CAR_Public/070510.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 10, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 92

                            Headlines


9/11 LITIGATION: June Conference Set in "O'Neill v. Al Baraka"
AARON BROTHERS: Former Lead Framer Files Calif. Labor Lawsuit
AARON BROTHERS: Settles "Morris" Labor Lawsuit in California
ALBERTSON'S INC: Utah Lawsuit Alleges Gender Discrimination
ALLIED HOLDINGS: Hawk Fund Sues Yucaipa & IBT for "Secret" Plan

BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Counsel Named in Case Over Rice Contamination
BROADCOM CORP: Calif. Securities Fraud Litigation Hits Snag
CALIFORNIA: LAPD Faces Civil Rights Suit Over May 1 Arrests

CATHOLIC CHURCH: Archdiocese of Portland Suit Settlement Okayed
CIGNA CORP: Aug. Hearing Set for Closing Arguments in Conn. Suit
CIGNA CORP: ERISA Claims in Contingent Commission Suit Remain
COMMERCE BANK: Appeals Court Reinstates "Contract Rights" Suit
CUTERA INC: Roy Jacobs Amends Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.

DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Calif. Cavitron Suit Appealed
EASTERN HEALTH: Faces Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit
HERBALIFE INT'L: Continues to Face W.Va. TCPA Violations Suit
HERCULES INC: No Approval Yet for Georgia Gulf Suit Settlement
HUB INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Face Ill. Suit by Hogan Marren

INDIANA: La Porte Approves Curb Ramps Plan to Settle Lawsuit
JANUS CAPITAL: Plaintiff in "Wangberger" Appeals Suit's Nixing
JANUS CAPITAL: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling in IPO Antitrust Suit
LOURDES REGIONAL: $7.4M Deal in Suit Against La. Hospital Okayed
MARTHA STEWART: May 29 Hearing Set for $30M Securities Suit Deal

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces $500M Breach of Contract Suit in Tex.
MICHAELS STORES: Calif. Court Yet to Approve "Clark" Settlement
MICHAELS STORES: Former Manager Files Calif. Labor Lawsuit
MICHAELS STORES: Tex. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Tex. Litigation Over Bain/Blackstone Deal

MICHAELS STORES: No Hearing Date Yet for Calif. Managers' Case
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Court Denies Dismissal Motion in "McGreevey"
NYSE GROUP: 2nd Circuit Mulls Specialists Securities Suit Appeal
PIER 1: Recalls Glassware Prone to Breakage, Cracking
SCOR SA: Sued for "Excluding" Converium Shareholders in Tender

SINGAPORE: Appeals Court Rejects Gov't Employees' Suit Over CFP
TODCO: Faces Stockholder Suit Over Sale to Hercules Offhoshore
TRACFONE WIRELESS: Settlement of Consumer Fraud Suit Okayed


                            *********


9/11 LITIGATION: June Conference Set in "O'Neill v. Al Baraka"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New York has set a
June 26, 2007 status conference hearing for the class action,
"Estate of John P.O'Neill, Sr. v. Al Baraka Investment and
Development Corporation et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01923-GBD."

The case is part of the Multidistrict Litigation, "In re
Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, MDL No. 03-1570," which
generally tackles cases related to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks.

It was filed on behalf of the estate and immediate family of
counter terrorism expert, John Patrick O'Neill, Sr. who was
killed in the attack on the World Trade Center.  

The complaint describes Agent O'Neill as the former head of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's counter terrorism division and
former Special Agent in Charge of the National Security Division
of the New York Office of the FBI, and the world's foremost
expert on Islamic terrorism and Osama Bin Laden's terror
network.

In general, the suit claims that simultaneous attacks on the
World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in
Arlington, Virginia not isolated incidents, but rather a
coordinated effort by Islamic Terrorist Organizations.

An extensive network of Islamic militants with the support, aid
and assistance of banks, governments, and individuals had
allegedly planned the attacks, which killed over 3,000
Americans, for years.

Several defendants are named in the suit, including The Council
on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was named as such
just last year.

In the case, Agent O'Neill's estate named CAIR as defendant,
claiming that it was partly responsible for his death, according
to a report by Gil Spencer of delcotimes.com.

CAIR, Agent O'Neill's lawyers say, "is part of the criminal
conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism with a unique role in
the terrorist network ... (and has) actively sought to hamper
governmental anti-terrorism efforts by direct propaganda
activities aimed at police, first-responders, and intelligence
agencies through so-called sensitivity training."

The lawyers add, "Their goal is to create as much self-doubt,
hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police
departments and intelligence agencies as possible so as to
render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international
and domestic terrorist entities."

Others identified as defendants in the suit include:

      -- Al Baraka Investment and Development Corp.,
      -- National Commercial Bank,
      -- Faisal Islamic Bank-Sudan,
      -- Al Barakaat Exchange LLC,
      -- Dar Al Maal Islami,
      -- Al Shamal Islamic Bank,
      -- Tadamon Islamic Bank,
      -- Dubai Islamic Bank,
      -- Bank Al-Taqwa, Ltd.,
      -- Nada International Anstalt,
      -- Arab Bank, PLC,
      -- Saudi American Bank,
      -- Triple-B Trading Company GmbH,
      -- Tatex Trading GMBHT,
      -- Youssef M Nada & Co.,
      -- International Islamic Relief Organization,
      -- Muslim World League,
      -- Saar Foundation,
      -- Rabita Trust,
      -- Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc.,
      -- Benevolence International Foundation,
      -- World Assembly of Muslim Youth,
      -- Muwaffaq Foundation,
      -- Saleh Abdullah Kamel,
      -- Khalid Bin Mahfouz,
      -- Sulaiman Abdul Aziz Al-Rajhi,
      -- Khalid Sulaiman Al-Rajhi,
      -- Abdul Matin Tatari,
      -- Mazin M.H. Bahareth,
      -- Shahir Abdulraoof Batterjee,
      -- Hassan Bahtzallah,
      -- Mohammed Mijed Said,
      -- Hamel Al Barakati,
      -- Youssef M. Nada,
      -- Enaam Mahmoud Arnaout,
      -- Yasin Abdullah Al Qadi,
      -- Mljed Said Mohammed,
      -- Hamel Al Barakati,
      -- Triple-B Trading Company,
      -- SNCB Corporate Finance Ltd.,
      -- SNCB Securities Limited,
      -- Schreiber & Zindel,
      -- Frank Zindel,
      -- Engelbert Schreiber,
      -- Martin Wachter,
      -- Erwin Wachter,
      -- Sercor Treuhand Anstalt,
      -- Albert Fredrich Armand Huber,
      -- Ali Ghaleb Himmat,
      -- Al Taqwa Trade, Property and Industry, Ltd.,
      -- Akida Bank Private Limited,
      -- Akida Investment Co., Ltd.,
      -- Nada Management Organization, S.A.,
      -- Youssef M. Nada & Co. Gesellschaft M.B.H.,
      -- Nasco Business Residence,
      -- Centersas Di Nasreddin Ahmed Idris EC,
      -- Nasco Nasreddin Holding A.S.,
      -- Nascoservice S.R.L.,
      -- Nascotex S.A.,
      -- Barzan E-Tikriti,
      -- Banca Del Gottardo,
      -- Nasreddin Co. Nasco SAS Di Ahmed Idris Nasreddin EC,
-- Nasreddin Foundation,
      -- Nasreddin Group International Holding Limited,
      -- Nasreddin International Group Limited Holding,
      -- Ahmad I. Nasreddin,
      -- Nasreddin Group International Limited Holdings,
      -- Asat Trust Reg.,
      -- CAIR (Canada),
      -- International Islamic Relief Organization (Saudi
         Arabia),
      -- International Islamic Relief Organization Branch
         Offices,
      -- Success Foundation,
      -- Muslim World League of Saudi Arabia,
      -- Muslim World League (Buenos Aires, Argentina),
      -- Muslim World League (Preston, Australia),
      -- Muslim World League (Vienna, Austria),
      -- Muslim World League (Dhaka, Bangladesh),
      -- Muslim World League (Bujumbura, Burundi),
      -- Muslim World League (Etobicoke, Canada),
      -- Muslim World League (Moroni, Comores),
      -- Muslim World League (Brazzaville, Congo),
      -- Muslim World League (Kobenhaven, Denmark),
      -- Muslim World League (Mantes La Joile, France),
      -- Muslim World League (Libreville, Gabon),
      -- Muslim World League (Jakarta, Indonesia),
      -- Muslim World League (Rome, Italy),
      -- Muslim World League (Amman, Jordan),
      -- Muslim World League (Nairobi, Kenya),
      -- Muslim World League (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia),
      -- Muslim World League (Nouakchott, Mauritania),
      -- Muslim World League (Mauritius, Mauritius),
      -- Muslim World League (Maputo, Mozambique),
      -- Muslim World League (Wuse Abuja, Nigeria),
      -- Muslim World League (Islamabad, Pakistan),
      -- Muslim World League (Makati City, Philippines),
      -- Muslim World League (Male, Republic of Maldives),
      -- Muslim World League (Moscow, Russia),
      -- Muslim World League (Makkah, Saudi Arab),
      -- Muslim World League (Dakar, Senegal),
      -- Muslim World League (Djibouti, Somalia),
      -- Muslim World League (Gauteng, South Africa),
      -- Muslim World League (Khartoum, Sudan),
      -- Muslim World League (Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania),
      -- Muslim World League (Bangkok, Thailand),
      -- Muslim World League (Lome, Togo),
      -- Muslim World League (Port of Spain, Trinidad),
      -- Muslim World League (London, U.K.),
      -- Muslim World League (Kampala, Uganda),
      -- Muslim World League (New York, U.S.A.),
      -- Muslim World League (Falls Church, U.S.A.),
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Saudi Arabia),
      -- Benevolence International Foundation - Canada,
      -- Benevolence International Foundation - U.S.A.,
      -- Benevolence International Foundation, Inc.,
      -- Benevolence International Foundation (Saudi Arabia),
      -- Benevolence International Foundation (Bosnia -
         Herzegovina),
      -- World Assembly of Muslim Youth of Saudi Arabia,
      -- World Assembly of Muslim Youth (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia),
      -- World Assembly of Muslim Youth (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia),
      -- World Assembly of Muslim Youth (London, United
         Kingdom),
      -- World Assembly of Muslim Youth (Falls Church, Virginia,
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Afghanistan),
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Albania),
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Bangladesh),
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Bosnia Herzegovina),
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Ethiopia),
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Indonesia),
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Kenya),
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Netherlands),
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Pakistan),
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Somalia),
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Tanzania),
      -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (United States),
      -- Dallah Al Baraka Group LLC,
      -- Yassin Abdullah Kadi,
      -- John Does

