden, TKT's former chief executive officer.    

The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the
period from January 2001 through January 2003.  Each of the
complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

They allege that TKT and its officers made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information
concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. marketing
approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during
that period.  
  
On March 25, 2003, motions were filed with the court to appoint
lead plaintiff, lead counsel and for consolidation of all
related cases.   

The court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on April 9,  
2003 and, subsequently, consolidated all cases into one class
action lawsuit entitled, "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.,  
Securities Litigation."

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
class action complaint against:  

     -- TKT;   

     -- Dr. Selden;   

     -- Daniel Geffken, TKT's former chief financial officer;   

     -- Walter Gilbert, Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead,  
        III, and Wayne P. Yetter, then members of TKT's board  
        of directors;   
  
     -- William R. Miller and James E. Thomas, former members  
        of TKT's board of directors; and   

     -- SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities
        Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc. and Leerink Swann.  

Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint
on Sept. 17, 2003, which lead plaintiffs opposed October 31,
2003.  On Dec. 4, 2003, the court heard oral arguments regarding
the motions to dismiss and took these motions under advisement.  

Thereafter on May 26, 2004 the court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the defendants motions to dismiss.   
Defendants then filed their answers to the amended complaint on  
July 16, 2004.

On July 23, 2004 lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which defendants opposed.  Both parties have
provided briefs to the court regarding class certification.

In November 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.    

On June 5, 2006 the Judge dismissed the complaint against the
director defendants.  On Oct. 27, 2006 by court order, discovery
is to be completed by Feb. 28, 2007.  On February 13, 2007 a
joint motion to stay the schedule for discovery was entered,
according to information posted at the Web site of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.  

The suit is "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities  
Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W.  
Zobel.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Lauren Antonino of Chitwood & Harley, 2900 Promenade  
         II, 1230 Peachtree Suite NE, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone:  
         404-873-3900; and  

     (2) Paul J. Geller of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP,  
         197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL  
         33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-750-3364.    

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Michael G. Bongiorno of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale  
         and Dorr, LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02115,  
         Phone: 617-526-6145, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
         michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com; and  

    (ii) Michael K. Fee of Ropes & Gray, LLP, One International  
         Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-7000, Fax: 617-
         951-7050, E-mail: MFEE@ropesgray.com.


UNITED STATES: Ex-inmate Sues Federal Govt. Over "Slave Labor"
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco attorney J. Tony Serra filed a suit against the
federal government in late March over alleged slave labor
practices, Lynda Carson reports.

Mr. Serra, who has just served 10 months in Lompoc prison in
California for tax boycott, filed the suit asking the government
to pay its inmates fair compensation for work done while serving
time in jail.

He said prison inmates should be entitled to earn at least
minimum wage for their toil and organize unions so they would be
duly represented to negotiate better wages and working
conditions.

"It's a class action []," says Mr. Serra.  "I'm a member
(plaintiff) of the class action [], and it was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  We
believe that Lompoc's pay scale is in violation of the U.S.
Constitution's Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments, which are the
United Nations covenants on political, civil and prisoner
rights."

He is convinced that the lawsuit would succeed if they can bring
it far enough to the courts and bring it before a jury.

The suit is "Serra v. Lappin et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01589-
EMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California under Judge Edward M. Chen.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen Perelson, Esq.
          Law Office of Stephen Perelson  
          265 Miller Ave.
          Mill Valley, CA 94941-2817
          Phone: (415)383-1070
          Fax: (415)383-7667

                    
          John Murcko, Esq.
          1611 Telegraph Ave Suite 1100
          Oakland, CA 94612-2138
          Phone: (510) 465-2241
          E-mail: jmurcko@isp.com

                    - and -

          William Simpich, Esq.
          Franklin Street Assoc.  
          1736 Franklin St 10th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612-3423
          Phone:  (510) 444-0226
          E-mail: lawland@pacbell.net


VITAS HEALTHCARE: Still Faces Overtime Wage Litigation in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
VITAS Healthcare Corp., a subsidiary of Chemed Corp., remains a
party to a class action filed in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, in September 2006 by Bernadette
Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White.