Copies of the complaint and the second amended complaint are
available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1ec7

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1ec9

The suit is "Estate of John P.O'Neill, Sr. v. Al Baraka
Investment and Development Corporation et al, Case No. 1:04-cv-
01923-GBD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge George B. Daniels.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joshua M. Ambush, Esq.
         600 Reisterstown Road
         Suite 200 A
         Baltimore, MD 21208
         Phone: (410) 484-2070
         Fax: (410) 484-9330

              - and -
         
         Jerry Stephen Goldman, Esq.
         Law Offices of Mulgrew & Sassone, P.C.
         22 South Main Street
         New City, NY 10956
         Phone: 212-242-2232
         Fax: 212-346-4665
         E-mail: jgoldman@goldmanlawyers.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Martin Francis McMahon, Esq.
         Martin F. McMahon and Associates
         1150 Conneticut Avenue N.W.
         Washington, DC 20035
         Phone: 202-862-4343
         Fax: 202-862-4302
         E-mail: mfm@martinmcmahonlaw.com

              - and -

         Omar T. Mohammedi, Esq.
         Phone: 212-725-3846
         Fax: 212-725-9160
         E-mail: omohammedi@otmlaw.com


AARON BROTHERS: Former Lead Framer Files Calif. Labor Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Brothers, Inc., a subsidiary of Michaels Stores, Inc., was
named as a defendant in a purported class action filed on Jan.
26, 2007 by a former "lead framer" for Aaron Brothers in San
Diego, California, according to a May 3, 2007 regulatory filing.

Katherine Torgerson filed the suit in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego.  Ms. Torgerson filed the action
against Aaron Brothers, Inc. on behalf of herself and all
current and former California-based leads or keyholders.  

The Torgerson suit alleges that Aaron Brothers failed to provide
its leads and keyholders with adequate meal and rest breaks (or
compensation in lieu thereof) and accurate wage statements.

It additionally alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach
of California's unfair competition law.   

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, meal
and rest break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts  
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


AARON BROTHERS: Settles "Morris" Labor Lawsuit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a purported class action against
Aaron Brothers, Inc. that was filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego.

On Nov. 16, 2005, Geoffrey Morris, a former company employee in
San Diego, California, commenced a proposed class action
proceeding on behalf of himself, and current and former company
employees in California from Nov. 16, 2001 to the present.  

The suit is alleging that the Aaron Brothers, a subsidiary of
Michaels Stores, Inc., failed to pay overtime wages, reimburse
the plaintiff for necessary expenses (including the cost of gas
used in driving his car for business purposes), and provide
adequate meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof.

Plaintiff seeks, injunctive relief, damages for unpaid overtime
pay, meal break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit alleges that this conduct was in breach of California's
unfair competition law.  With the exception of the meal and rest
breaks claim, the claims are asserted on behalf of the putative
class.  

Mr. Morris filed an amended complaint on June 8, 2006 and now
seeks to represent a class of current and former assistant
managers only.

The parties participated in a voluntary mediation on Dec. 15,
2006 and have reached a tentative settlement of the case.

Contingent on final court approval, the parties have agreed to a
claims made process, with no material impact on the company's
statement of operations, balance sheet, or cash flows for any
period presented, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts  
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


ALBERTSON'S INC: Utah Lawsuit Alleges Gender Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah accusing it of
discriminating against women.

Lead plaintiff Bonnie Jean Monson, a.k.a. Bonnie Haas, a female
former employee of Albertson's, brings this suit on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated for discrimination in
employment based on gender, and retaliation for engaging in
protected activity, in violation of the Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et.seq.

Ms. Haas brings this proposed class action on behalf of herself
and as a representative of a class of all current and former
female employees of Albertson's who were discriminated against
or harassed on the basis of their gender by manager Kent Haslam.

Questions of law and fact common to the proposed class members,
include, but are not limited to:

     (a) whether Mr. Haslam's conduct and language towards his
         female subordinates violates Title VII;

     (b) whether Mr. Haslam's behavior towards female employees
         constitutes a pattern and practice; and

     (c) whether defendant knew or should have known about Mr.
         Haslam's discriminatory conduct and failed to stop it.

Plaintiff on behalf of herself, and the classes, respectfully
prays for relief and judgment as follows:

     -- determine that the allegations set forth herein
        constitute proper class actions to be certified under
        Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure;

     -- order defendant to institute and implement training
        programs, policies, practices, and programs that provide
        equal treatment for women;

     -- order defendant to institute and implement training
        programs, policies, practices, and programs that promote
        reasonable accommodation for employees with
        disabilities;

     -- order defendant to make plaintiff Haas and all class
        members whole by:

        (i) providing them with lost wages with prejudgment
            interest, in amount to be determined at trial;

       (ii) awarding compensatory damages for emotional harm;

     -- order defendant to remove and expunge, or cause to be
        removed or expunged, all negative, discriminatory,
        and/or defamatory memoranda and documentation from
        plaintiff's and class members' records of employment;

     -- award extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief
        as permitted by law, equity, and the federal statutory
        provisions sued;

     -- award plaintiff and class members all restitutionary
        and/or remedial relief;

     -- award prejudgment and postjudgment interest at the
        highest lawful rate;

     -- award plaintiff and class members attorneys' fees and
        costs of this action, including expert witness fees, as
        appropriate; and

     -- any such further legal and equitable relief as justice
        allows.

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

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

The suit is "Monson v. Albertsons, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-00290-
TS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah,
under Judge Ted Stewart.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          April L. Hollingsworth, Esq.
          Strindberg & Scholnick
          426 N 300 W
          Salt Lake City, UT 84103
          Phone: (801) 359-4169
          E-mail: aprilecf@xmission.com.


ALLIED HOLDINGS: Hawk Fund Sues Yucaipa & IBT for "Secret" Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated holders
of Allied Holdings, Inc.'s common stock, Hawk Opportunity Fund,
L.P., and IRA FBO Mark F. Zimmer, commenced a class action with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
against Yucaipa American Alliance Fund I, L.P., Yucaipa American
Alliance (Parallel) Fund, L.P., the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, and the Teamsters National Automobile Transporters
Industry Negotiating Committee.

Hawk Opportunity owns 302,000 shares, approximately 3.4%, of the
Allied-issued and outstanding common stock.

IRA FBO Zimmer, an individual retirement account beneficially
owned by Mark F. Zimmer, holds 35,000 shares of Allied's common
stock.

According to the Class Action Complaint, Hawk Opportunity, et
al., allege that the Yucaipa and the IBT entities violated state
and federal racketeering laws by negotiating a reorganization
plan without the Debtors' knowledge.

On Feb. 8, 2007, the Yucaipa and IBT entities presented their
proposed Plan of Reorganization, pursuant to a "secret term
sheet," to the Debtors.

Yucaipa "invited" the Debtors to become co-proponents of the
Plan as outlined in the secret term sheet, and said that if it
did not support the plan, Yucaipa and the TNATINC would withdraw
their support for any further extension of exclusivity and would
file the Plan on their own, Foy R. Devine, Esq., at Doffermyre,
Shields, Canfield, Knowles and Devine, LLC, in Atlanta, Georgia,
states.

The Debtors was left with little practical choice but to support
the Plan proposed by Yucaipa and TNATINC, Mr. Devine contends.

Mr. Devine relates that common questions of law and fact exist
to all members of the Class.  Among the common questions are:

   (a) whether the Yucaipa and IBT entities violated federal and
       state law by virtue of their wrongful conduct;

   (b) whether Yucaipa and IBT constitute and "enterprise"
       within the meaning of:

         * the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
           Act, 18 U.S.C., Sections 1961 to 1968; and

         * Georgia RICO Act, O.C.G.A. Section 16-14-1, et seq.;

   (c) whether Yucaipa and IBT participated in and pursued the
       common course of conduct alleged;

   (d) whether Yucaipa and IBT engaged in "racketeering
       activity" as defined by RICO Section 1961 and Georgia
       RICO;

   (e) whether Yucaipa and IBT violated the statutory or common
       laws of the State of Georgia; and

   (f) whether Hawk Opportunity, et al., have sustained damages
       as a proximate result of Yucaipa and IBT's conduct.

Mr. Devine contends that Yucaipa and IBT have engaged in at
least four separate but closely inter-related schemes:

     * "corruptly seeking to influence the outcome of the vote
        of the IBT members in connection with the November 2006
        election for General President";

     * "wrongfully seeking to enable Yucaipa to acquire
        ownership and control of the Debtors by misappropriating
        for their own benefit the value of the equity interests
        held by [Hawk Opportunity, et. al.];

     * "corruptly seeking to influence the outcome of the vote
        of the Debtors' employees who are members of IBT's
        Carhaul Division on the proposed modifications of the
        collective bargaining agreement set forth in [a "secret
        term sheet" for the Joint Plan of Reorganization]; and

     * "wrongfully obtaining and consolidating ownership and
       control of a dominant share of the vehicle transportation
       business in North America, and thereby achieving and
       enabling Yucaipa or its affiliates to exercise market and
       pricing power in both the U.S. and the North
       American markets."

Mr. Devine adds that Yucaipa and IBT devised a series of
separate but closely interrelated schemes to defraud, including:

    -- a scheme to defraud IBT members in connection with the
       November 2006 IBT elections by deliberately creating the
       false impression that it had not been necessary for the
       TNATINC to negotiate wage and other concessions in favor
       of the Debtors;

    -- a scheme to defraud IBT members into believing that if
       they did not vote to support the modifications to the
       collective bargaining agreement reflected in the secret
       term sheet and the proposed Plan, the Debtors would
       liquidate and the members would lose their job;

    -- a scheme to defraud the Debtors and stockholders into
       believing that Yucaipa intended to act in the best
       interests of Allied and its other creditors and
       stockholders, and in the interest of maximizing the
       Debtors' value for creditors and stockholders; and

    -- a scheme to defraud the Debtors into believing that the
       would be insolvent and will face liquidation if they do
       not file and support the proposed Plan.

Hawk Opportunity, et al., seek claims for:

   (a) for violation of the RICO statute, judgment for
       compensatory damages for more than $50,000,000, to be
       trebled pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c), together
       with costs of lawsuit including reasonable attorneys'
       fees;

   (b) for conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute, judgment
       for compensatory damages for more than $50,000,000, to be
       trebled pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c), together
       with costs of lawsuit including reasonable attorneys'
       fees;

   (c) for violation of the Georgia RICO statute, judgment for
       three times the actual damages sustained for more than
       $50,000,000 before trebling, together with punitive
       damages in an amount to be determined;

   (d) for conspiracy in violation of the Georgia RICO statute,
       judgment for three times the actual damages sustained for
       more than $50,000,000 before trebling, together with
       punitive damages in an amount to be determined; and

   (e) on the common law claim for tortuous interference,
       compensatory damages in an amount to be determined
       together with punitive damages.

Hawk Opportunity, et al., also want the District Court to
determine that the Yucaipa and the IBT entities have:

     * wrongfully interfered with the ongoing business and
       fiduciary relationships between the Debtors and their
       shareholders; and

     * have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity.

Hawk Opportunity Fund was a member of the Ad Hoc Committee of
Equity Security Holders, which group had vigorously rejected the
Plan co-sponsored by Yucaipa and the IBT.  Majority of members
of the Ad Hoc Committee, led by Sopris Capital Advisors, LLC,
have reached a settlement with the Debtors.

                      About Allied Holdings

Based in Decatur, Georgia, Allied Holdings Inc. (AMEX: AHI,
other OTC: AHIZQ.PK) -- http://www.alliedholdings.com/-- and  
its affiliates provide short-haul services for original
equipment manufacturers and provide logistical services.  The
company and 22 of its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection
on July 31, 2005 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Case Nos. 05-12515 through 05-
12537).  Jeffrey W. Kelley, Esq., at Troutman Sanders, LLP,
represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  Henry S.
Miller at Miller Buckfire & Co., LLC, serves as the Debtors'
financial advisor.  Anthony J. Smits, Esq., at Bingham McCutchen
LLP, provides the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors with
legal advice and Russell A. Belinsky at Chanin Capital Partners,
LLC, provides financial advisory services to the Committee.  
When the Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, they
estimated more than $100 million in assets and debts.  (Allied
Holdings Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 47; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc.
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000)


BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York over allegations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act
violations.

The consolidated ERISA class action is "In re Bausch & Lomb Inc.
ERISA Litigation, Case Nos. 06-cv-6297 (master file), 06-cv-
6315, and 06-cv-6348."  It was filed against the company and
certain present and former officers and directors.

Initially, three separate actions were filed between April and
May of 2006 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, and these were later transferred to the Western
District of New York and consolidated.

Plaintiffs in these actions purport to represent a class of
participants in the company's defined contribution 401(k) Plan
for whose individual accounts the plan held an interest in
company stock between May 25, 2000 and the present.

Among other things, plaintiffs allege that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by allowing
the plan to invest in company common stock despite the fact that
it was allegedly artificially inflated due to the failure to
disclose negative information relating to the company's
Brazilian and Korean subsidiaries, internal controls, and
problems with MoistureLoc.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
as well as certain declaratory and injunctive relief.  

On Aug. 28, 2006, the court entered an order appointing co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel.  Pursuant to a
stipulated schedule ordered by the court, plaintiffs in the
consolidated ERISA action had until 10 days after a consolidated
amended complaint is filed in the consolidated securities action
described above, to file a consolidated amended complaint.

The company reported no development in the matter in its April
25, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Bausch & Lomb Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case
Nos. 06-cv-6297," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York under Judge Michael A. Telesca with
referral to Judge Marian W. Payson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen John Fearon, Jr. Esq.
         Squitieri & Fearon, LLP
         32 East, 57th Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 421-6492
         Fax: 212-421-6553
         E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com;

         Matthew J. Fusco, Esq.
         Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield, LLP
         1600 Crossroads Building, Two State Street
         Rochester, NY 14614
         Phone: 585-232-3730
         Fax: 585-232-3882
         E-mail: mjf@cdlawyers.com

              - and -

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gainey & McKenna
         295 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 983-1300
         Fax:  212-983-0383.

Representing the defendants is:

         Richard A. McGuirk, Esq. Nixon Peabody LLP
         Clinton Square, P.O. Box 31051
         Rochester, NY 14603
         Phone: (585) 263-1644
         Fax: 585-263-1600
         E-mail: rmcguirk@nixonpeabody.com


BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York, according to the company's Feb. 7,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The suit, "In re Bausch & Lomb Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
Nos. 06-cv-6294 (master file), 06-cv-6295, 06-cv-6296, and 06-
cv-6300," was filed against the company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors.

Initially, four separate shareholder actions were filed between
March and May of 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and these were later transferred
to the Western District of New York and consolidated into the
above-captioned matter.

Plaintiffs in these actions purport to represent a putative
class of shareholders who purchased company stock at allegedly
artificially inflated levels between Jan. 27, 2005 and May 3,
2006.

Among other things, plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading public statements regarding the
company's financial condition and operations by failing to
disclose negative information relating to the company's
Brazilian and Korean subsidiaries, internal controls, and
problems with MoistureLoc, thereby inflating the price of
company stock during the alleged class period.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages.  

The cases are currently awaiting appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead plaintiff's counsel in accordance with the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The company reported no development in the matter in its April
25, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Bausch & Lomb Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case Nos. 06-cv-6294," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York under Judge Michael A. Telesca with
referral to Judge Marian W. Payson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173

         Jai Kamal Chandrasekhar, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 554-1400
         Fax: 212-554-1444
         E-mail: jai@blbglaw.com

              - and -

         K. Wade Eaton, Esq.
         Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield
         1600 Crossroads Building, Two State Street
         Rochester, NY 14614
         Phone: 585-232-3730
         Fax: 585-232-3882
         E-mail: kwe@cdlawyers.com

Representing the defendants is:
         
         Carolyn G. Nussbaum, Esq.
         Nixon Peabody, LLP
         Clinton Square, P.O. Box 31051,
         Rochester, NY 14603
         Phone: (585) 263-1558
         Fax: 866-947-0625
         E-mail: cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Counsel Named in Case Over Rice Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Downing of the St. Louis plaintiff law firm Gray, Ritter &
Graham, P.C., was named Co-Lead Counsel, Co-Interim Class
Counsel and Plaintiff's Liaison Counsel on April 18 in a case
brought on behalf of U.S. rice farmers and others against Bayer
CropScience LP.

The case was based upon damages the plaintiffs sustained
resulting from the contamination of the U.S. rice supply with
unapproved, genetically-modified rice seed traits developed and
tested by Bayer CropScience and related entities.

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

The suit was brought on behalf of rice farmers based upon
economic damages they suffered from contamination of their crops
with an unapproved genetically modified strain of rice seed
produced by Bayer Cropscience, a German-based agriculture
company.  Discovery of the contamination in the farmers' rice
supply led to a dramatic drop in U.S. rice prices.

Mr. Downing originally filed the suit on behalf of 279 rice
farmers in Missouri and Arkansas.  A dozen other similar actions
were consolidated into one lawsuit in December 2006 by the
federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and will be
tried in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.  

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

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

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

For more details, contact:

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

          - and -

          Don Downing, Esq.
          Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1826
          Phone: (800) 451-2950 (Toll Free) or (314) 241-5620
          Fax: (314) 241-4140
          Website: http://www.grayrittergraham.com


BROADCOM CORP: Calif. Securities Fraud Litigation Hits Snag
-----------------------------------------------------------
A dispute has arose regarding the appointment of class counsel
in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
Broadcom Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

From August through October 2006, several plaintiffs filed these
purported shareholder class actions in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Broadcom and
certain of its current or former officers and directors (Options
Class Actions):

      -- "Bakshi v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 06-5036 R (CWx),"

      -- "Mills v. Samueli, et al., Case No. SACV 06-9674 DOC
          R(CWx)," and

      -- "Minnesota Bakers Union Pension Fund, et al. v.
          Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. SACV 06-970 CJC R
          (CWx)."

The essence of the plaintiffs' allegations is that Broadcom
improperly backdated stock options, resulting in false or
misleading disclosures concerning, among other things,
Broadcom's business and financial condition.

Plaintiffs also allege that Broadcom failed to account for and
pay taxes on stock options properly, that the individual
defendants sold Broadcom stock while in possession of material
nonpublic information, and that the defendants' conduct caused
artificial inflation in Broadcom's stock price and damages to
the putative plaintiff class.

Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

In November 2006, the court:

     * consolidated the Options Class Actions;

     * appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council as lead
       class plaintiff;

     * ordered the lead class plaintiff to file a consolidated
       complaint within 60 days after a restatement of the
       company's financial statements; and

     * extended the deadline for the defendants to respond to
       the complaint to 60 days after the filing of the
       consolidated complaint.

According to Broadcom's May 1 regulatory filing, there is
currently a dispute regarding the appointment of lead class
counsel, which the lead class plaintiff has appealed to the
federal appeals court.  The consolidated class action complaint
will not be due until the appeal and the dispute regarding the
appointment of class counsel is resolved.  

The first identified complaint is "Sonam Bakshi v. Henry Samueli
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05036-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real with referral to Judge Carla Woehrle.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group
          12400 Wilshire
          Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          - and -

          Bryan L. Crawford, Esq.
          Heins Mills & Olson
          3550 IDS Ctr., 80 South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-338-4605
          Fax: 612-338-4692

Representing the defendants are:

          Gordon A. Greenberg, Esq.
          McDermott Will & Emery
          2049 Century Park E, 34th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
          Phone: 310-277-4110
          Fax: 310-277-4730

          - and -

          Stephen S. Hasegawa, Esq.
          Irell & Manella
          1800 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
          Phone: 310-277-1010
          E-mail: shasegawa@irell.com


CALIFORNIA: LAPD Faces Civil Rights Suit Over May 1 Arrests
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Police Department is facing a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
stemming from the May 1 arrests of immigrants' rights
demonstrators, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The claims in this action arise from the alleged wrongful
conduct of certain police officers within the LAPD during the
assembly held at McArthur Park in Los Angeles.