The case alleges failure to pay overtime and failure to provide
meal and rest periods to a purported class of California
admissions nurses, chaplains and sales representatives.  It
seeks payment of penalties, interest and plaintiffs' attorney
fees.  

Chemed Corp. reported no development in the matter in its May 2,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Ohio-based Chemed Corp. (NYSE: CHE) -- http://www.chemed.com/--  
operates through two wholly owned subsidiaries, VITAS Healthcare
Corp. and Roto-Rooter Group, Inc. which also constitute the
Company's operating segments.  

VITAS focuses on hospice care for terminally ill patients.  
Through its team of doctors, nurses, home health aides, social
workers, clergy and volunteers, VITAS provides direct medical
services to patients, as well as spiritual and emotional
counseling to both patients and their families.  Roto-Rooter is
focused on providing plumbing and drain cleaning services to
both residential and commercial customers.


YOUTH VILLAGES: "Teacher Counselor" Files FLSA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Youth Villages, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff, Sonya Bailey, brings this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C Section 201 et seq.  She brings
this claim individually and as a part of a collective action, on
behalf of other employees of Youth Villages who were denied
overtimes compensation.

Ms. Bailey alleges that during the course of her employment, she
was given the title "overnight teacher counselor" and was not
entitled to overtime compensation because the position fell
under the "professional exemption" to the FLSA.

She claims that during her employment, she performed work in
excess of 40 hours per week on a regular and repeated basis, and
thus was entitled to overtime compensation for those hours
worked.

Under the FLSA, "overtime must be compensated at a rate not less
that one and one-half times the regular rate at which the
employee is actually employed" during the first 40 hours of
work.

Ms. Bailey alleges that defendant's failure to pay overtime
wages are willful violations of the FLSA.

Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

     -- authorization to issue notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
        Section 216(b) at the earliest possible time to all
        current and former employees during the three years
        immediately preceding the filing of this action,
        informing them that this action has been filed, of the
        nature of the action, and of their right to opt into
        this lawsuit if they worked hours in excess of 40 hours
        in a week during the last three years, but were not paid
        overtime;

     -- a declaratory judgment that defendant has violated the
        overtime provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 207,
        as to plaintiff and similarly situated persons who opt
        into this action;

     -- a declaratory judgment that defendant has violated the
        overtime provisions of the FLSA;

     -- a declaratory judgment that defendant's violations of
        the FLSA were willful;

     -- an award to plaintiff and others similarly situated who
        opt into this action of damages in the amount of unpaid
        overtime compensation to be proven at trial;

     -- an award to plaintiff and others similarly situated who
        opt into this action of damages in the amount of unpaid
        overtime compensation to be proven at trial;

     -- an award to plaintiff and others similarly situated who
        opt into this action of interest and liquidated damages
        in an amount equal to the overtime compensation shown to
        be owed them pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b);

     -- an award to plaintiff and others similarly situated who
        opt into this action of reasonable attorneys fees and
        costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); and

     -- an award of such other and further legal and equitable
        relief as may be deemed appropriate.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ea6

The suit is "Bailey v. Youth Villages, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
01089-JDT-sta," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, under Judge James D. Todd, with referral
to Judge S. Thomas Anderson.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Michael L. Russell
          The Gilbert Law Firm
          P.O. Box 11357
          2021 Greystone Park
          Jackson, TN 38308
          Phone: 731-664-1340
          E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com


* Former Labaton Sucharow Counsel Joins A.B. Data Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Benjamin, Co-Managing Director of A.B. Data, Ltd.
announced that "Lisa Buckser-Schulz, Esq., CPA, has joined the
Company as Vice President of Legal Affairs and Quality Assurance
for the Class Action Administration Division."

Mr. Benjamin said, "The addition of Ms. Buckser-Schulz to A.B.
Data's senior management is part of the Company's ongoing
commitment to offer its clients the most comprehensive legal and
financial services available in Class Action Administration."