Lead plaintiffs -- Mary Santiago, Sharee Warner and Josefina
Funes -- claim they have been subjected to serious
constitutional deprivations, in violation of the their rights
under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
U.S. Constitution and the law of nations.

These individuals were allegedly targeted, profiled,
interviewed, threatened, detained, arrested, assaulted, battered
and/or beaten by or through the activities of the LAPD, and/or
their agents, on the basis of race, ethnicity or national
origin.

Ms. Santiago claims that on or about May 1, 2007, she and the
other plaintiffs were observing and/or participating in a
peaceful assembly to promote immigration reform.  She claims she
was wrongfully apprehended, detained, arrested, assaulted,
battered beaten and otherwise falsely imprisoned by LAPD
officers, for the express purpose of violating her
constitutional rights as herein alleged, without probable cause
and absent exigent circumstances.

The complaint alleges that beginning in 1995 and continuing to
the present, members of the LAPD have engaged in a systemic
pattern of racial profiling that resulted in, among other
things, the abuse of many individuals, all members of the class
based upon race, ethnicity and/or national origin, living in Los
Angeles.

Questions of law and fact raised by the purported class,
include:

     (a) whether defendants' policy of racial profiling violates
         plaintiffs' and the members of the class'
         constitutional rights;

     (b) whether defendants' pattern or practice of stopping,
         detaining, assaulting, battering and/or beating
         plaintiffs and members of the class by force, threats
         of force or a command based upon official authority
         absent a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable
         suspicion based on articulable fact violates the
         constitutional rights of plaintiffs and the members of
         the class to be free of unlawful "searches and
         seizures" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment;

     (c) whether there is a uniform "pattern" of LAPD conduct;
         and

     (d) whether plaintiffs and members of the class "consented"
         to any "search and seizure."

Plaintiff pray for the following:

     -- an order requiring defendants to make whole those
        persons adversely affected by the policies, patterns,
        practices, customs, and usages described herein in an
        amount to be shown at trial, and other affirmative
        relief including, but not limited to, an affirmative
        action program designed to eliminate the effects of the
        discriminatory practices complained of;

     -- grant plaintiffs and members of the class, judgment
        against defendants for damages in accordance with proof
        for mental distress imposed on these parties through and
        as a result of the aforementioned discriminatory acts;

     -- grant plaintiffs and members of their class, judgment
        against defendants for punitive damages in accordance
        with proof;

     -- retain jurisdiction over this action to assure full
        compliance with the orders of the court and with
        applicable law and require defendants to file such
        reports as the court deems necessary to evaluate such
        compliance;

     -- for costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees
        and expenses of litigation as provided by Federal and
        State laws, including but not limited to, the Equal
        Access to Justice Act, as codified in 5 U.S.C.
        504(a)(1), and as provided for in 42 U.S.C. Section
        1988; and

     -- for such further relief as the court deems just and
        proper.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ec0

The suit is "Mary Santiago et al. v. The City of Los Angeles et
al., Case No. CV 07 0966JSL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gregory A. Yates, Esq.
          Law Offices of Gregory A. Yates, P.C.
          16830 Ventura Blvd., #250
          Encino, California 91436
          Phone: (310) 858-6944
          Fax: (310) 905-7038


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Archdiocese of Portland Suit Settlement Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Elizabeth L. Perris approves the Class Action
Settlement that was noticed to the Class of parishes,
parishioners and other interested parties in the Archdiocese of
Portland in Oregon's Chapter 11 case (Catholic Church Bankruptcy
News, Issue No. 91).

Judge Perris overrules all objections to the Class Action
Settlement.

Several parties tried to block approval of the Settlement,
specifically (i) AbiJah Shachag (ii) the Class Counsel and the
Committee of Catholic Parishes, Parishioners and Other
Interested Parties, (iii)) Ray Jordan, a certified public
accountant, and (iv) Charles E. Wagner of Hillsboro, Oregon.

The parties argued, among other things, that the restructuring
of the Archdiocese should be agreed to in all respects before
the Settlement is approved.

The Class Action Settlement relates to a defendant class action
(Adversary Proceeding No. 04-03292-elp filed in the Bankruptcy
Case).

Under the Class Action Settlement, in consideration for the
Debtor's payment in full of the allowed amount of all claims
under the Second Amended and Restated Joint Plan of
Reorganization:

     (1) the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice on the
         Effective Date of the Plan;

     (2) if the court approves the plan, the Debtor, the
         Parishes and Schools will receive a discharge from
         liability for all claims that arose prior to the
         Effective Date of the Plan.  Thereafter, those with
         claims that arose prior to the Effective Date may seek
         recovery only under the terms of the Plan;

     (3) the Parishes, Schools and the Debtor will be
         restructured under civil law in the 12 months following
         the Effective Date of the Plan, among other things, to
         make clear under civil law the ownership interests
         effective under ecclesiastical law; and

     (4) the Disclosure Statement states:

              "It is anticipated that no Parish or School
              property will be used to pay Claims or serve as
              collateral for any loans, and that the Reorganized
              Debtor will be able to provide the necessary
              funding to pay Claims without increasing the
              Parish assessments."

The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon filed for chapter 11
protection (Bankr. Ore. Case No. 04-37154) on July 6, 2004
(Troubled Company Reporter, Mar. 14, 2007).   

On July 22, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order in a
lawsuit certifying parishes and parishioners as a class of
defendants.

At issue in the lawsuit is whether Catholic parishes, schools
and certain funds are available to the Archdiocese to pay
settlements of tort claims and to other creditors.

The main issues in the Lawsuit are whether Parishes, Schools and
certain funds are unrestricted assets belonging to the Debtor
and available to creditors of the Debtor.

The Debtor, the Parishes and Schools contend, among other
things, that such assets are restricted and are not available to
pay creditors of the Debtor.

The Tort Claimants Committee contends that such property is the
unrestricted property of the Debtor and is available to pay
creditors of the Debtor.

The Committee of Parishioners - Western Oregon on the Net:
           http://www.parishionerscommittee.org/

The suit is "In Re: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in
Oregon, and successors, a corporation sole, dba the Archdiocese
of Portland in Oregon, Debtor, Case No. 04-37154-elp11," pending
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon, under
the Honorable Elizabeth L. Perris.

Class Counsel is Douglas R. Pahl of Perkins Coie LLP, 1120 N.W.
Couch Street, Tenth Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128, Phone: (503)
727-2121, Fax: (503) 727-2222, E-mail:
parishclass@perkinscoie.com.


CIGNA CORP: Aug. Hearing Set for Closing Arguments in Conn. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 9, 2007 hearing is scheduled for closing arguments in a
purported class action filed against CIGNA Corp. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut over allegations
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations.

On Dec. 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed the suit against the
company and the CIGNA Pension Plan on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the CIGNA Pension Plan
who earned certain Plan benefits prior to 1998.  

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that:

      -- the Plan violated ERISA by impermissibly conditioning
         certain post-1997 benefit accruals on the amount of
         pre-1998 benefit accruals that these conditions are not
         adequately disclosed to plan participants; and

      -- the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against
         older employees.  

The plaintiffs were granted class certification on Dec. 20,
2002.  They seek equitable relief.

A non-jury trial began on Sept. 11-15, 2006.  Due to the court's
schedule, the proceedings were adjourned and then the trial was
completed on Jan. 25.

The judge has ordered the parties to submit post-trial briefs in
advance of closing arguments to be held Aug. 9, 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 "Amara v. CIGNA Corp., et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-
02361-MRK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut under Judge Mark R. Kravitz.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen R. Bruce, Esq.
         805 15th St., NW Suite 210
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-289-1117
         Fax: 202-371-0121
         E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net

              - and -

         Thomas G. Moukawsher, Esq.
         Moukawsher & Walsh
         Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite 209
         Hartford, CT 06106
         Phone: 860-278-7000
         Fax: 860-548-1740
         E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Bradford S. Babbitt, Esq.
         Robinson & Cole
         280 Trumbull St.
         Hartford, CT 06103-3597
         Phone: 860-275-8209
         Fax: 860-275-8299
         E-mail: bbabbitt@rc.com

              - and -

         Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq.
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
         1701 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
         Phone: 215-963-5258
         Fax: 215-963-5001
         E-mail: jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com


CIGNA CORP: ERISA Claims in Contingent Commission Suit Remain
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brokers and insurance companies, including certain of CIGNA
Corp.'s subsidiaries, remain a defendant in several purported
class actions asserting that contingent commissions are
unlawful.  

Theses suits were brought against insurance brokers, alleging,
among other things, that these brokers sought rigged bids from,
and steered business to, insurers with whom they had contingent
compensation arrangements.

These suits are now procedurally consolidated in a multi-
district litigation proceeding in federal court in New Jersey.

On April 5, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion and
dismissed all of the federal antitrust, RICO and state law
claims, leaving only certain Employee Retirement Income Security
Act fiduciary claims.

The court has permitted plaintiffs to file an amended complaint
by May 22, 2007.  Discovery is stayed until the court reaches a
decision whether plaintiffs may proceed regarding their
anticipated amended antitrust and RICO claims, 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.

CIGNA Corp. -- http://www.cigna.com/-- is a healthcare and  
related benefits organization in the U.S.


COMMERCE BANK: Appeals Court Reinstates "Contract Rights" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the Barfields
case last week, but it did not allow plaintiffs to amend their
complaint to include class action allegations, Dan Margolies of
the Kansas City Star reports.

African-American James Barfields and his son, Chris, sued
Commerce Bank in May 2005 under Section 1981 of the civil Rights
Act, the post Civil War enactment that grants all U.S. Citizens
the right to make and enforce contracts.

The lawsuit stemmed from a 2004 incident when Chris Barfield
entered a Commerce Bank in Wichita asking change for a $50 bill,
which the bank turned down saying he was not a customer.  He
told his father about the incident and Mr. James Barfield asked
a white American friend to go to the bank and have a bill
changed.  The bank teller immediately provided him his change
without asking whether he was a customer.

Entering the bank again a few minutes later to have another bill
changed, the teller refused because he was not a customer.  An
African-American colleague went to the same bank to do the same
thing and was turned down, while his white friend was able to
get his bill changed, no questions asked.  

In the lawsuit, the Barfields alleged that the bank had impaired
their ability to contract.

U.S. District Judge Monti Belot dismissed the case in January
2006 saying making change was a "gratuitos service" provided by
the bank and not a contractual transaction.

The Barfields appealed and the three-judge panel decided to
reinstate the case.  According to Judge Michael Connell, Judge
Belot erred in concluding that no contract was involved.

While the appeals court approved the reinstatement of the
Barfields case, it maintained District Judge Berlot's rejection
of amending the lawsuit to include class action allegations,
agreeing it was not detailed enough to support class action
claims.


CUTERA INC: Roy Jacobs Amends Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates amended a class action it filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock and other
securities of Cutera, Inc. (Nasdaq:CUTR).

Under the amended complaint, plaintiff asserts a new, longer
Class Period: from January 31, 2007 through May 7, 2007 and new
allegations are incorporated.

On April 18, Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced the class action
accusing Cutera and certain of its top officers and directors of
violating the federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements and omissions assuring the investing
public that increased sales efforts and other corporate
developments would lead to extraordinary growth in the first
quarter of 2007, and for the entire year (Class Action Reporter,
April 20, 2007).

Specifically, Cutera asserted on Jan. 31, 2007 that these
positive factors would lead to 25% revenue growth for the first
quarter of 2007 and for the full year, 33% growth in net income
for the first quarter of 2007, and 25% growth in net income for
the full year.

This announcement was followed shortly thereafter by unusually
large stock sales by Cutera's chief executive, defendant Kevin
P. Connors and Cutera's chief financial officer, defendant
Robert J. Santilli.

The Complaint alleges that Mr. Connors has a history of making
stock sales at high prices just prior to the release of adverse
corporate news.

On April 5, 2007 defendants shocked the market by announcing
that revenues and earnings for the first quarter of 2007 would
not increase 25%, as stated just weeks before, but rather would
materially decrease.

On May 7, 2007, after the close of trading, Cutera announced
"the unsuccessful implementation of their junior sales program,
unusually high sales employee turnover, and disappointing
results from PSS and other national accounts," and it forecast
fiscal second quarter and 2007 sales below expectations.

None of these adverse developments were adequately disclosed on
April 4, 2007 when, in announcing disappointing results, Mr.
Connors stated: "This quarter's shortfall was due primarily to
lower than expected productivity levels of our recent sales
expansion. We are implementing specific initiatives to address
this matter and remain confident in our ability to increase our
revenue growth."

On May 8, 2007, Cutera shares opened at $23.05, down $6.19, on
heavy volume.

Defendants offered no cogent explanation for this reversal.  On
this news, Cutera shares dropped $11.72 per share on
extraordinary trading volume of 7.2 million shares.

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

For more information, contact:

          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490 (Toll Free)
          E-mail: jacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com


DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Calif. Cavitron Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Dentsply International, Inc. are
appealing the decertification of a purported class action that
accuses the company misrepresented its Cavitron(R) ultrasonic
scalers as suitable for use in oral surgical procedures.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S. and Richard Nathan,
D.D.S. filed a class action in San Francisco County, California.  
The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of
the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who
have purchased it for use in oral surgery.

The court certified the case as a class action on June 15, 2006
with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business
practices claims.  

The class is defined as California dental professionals who
purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients.

The company filed a motion for decertification of the class and
this motion was granted.  Plaintiffs have appealed the
decertification of the class to the California Court of Appeals,
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.

Dentsply International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a  
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


EASTERN HEALTH: Faces Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Health System, Inc., dba Medical Center East, is facing
a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Raymond W. Greatorex brings this action for injunctive
relief and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et. seq.

Plaintiff claims that at all times since his Oct. 18, 2004
employment, he has been a non-exempt employee and asserts that
he is to be paid some overtime at the rate of 1.5 times his
regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eight hours a
day or 80 hours in a bi-weekly work week.

Plaintiff claims defendant automatically deducts 30 minutes per
day from each hourly paid security employee of defendant for an
unpaid meal break.  This is in spite of the fact that plaintiff,
and other similarly situated employees, rarely are allowed
interrupted mealtime of 30 minutes for each work day.

Regulations require that an unpaid bona fide meal period be one
where an employee is completely relieved from duty for the
purpose of eating regular meals.

Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, are allegedly
required to be "on call" during their lunch period to attend to
their duties.

Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, are not
allegedly provided an opportunity to take their meal time away
from their work station each day, yet this time of 30 minutes
per day is deducted from their pay for meal time, as if they
were provided 30 minutes of uninterrupted time away from their
work station.

The suit alleges defendant has willfully violated the FLSA, by
failing to pay employees for all overtime at one and one-half
times their regular hourly rate, based upon "rounding"
violations.

Plaintiff, and others whom they seek to represent, have suffered
loss of pay as a result of the illegal practices of defendant.

Plaintiff pray for the following relief:

     -- that the court issue proper process to compel defendant
        to answer or otherwise plead to the allegations
        contained in the complaint;

     -- that the court award plaintiff the amount of his unpaid
        overtime wages, plus an additional equal amount as
        liquidated damages;

     -- that plaintiff be granted judgment against defendant for
        all reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, disbursements,
        and interest; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court deems
        equitable, proper and just.


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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1eb6

The suit is "Greatorex v. Eastern Health System, Inc., Case No.
2:07-cv-00831-JHH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama under Judge James H. Hancock.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David R. Arendall, Esq.
          Allen Durham Arnold, Esq.
          Arendall & Associates
          2018 Morris Avenue, Third Floor
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 252-1550
          Fax: 252-1556
          E-mail: dra@arendalllaw.com or aarnold@arendalllaw.com


HERBALIFE INT'L: Continues to Face W.Va. TCPA Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. and certain of its distributors
remain defendants in the suit "Mey v. Herbalife International,
Inc., et al."

Filed on July 16, 2003, the complaint alleges that certain
telemarketing practices of certain company distributors violate
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and seeks to hold the
company vicariously liable for the practices of its
distributors.

More specifically, the plaintiffs' complaint alleges that
several of the company's distributors used pre-recorded
telephone messages and autodialers to contact prospective
customers in violation of the TCPA's prohibition of such
practices.  

The company's distributors are independent contractors and, if
any such distributors in fact violated the TCPA, they also
violated the company's policies, which require its distributors
to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, the
company stated in a disclosure to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On Apr. 21, 2006, the Circuit Court of Ohio County in the State
of West Virginia granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification in West Virginia.

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


HERCULES INC: No Approval Yet for Georgia Gulf Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules, Inc. has yet to report that the 18th Judicial District
Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana granted final approval to
the $1,412,000 settlement of class actions filed against
Hercules, Inc. and other defendants over the contamination of
potable water supply at Georgia Gulf.

The company is one of several defendants that were sued by over
2,000 individuals in a series of lawsuits, including purported
class actions that were all brought in the 18th Judicial
District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana, under the
captions:

      -- "Jerry Oldham, et al. v. The State of Louisiana, et
         al., Civil Action No. 55,160";

      -- "John Capone, et al. v. The State of Louisiana, et al.,
         Civil Action No. 56,048C"; and

      -- "Georgenner Batton, et al. v. The State of Louisiana,
          et al., Civil Action No. 55,285."

The purported class members and plaintiffs, who claimed to have
worked or lived at or around the Georgia Gulf facility in
Iberville Parish, Louisiana, alleged injury and fear of future
illness from the consumption of contaminated water and,
specifically, elevated levels of arsenic in that water.  

As to the company, plaintiffs alleged that the company itself
and as part of a joint venture operated a nearby plant and, as
part of those operations, used a groundwater injection well to
dispose of various wastes, and that those wastes contaminated
the potable water supply at Georgia Gulf.  

In August 2005, the company and several other defendants entered
into an agreement to settle these matters with the company
agreeing to pay $1,412,000 (Class Action Reporter, March 17,
2006).

On May 4, 2006, the court granted settlement class
certification.  This settlement, which was agreed to by the
company without any admission of liability, is pending final
approval by the court.

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

Hercules, Inc. on the Net: http://www.herc.com/.


HUB INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Face Ill. Suit by Hogan Marren
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hub International Ltd. remains a defendant in a suit filed by
Hogan Marren, Ltd. on January 21, 2005 over contingent
commission.

The company and its affiliates were named as defendants in the
class action filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  

The named plaintiff is a Chicago law firm that obtained its
professional liability insurance through the Chicago office of
what is now Hub Midwest and claims that an undisclosed
contingent commission was received with respect to its policy.

The company disputes the allegations of this lawsuit and is
vigorously defending this case, according to its April 30, 2007
regulatory 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.


INDIANA: La Porte Approves Curb Ramps Plan to Settle Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
La Porte Board of Public Works and Safety approved a plan to
provide sidewalk curb ramps for handicaps to settle a class
action against the city, Daniel Przybyla of The Herald Argus
reports.  The Indiana Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit in
May 2006 on behalf of the blind La Porte resident Jon
Culvahouse.

Mr. Culvahouse strongly believes that the number of inaccessible
sidewalks in town violates the 1992 American with Disabilities
Act, stipulating that all municipalities must construct curb
ramps for the benefit of the handicapped.  

One of the provisions in the settlement already completed was
the removal of the black decorative pillars that stood too close
together making it difficult for those in wheelchairs to steer
through.

Although the settlement is still subject for the City Council's
approval, the department has already planned the installation of
the curb ramps around the area, which should all be completed by
2018.  

The issue left unsettled is whether the residents or the city is
going to fund the construction.  Attorney Art Roule claims the
city has never assumed responsibility over the maintenance of
sidewalks, and that furthermore, the city doesn't have the money
to make such widespread improvements.


JANUS CAPITAL: Plaintiff in "Wangberger" Appeals Suit's Nixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in "Wangberger v. Janus Capital Group Inc., 401(k)
Advisory Committee, et al.," a case that has been consolidated
with other suits in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore,
Maryland, is appealing the dismissal of the case.

Following the market timing investigations by the New York
Attorney General and the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, Janus and certain affiliates were named as
defendants in a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
in Baltimore, Maryland (Case Number MDL No. 1586, 04-MD-15863).  

In August 2006, the U.S. District Court in the Wangberger 401(k)
plan class action dismissed the action with prejudice, and the
plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.

Five amended complaints were filed in these coordinated
proceedings, including:

     (i) "Marini, et al. v. Janus Investment Fund, et al.,
          U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Case
          No. 04-CV-00497,"

which raises claims by a putative class of Janus fund investors
asserting claims on behalf of the investor class;

    (ii) "Steinberg et al. v. Janus Capital Management, LLC et
          al., U.S. District Court, District of Maryland,
          Case No. 04-CV-00518,"

which raises derivative claims by investors in the Janus funds
ostensibly on behalf of the Janus funds;

   (iii) "Wangberger v. Janus Capital Group Inc., 401(k)
          Advisory Committee, et al., U.S. District Court,
          District of Maryland, Case No. JFM-05-2711,"

which raises claims on behalf of participants in the Janus
401(k) plan;

    (iv) "Chasen v. Whiston, et al., U.S. District Court,
          District of Maryland, Case No. 04-MD-00855,"

which raises claims brought on behalf of shareholders of Janus
on a derivative basis against Janus' Board of Directors; and

     (v) "Wiggins, et al. v. Janus Capital Group Inc., et al.,
          U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Case No.
          04-CV-00818,"

which raises claims by a putative class of Janus shareholders
asserting claims on behalf of the shareholders.

In August 2005, the U.S. District Court entered orders
dismissing most of the claims asserted against the Company and
its affiliates by fund investors in the Marini and Steinberg
cases described above, except certain claims under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and under Section 36(b)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

The U.S. District Court also entered an order dismissing all
claims on behalf of Janus corporate shareholders in the Wiggins
lawsuit, but in June 2006 the plaintiffs in that action filed an
amended complaint which asserts similar claims to the initial
complaint.  A Motion to Dismiss this amended complaint is
currently pending before the U.S. District Court.

In August 2006, the U.S. District Court in the Wangberger 401(k)
plan class action dismissed the action with prejudice, and the
plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.

Finally, the U.S. District Court also dismissed the Chasen
lawsuit against Janus' Board of Directors without leave to amend
ruling that the plaintiff had failed to make a pre-suit demand
on the Board of Directors as required by applicable state law.  
The time to appeal this matter has expired.  

As a result of the above events, Janus Capital Group and Janus
Capital Management LLC are the remaining defendants, in some
capacity, in one or more of the actions described in the
preceding paragraph.

The consolidated suit is "In re: Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS,
One Group, Putnam, Allianz Dresdner, case no. 1:04-md-15863-
JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, under Judge J. Frederick Motz.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP
          270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 12125454663
          Fax: 12125454653

Representing the company is:

          Andrew Santo Tulumello, Esq.
          Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 300
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Phone: 12029558657     
          Fax: 12024670539
          E-mail: atulumello@gibsondunn.com


JANUS CAPITAL: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling in IPO Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in "Pfeiffer v. Credit Suisse First Boston, No. 01
Civ. 2014," are awaiting a decision on a review made by the U.S.
Supreme Court of a ruling reinstating antitrust claims in the
suit.

In 2001, a Janus Capital Group Inc. subsidiary was named as a
defendant in a class action alleging that certain underwriting
firms and institutional investors violated antitrust laws in
connection with initial public offerings.  The suit is "Pfeiffer
v. Credit Suisse First Boston, No. 01 Civ. 2014," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The U.S. District Court dismissed the plaintiff's antitrust
claims in November 2003; however, in 2005, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated that decision and
remanded it for further proceedings.

In March 2006, the defendants, including the Janus subsidiary,
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court to review the U.S. Court of Appeal's decision.

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was granted by the U.S.
Supreme Court in December 2006 and argument on the matter was
heard on March 27, 2007.  The parties are now awaiting a
decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Also named defendants in the suit are:

     *The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
     * Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
     * Merrill Lynch,
     * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
     * Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,
     * Bancboston Robertson, Stephens, Inc.,
     * Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,
     * Fidelity Distributors Corp.,
     * Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC,
     * Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Co.,
     * Janus Capital Corp.,
     * Comerica, Inc. d/b/a Munder Capital Management,
     * Van Wagoner Capital Management, Inc. and
     * Van Wagner Funds, Inc.

For more information, visit the Web site of Beatie and Osborn
LLP at http://www.bandolaw.com/.


LOURDES REGIONAL: $7.4M Deal in Suit Against La. Hospital Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Byron Hebert of the 15th Judicial District approved a $7.4
million settlement of a purported class action involving Dr.
Mehmood Patel, a local cardiologist, reports say.

Under the settlement, Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical
Center in Louisiana agreed to pay $7.4 million to settle its
part of the suit accusing a cardiologist of doing unnecessary
angioplasties and other procedures, a report from the Associated
Press said.

Attorney James Ryan, on behalf of Lafayette resident John
Touchet, filed one of the lawsuits against Dr. Patel, which also
names the hospital as a defendant (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
3, 2004).

Dr. Patel, who has had his medical license restricted by the
state Board of Medical Examiners and lost practice privileges,
is accused of performing unnecessary heart procedures at the
hospital.

Mr. Ryan along with fellow lawyers in the suit said Dr. Patel is
the subject of a federal investigation by the U.S. Attorneys
Office for performing and charging for unnecessary medical
procedures.

The suit also names Lafayette General Medical Center and Our
Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center as defendants, alleging
the hospitals were negligent for allowing Dr. Patel to perform
medical work in their facilities.

Plaintiffs' counsel is:

          James G. Ryan, Esq.
          Ryan Law Firm
          820 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 338-3872
          Fax: (612) 338-3874
          Website: http://www.ryanlawfirm.com

Dr. Patel is represented by:

          J. Michael Small, Esq.
          Law Offices of J. Michael Small
          1412 Centre Court Drive, Suite 406
          P.O. Box 1470
          Alexandria, Louisiana 71309-1470
          Phone: 318-487-8963
          Fax: 318-442-3062


MARTHA STEWART: May 29 Hearing Set for $30M Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on May 29 at 3:00 p.m. for the
proposed $30 million settlement in the class action, "In Re
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 02-CV-6273 (JES)."

The court will hold the settlement fairness hearing at the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York 10007-1312.

The settlement covers all persons and entities that bought
shares of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. common stock
between Jan. 8, 2002 and Oct. 2, 2002.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before May 15.  Deadline for the submission of claim
forms is on June 23.

                         Case Background

On Feb. 3, 2003, the company was named as a defendant in a
consolidated and amended class action complaint filed by
plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of persons who
purchased common stock in the company between Jan. 8, 2002 and  
Oct. 2, 2002 (Class Action Reporter, June 1, 2006).

The consolidated suit is captioned, "In re Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case. 02-CV-6273 (JES)."  
Besides the company, it also names Martha Stewart and seven of
its other present or former officers, Gregory R. Blatt, Sharon  
L. Patrick, and five other company officers, as defendants.   

All such individuals other than Martha Stewart are collectively
referred to herein as the individual defendants.  The action
consolidated seven class actions previously filed in the
Southern District of New York.   

The claims in the consolidated class action complaint arose out
of Ms. Stewart's sale of 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems stock
on Dec. 27, 2001.  

The suit asserts violations of Sections 10(b) (and rules
promulgated thereunder), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs allege that the company, Ms. Stewart and the
individual defendants omitted material information and made
statements about Ms. Stewart's sale that were materially false
and misleading.    

They also allege that, as a result of these false and misleading
statements, the market price of the company's stock was inflated
during the putative class periods and dropped after the alleged
falsity of the statements became public.   

Plaintiffs further alleged that the individual defendants traded  
MSO stock while in possession of material non-public
information, but as explained below, all such allegations have
been dismissed.

The consolidated class action complaint seeks certification as a
class action, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and further
relief as determined by the court.

The suit is "In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case. 02-CV-6273 (JES)," filed in the  
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under  
Judge John E. Sprizzo.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Robert Craig Finkel, Esq.
         Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 759-4600
         E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com

         Salvatore Jo Graziano, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York NY 10119
         Phone: 212-554-1538
         Fax: 212-554-1444
         E-mail: SGraziano@blbglaw.com

             - and -

         Mark David Smilow, Esq.
         Weiss & Yourman
         551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
         New York, NY 10176
         Phone: (212) 682-3025
         Fax: (212) 682-3010
         E-mail: msmilow@weisslurie.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Gregory Arthur Markel, Esq.
         Martin L. Seidel, Esq.
         Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP
         One World Financial Center
         New York, NY 10281
         Phone: (212) 504-6112 and 212-504-5643
         Fax: (212) 504-6666 and 212-504-6387
         E-mail: greg.markel@cwt.com and martin.seidel@cwt.com

For more details, contact In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia,
Inc. Securities Litigation Settlement, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC,
Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-
0990, Phone: 1-800-447-7657, Web site: http://www.gilardi.com.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces $500M Breach of Contract Suit in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holders of whole life policies from Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company lodged a class-action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, demanding $500 million
from the insurer, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This suit is brought by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and
all persons who, before Jan. 1, 1982, purchased one or more
participating MetLife individual life of other participating
policy within the Personal Insurance line of business that was
in force at any time during the period Jan. 1, 1985 to April 4,
2000.

Plaintiffs Paul Beavers, Emilio Delao, Jr., David William
Darden, Hortencio Flores, Norma Linda Huerta, Jack Kivich, Jr.
and Robert Merchant claim MetLife transferred assets and
reallocated policy incomes to other lines of its business
despite being obligated to distribute it as dividends to the
plaintiffs.

The complaint alleges that from at least 1985 through April 4,
2000, MetLife transferred earnings and assets and manipulated
the allocation profits so that plaintiffs and other members of
the putative class did not receive the fair and equitable share
of income to which they were entitled under their policies.  
Instead, MetLife transferred assets and reallocated
participating policyholders' incomes to other lines of its
business.

Plaintiffs claim they and other Texas MetLife participating
policyholders have suffered damages as a result of MetLife's
handling of the premiums they paid and the surplus generated by
those premiums.

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

     (a) whether MetLife breached its contract with
         participating policyholders and violated the laws and
         regulations applicable to dividends and surplus;

     (b) whether MetLife allocated assets and income in an
         unfair and inequitable manner;

     (c) whether MetLife deliberately and improperly undermined
         the ability of its individual policyholders to earn a
         better dividend; and

     (d) whether MetLife's transfers of earning and assets
         constituted dividends that should have been paid to the
         class.

Plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of the class, ask for
judgment against defendant for the following:

     -- certification of this action as a class action  
        maintainable under Rule 23, Fed.R. Civ.P;

     -- actual damages of $500 million;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interests;

     -- costs of suit, including attorney fees; and

     -- 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?1eb4

The suit is "Beavers et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 3:07-cv-00260," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Samuel B.
Kent.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Christopher K. Johns, Esq.
          The Buzbee Law Firm
          1910 Ice & Cold Storage Building
          104 21st Street (Moody)
          Galveston, TX 77550
          Phone: 409-762-5393
          Fax: 409-762-0538
          E-mail: chrisjohns@txattorneys.com


MICHAELS STORES: Calif. Court Yet to Approve "Clark" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has yet to approve a proposed settlement in a purported class
action alleging violations of the state's wage and labor laws by
Michaels Stores, Inc.

On July 13, 2005, Michael Clark, a former Michaels store
assistant manager and Lucinda Prouty, a former Michaels store
department manager in San Diego, California, commenced the suit
on behalf of themselves and current and former hourly retail
employees employed in California from July 13, 2001 to the
present.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Diego, and alleges that the company failed to pay
overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods (or compensation
in lieu thereof), and provide itemized employee wage statements.
The Clark suit also alleges that this conduct was in breach of
California's unfair competition law.  

Plaintiff seeks, injunctive relief, damages for unpaid overtime
pay, meal break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  

Under the Class Action Fairness Act, the company removed the
case to federal court on Aug. 5, 2005.  The parties participated
in a voluntary mediation on Oct. 16, 2006 and have reached a
tentative settlement of the case.

Contingent on court approval, the parties have agreed to a
claims made process, with no material impact on the company's
statement of operations, balance sheet, or cash flows for any
period presented, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

The suit is "Clark, et al v. Michaels Stores Inc, et al., Case
No. 3:05-cv-01678-WQH-JMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California under Judge William Q. Hayes
with referral to Judge Jan M. Adler.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Michael D. Singer, Esq.
         Cohelan and Khoury
         605 C. Street, Suite 200
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 595-3001
         Fax: (619) 595-3000
         E-mail: msinger@ck-lawfirm.com.

Representing the defendants is:

         Catherine A. Conway Esq.
         Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: (310) 229-1000
         Fax: (310) 552-6746


MICHAELS STORES: Former Manager Files Calif. Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. is facing a purported class action filed
on Dec. 29, 2006 by John DeJoseph, a former Michaels store
manager in Valencia, California.

Mr. DeJoseph commenced the purported class action proceeding
against Michaels Stores, Inc. on behalf of himself and current
and former salaried store employees employed in California from
May 10, 2002 to the present.

The DeJoseph suit was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles.  It alleges that Michaels failed to pay
overtime wages, provide meal periods, accurately record hours
worked, provide itemized employee wage statements, and that
Michaels unlawfully made deductions from employees' earnings.  

Additionally, the suit alleges that the foregoing conduct was in
breach of California's unfair competition law.  

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages for unpaid wages,
penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs,
according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Feb. 3, 2007.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts  
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


MICHAELS STORES: Tex. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund action against Michaels
Stores, Inc. was consolidated with the Hulliung/Ziolkowski
action in February.

This action is a consolidation of three previously filed actions
and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.

On Sept. 6, 2006, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund filed a
putative class action on behalf of itself and former holders of
Michaels Common Stock.  

The lawsuit named Michaels and all of its then-current directors
as defendants.  

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or
omitted material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements for
2004, 2005 and 2006, including, among other things:

     -- that Michaels' reported financial results inflated its
        reported earnings by not properly recording stock-based
        compensation expense relating to the granting of stock
        options;

     -- that problems with Michaels' internal controls prevented
        it from issuing accurate financial reports and
        projections; and

    -- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in
        the granting of backdated stock options.  

The plaintiff asserted claims against all of the defendants of
(a) violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (b)
violations of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  

The plaintiff sought, among other relief, an indeterminate
amount of damages from the defendants and equitable or
injunctive relief, including the rescission of stock option
grants.  

By an order dated Dec. 8, 2006, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity
Fund was named the lead plaintiff in this action.

On Nov. 27, 2006, Albert Hulliung and James and Christine
Ziolkowski (who had previously filed two separate stockholder
derivative actions, which were consolidated on November 7, 2006)
filed a consolidated class action complaint against Michaels and
certain of its former officers and directors on behalf of a
class of other former shareholders.  

The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants
misrepresented and/or omitted material facts in Michaels' annual
proxy statements for 1993 through 2006, including, among other
things, failing to disclose Michaels' and the defendants'
alleged option backdating practices and the fact that Michaels
and the defendants had reported false financial statements as a
result of those practices.  

The consolidated complaint also alleged that the proxy
statements failed to disclose:

      -- that Michaels had problems with its internal controls
         that prevented it from issuing accurate financial
         reports and projections;

      -- that because of improperly recorded stock-based
         compensation expenses, Michaels' reported financial
         results violated GAAP;

      -- that Michaels' public disclosures presented an inflated
         view of Michaels' earnings by understating Michaels's
         past compensation expenses;

      -- that Michaels faced substantial liability for its past
         and ongoing backdating practices; and

      -- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in
         the granting of backdated stock options.  

The plaintiffs asserted claims against all defendants for
violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and sought, among
other relief, an indeterminate amount of damages from the
defendants, as well as an award of attorneys fees and costs.

By an order dated Feb. 1, 2007, the Massachusetts Laborers'
Annuity Fund action was consolidated with the
Hulliung/Ziolkowski action, according to the company's May 3,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts  
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Tex. Litigation Over Bain/Blackstone Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. was named as a defendant in a consolidated
action over a merger wherein the company was acquired by
affiliates of two private investment firms, Bain Capital
Partners, LLC and The Blackstone Group.  

Purported former shareholders Julie Fathergill, Feivel Gottlieb,
and Roberta Schuman, who seek to represent a class of other
former shareholders, filed the suit.  

The action is a consolidation of three previously filed lawsuits
and is pending in the 192nd District Court for Dallas County,
Texas.  

The plaintiffs' claims arise out of the merger and, in addition
to Michaels, the plaintiffs name as defendants certain former
and then-current officers and directors of Michaels and certain
other entities involved in the merger or affiliated therewith.  

The plaintiffs allege that the merger was procedurally and
financially unfair to Michaels' then-shareholders and assert
claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual
defendants and claims for aiding and abetting such breaches
against the entities.  

Among other things, plaintiffs seek:

      -- a declaration that the merger is void and ordering it
         rescinded;

      -- an accounting for, disgorgement of, and the imposition
         of a constructive trust on, property and profits
         received by the defendants; and

      -- unspecified damages, including rescissory damages.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts  
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


MICHAELS STORES: No Hearing Date Yet for Calif. Managers' Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has yet to schedule a
hearing on the certification of a class action filed against
Michaels of Canada and Michaels Stores, Inc.

On Dec. 20, 2002, James Cotton, a former store manager of
Michaels of Canada, ULC, the company's wholly owned subsidiary,
and Suzette Kennedy, a former assistant manager of Michaels of
Canada, commenced the proposed class proceeding on behalf of
themselves and current and former employees employed in Canada.

The Cotton claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice and alleges that the defendants violated employment
standards legislation in Ontario and other provinces and
territories of Canada by failing to pay overtime compensation as
required by that legislation.

The Cotton claim also alleges that this conduct was in breach of
the contracts of employment of those individuals.  It seeks a
declaration that the defendants have acted in breach of
applicable legislation, payment to current and former employees
for overtime, damages for breach of contract, punitive,
aggravated and exemplary damages, interest, and costs.

In May 2005, the plaintiffs delivered material in support of
their request that this action be certified as a class
proceeding.  

The company filed and served its responding materials opposing
class certification on Jan. 31, 2006.  A date has not yet been
set for the hearing with respect to certification, according to
the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Feb. 3, 2007.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts  
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Court Denies Dismissal Motion in "McGreevey"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana refuses to
dismiss Northwestern Corp. as a defendant in the class action,
"McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Co., et al., Case no.
2:03-cv-00001-SHE."

The company was one of several defendants named in the class
action, which was filed by former shareholders of The Montana
Power Co., most of whom became shareholders of Touch America
Holdings, Inc. as a result of a corporate reorganization of the
Montana Power Co.

The suit claims that the disposition of various generating and
energy-related assets by The Montana Power Co. were void because
of the failure to obtain shareholder approval for the
transactions.

Plaintiffs in the suit are thus seeking to reverse those
transactions, or receive fair value for their stock as of late
2001, when plaintiffs claim shareholder approval should have
been sought.

The company is named as a defendant due to the fact that it
purchased The Montana Power L.L.C., which plaintiffs are
claiming is a successor to the Montana Power Co.

In June 2006, the company and the "McGreevey" plaintiffs entered
into an agreement to settle the claims that were brought.

In November 2006, a Bankruptcy Court finally approved this
agreement and the claims were discharged.  The plaintiffs'
attorneys and the company filed a joint motion to dismiss the
claims against the company in the McGreevey lawsuits and no
objections were filed.

On March 16, 2007, the federal court denied the motions to
dismiss the company from the McGreevey lawsuits questioning the
benefits of the settlement to be received by the class members
in the settlement and the authority of the plaintiffs' counsel
to have negotiated the settlement without a class having been
certified by the federal court.

The suit is "McGreevey, et al. v. Montana Power Co., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-00001-SEH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana under Judge Sam E. Haddon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Wade Dahood, Esq.
         Knight Dahood Mclean Everett & Dayton
         P.O. Box 727
         Anaconda, MT 59711-0727
         Phone: 406-563-3424
         Fax: 406-563-7519

         Milton Datsopoulos, Esq.
         Datsopoulos Macdonald & Lind
         201 W. Main, Central Square Building, Suite 201
         Missoula, MT 59802
         Phone: 406-728-0810
         Fax: 406-543-0134

         Sean S. Frampton, Esq.
         Morrison & Frampton
         P.O. Box 1090
         Whitefish, MT 59937
         Phone: 406-862-9600
         Fax: (406) 862-9611

              - and -

         Allan M. McGarvey, Esq.
         McGarvey Heberling Sullivan & McGarvey,
         745 S. Main Street
         Kalispell, MT 59901-2529  
         Phone: 406-752-5566
         Fax: 406-752-7124
         E-mail: amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com


NYSE GROUP: 2nd Circuit Mulls Specialists Securities Suit Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal regarding the final judgment that favored
defendants in the consolidated class action, "In re NYSE
Specialists Securities Litigation."

In December 2003, the California Public Employees' Retirement
System (CalPERS) filed a purported class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the NYSE Group, Inc., NYSE specialist firms, and others,
alleging various violations of the Exchange Act and breach of
fiduciary duty, on behalf of a purported class of persons who
bought or sold unspecified NYSE-listed stocks between 1998 and
2003.

The court consolidated CalPERS' suit with three other purported
class actions and a non-class action into the action now
entitled, "In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation" and
appointed CalPERS and Empire Programs, Inc. co-lead plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Sept. 16, 2004. The
consolidated complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of
Sections 6(b), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges
that, with the NYSE's knowledge and active participation, the
specialist firms engaged in manipulative, self-dealing and
deceptive conduct, including inter-positioning, front-running
and "freezing" the specialist's book and falsifying trading
records to conceal their misconduct.

Plaintiffs also claim that the NYSE constrained its regulatory
activities in order to receive substantial fees from the
specialist firms based on their profits and that defendants'
conduct "caused investors to purchase or sell shares on the NYSE
at distorted and manipulated prices, enriching defendants and
damaging plaintiffs and the Class."

The consolidated complaint also alleges that certain generalized
NYSE statements concerning the operation of its market were
rendered false and misleading by the NYSE's non-disclosure of
its alleged failure to properly regulate specialists, and that
the NYSE was motivated to participate in or permit the
specialist firms' alleged improper trading in order to maintain
or enhance its fee revenues and the compensation of its
executives, including its former chairman and chief executive
officer Richard A. Grasso.  It seeks unspecified compensatory
damages against defendants, jointly and severally.

On Nov. 16, 2004, the specialist firms and the NYSE filed
motions to dismiss the complaint.  On Dec. 12, 2005, the court
issued an order granting the NYSE's motion and dismissing all of
the claims against it with prejudice.  On the same day, the
court also granted in part and denied in part the motions to
dismiss of the specialist defendants.

On Feb. 17, 2006, the court entered a final judgment in favor of
the NYSE.  Plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the appeal on Feb.
26, but has not rendered a decision, according to the company's
May 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-cv-08264-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite
         200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-
         367-1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Robert Craig Finkel of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 759-4600, E-
         mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) E. Michael Bradley of John E. Lavelle, Esq., 38 Willis
         Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (212) 326-3863, Fax:
         (212) 755-7306, E-mail: embradley@jonesday.com; and
         
     (2) Deborah S. Burstein of King & Spalding, LLP, 1185
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone:
         (212) 556-2347, Fax: (212) 556-2222.


PIER 1: Recalls Glassware Prone to Breakage, Cracking
-----------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, of Fort Worth, Texas, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, voluntarily recalls
nearly 180,000 units of orange/red glassware pieces.

The firm says the glassware can crack or break unexpectedly,
posing a laceration hazard.

Pier 1 Imports has received 17 reports of glassware that cracked
or broke.  One injury involving minor cuts from broken glass has
been reported.

The recalled glassware pieces involve large and small tumblers,
goblets and margaritas.  The bottom half of the tumblers is red
and the top half is orange.  The bottom of the margaritas and
the goblets is clear and the top is red and orange.

These glassware pieces were manufactured in China and were being
sold by Pier 1 Imports stores nationwide, on its Web site
(http://www.pier1.com),and in their April 2007 catalog from  
January 2007 through April 2007 for about $6 each.

Consumers should stop using the products involved immediately
and return them to the nearest Pier 1 Imports retail store for a
refund or merchandise credit.

You can view the photo of these glassware pieces at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07182.html

For additional information consumers can contact Pier 1 Imports
at (800) 245-4595 between 8 a.m. and 11 p.m. CT Monday through
Saturday and between 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.pier1.com.


SCOR SA: Sued for "Excluding" Converium Shareholders in Tender
--------------------------------------------------------------
Converium Holdings A.G. filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against SCOR S.A.
and Patinex on April 17, 2006.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
13(d), 14(d), and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, because, among other things:

     (1) SCOR has unlawfully and unfairly excluded Converium's
         U.S. shareholders, a group which represents
         approximately 22% of Converium's outstanding shares,
         from participating in SCOR's unsolicited tender offer;
         and

     (2) defendants failed to make proper disclosures in
         connection with their purchase and ownership of
         Converium securities.

Converium sought expedited discovery and briefing schedule so as
to permit a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction prior
to May 22, 2007, the original deadline on which Converium
shareholders may tender shares in connection with SCOR's
unsolicited tender offer.

The tender offer was scheduled to open on May 8, but on May 7,
SCOR issued a press release saying the offer period will now run
from May 29, 2007 until June 25, 2007.

It said in a statement it took note of: "the Swiss Takeover
Board's Recommendation II dated May 7, 2007 to extend the
cooling-off period by an additional 13 Swiss trading days to May
25, 2007 due to:

     * the uncertainty of the impact of the complaint filed on
       April 16, 2007 by Converium Holding AG; and

     * on May 1, 2007 by an American holder of American
       Depositary Shares of Converium in the U.S. District Court
       for the Southern District of New York

on SCOR's public tender offer in Switzerland for all publicly
held registered Converium shares."

"As a result of such proposed extension of the cooling-off
period, the offer period will now run from May 29, 2007 until
June 25, 2007, 4:00 p.m. CET, subject to extension in accordance
with the provisions of the offer prospectus."

SCOR had said that it has complied with all applicable legal and
regulatory provisions in connection with the Offer and will
continue to defend itself vigorously against the unfounded
allegations of the plaintiffs.

Among other things, Converium is seeking an order enjoining SCOR
from consummating the offer until SCOR and Patinex have complied
with their obligations under the Williams Act, including SCOR
extending the offer to Converium's U.S. shareholders and ADS
holders.


SINGAPORE: Appeals Court Rejects Gov't Employees' Suit Over CFP
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Court of Appeals in Singapore rejected a class action filed by
103 government employees seeking state pension payback, Channel
News Asia reports.

In rejecting the lawsuit filed by civil servants who want to
return to the pension scheme 34 years after they had opted for
the Central Provident Fund (CPF), the country's Court of Appeal
upheld the High Court's earlier ruling that state pension was an
entitlement and not an absolute right for civil servants, and
that the 1973 option was legally binding.

The plaintiffs are among 12,000 public officers given the option
by the then-Permanent Secretary of Finance of converting to the
CPF scheme in May 1973.  About 7,500 transferred to the scheme.  
Currently, 1 percent of civil servants are on the pension scheme
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2007).

Central to the case is whether the then-Permanent Secretary had
the power to make their decision to join the CPF scheme
"irrevocable."  The government employees wanted to return to the
government's Central Provident Fund contributions that would
have granted them a monthly stipend, life-long free medical
treatment and heavily subsidized ward charges.

The group's lawyer, Mr. V. Ramayah, said the plaintiffs were
only told the advantage of using the CPF to buy HDB flats, but
were not informed that they would lose their medical benefits.

In August 2006, Justice Tan Lee Meng dismissed plaintiffs'
arguments.  At a hearing on Feb. 20, Mr. Ramayah argued that
under Section 9(d) of the Pensions Act and Article 112 of the
Singapore Constitution, civil servants' rights to a pension
could not be "contracted out by private treaty".

In answer, Second Solicitor-General Walter Woon, representing
the state's Attorney-General Chambers, countered that the
pension scheme was not an "entitlement" for civil servants.

On May 7, after a 10-week deliberation by Justices Andrew Phang,
V K Rajah and Lai Siu Chiu, the court dismissed the appeal and
ordered the group to pay costs.

In delivering the 52-page written judgment, Justice Phang said
the judges were mindful of the wider impact of their decision.

"Given the important issues that were raised as well as the
consideration that a great many public officers would be
affected by the outcome of this appeal, this court reserved
judgement in order to consider the relevant legal material as
well as arguments before it in greater detail," he said.

But Justice Phang flatly rejected this, adding that the argument
was "both illogical as well as misleading," the report said.

Justice Phang said, "We cannot see how it could be argued that
where the officers concerned are, in fact, offered a free choice
to opt for what (in their minds) is a better scheme, the ideals
... mentioned have been undermined or contravened."

He also reiterated that the group had benefited from the switch
to the CPF scheme, including the possibility of using CPF funds
to pay for housing.

"It is true that they now feel they are better off opting back
to the pension scheme.  However, they have disingenuously
omitted throughout (the hearings) to state that they have
benefited from the CPF scheme in ways that cannot be
quantified," Justice Phang concluded.


TODCO: Faces Stockholder Suit Over Sale to Hercules Offhoshore
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two stockholder lawsuits were filed in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas on March 19 and 20, 2007, alleging that the
board of directors of TODCO breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the proposed acquisition of TODCO by Hercules
Offshore, Inc.

The first suit, pending in the 333rd Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2007-16397, is a purported
stockholder class action against the TODCO directors, and
contains claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

The second suit, pending in the 269th Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2007-16357, is a stockholder
derivative action purportedly filed on behalf of TODCO against
the TODCO directors and the Company, and contains claims for
breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, candor, good
faith and/or fair dealing; corporate waste; unlawful self
dealing; and claims that the defendants conspired, aided and
abetted and/or assisted one another in a common plan to breach
these fiduciary duties.

Both complaints allege, among other things, that the TODCO
directors engaged in self-dealing in approving the proposed
acquisition by the Company by advancing their own personal
interests or those of TODCO's senior management at the expense
of the stockholders of TODCO, utilized a defective sales process
not designed to maximize stockholder value, and failed to
consider any value maximizing alternatives, thus causing TODCO
stockholders to receive an unfair price for their shares of
TODCO common stock. The second suit also alleges that the
Company conspired, aided and abetted or assisted in these
violations.

Both complaints seek, among other things, an injunction