Victoria Waciura, Esq. (formerly Victoria Wilheim), A.B. Data's
Vice President of Business Development, added, "Having
prosecuted class actions with Lisa Buckser-Schulz at Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, I am confident that she will be an
invaluable addition to A.B. Data's outstanding team of
experienced class action professionals."

Prior to joining A.B. Data, Ms. Buckser-Schulz was Of Counsel to
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP.  During her five years at
Labaton, Lisa Buckser-Schulz concentrated her practice in the
prosecution of securities class actions on behalf of public
pension funds.  With a professional background as a Certified
Public Accountant, she specialized in cases involving accounting
fraud and malpractice.

Prior to Labaton, Ms. Buckser-Schulz spent six years prosecuting
a variety of securities and consumer class actions at Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.  During that time, she oversaw
the settlements of numerous class actions. She began her legal
career as a litigator at the law firm of Schulte Roth & Zabel
LLP.

Ms. Buckser-Schulz received a B.S. degree in accounting from
Rutgers College in 1986. She worked as an auditor upon
graduating from college and received her CPA license in January
1989.  From 1989 until her entry into the legal profession, Ms.
Buckser-Schulz served as the Chief Financial Officer of a New
York-based hedge fund.

Ms. Buckser-Schulz graduated magna cum laude from Fordham
University School of Law in February 1993 where she was a member
of the Law Review, the Order of the Coif and was on the Dean's
List.  Ms. Buckser-Schulz received the American Jurisprudence
Awards in Criminal Law and Insurance Law.

Ms. Buckser-Schulz previously served as Co-Chair of the
Accounting Issues Subcommittee of the Securities Litigation
Committee of the Litigation Section of the American Bar
Association.

A.B. Data on the Net: http://www.abdatalawserve.com.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 18-19, 2007
OBSTETRIC MALPRACTICE
American Conference Institute
Philadephia
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 21-22, 2007
ASBESTOS CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Las Vegas
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 16, 2007
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: PUNITIVE DAMAGES TELECONFERENCE: THE IMPACT
OF THE WILLIAMS V. PHILIP MORRIS DECISION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

May 17, 2007
MEALEY'S DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ZELNORM
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 22, 2007
MEALEY'S COURTROOM PRACTICES TELECONFERENCE SERIES: EXPERT
WITNESSES - FINDING THE RIGHT EXPERT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 5, 2007
RELEASES IN THE SETTLEMENT OF MULTI-PARTY TORT CASES: LEGAL,
TACTICAL, AND ETHICAL ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 19, 2007
MEALEY'S PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
NAVIGATING A FEDERAL MDL
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

June 20, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: FOOD LIABILITY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 21, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: IDENTIFYING AND PROVING INFRINGEMENT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 26, 2007
MEALEY'S TOXIC TORT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: NATURAL RESOURCE
DAMAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 27, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE SERIES: REINSURANCE
ARBITRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE SERIES: INSURANCE ISSUES REGARDING
SUBPRIME MORTGAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


INPHONIC INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Inphonic, Inc. (INPC) during the period
from August 2, 2006 through May 3, 2007.

The complaint charges that Inphonic and certain of its officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and
misleading statements concerning the company's 2006 fiscal year
financial results in violation of the federal securities laws
and generally accepted accounting principles.

The complaint alleges:

     -- that during the class period the company materially
        misrepresented its net income for the fiscal year ended
        December 31, 2006 and the interim second, third, and
        fourth quarters;

     -- that the company improperly recognized revenues for
        certain cancelled consumer contracts, as well as other
        errors in the income statement;  

     -- that the cumulative effect of all these errors caused an
        aggregate net loss of at least $43 to $49 million for
        fiscal 2006, as compared to the $17.3 million net loss
        from continuing operations the company preliminarily
        announced for fiscal 2006; and

     -- that certain officers and directors of the Company were
        able to sell significant amounts of stock during the
        class period while the stock was artificially inflated.

As a result of these adverse events, the complaint asserts that
shareholders were damaged.

For more information regarding the lawsuit, please contact the
Rosen Law Firm:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Email:  lrosen@rosenlegal.com  
          http://www.rosenlegal.com
          
                    - and -
          
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
          http://www.rosenlegal.com


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *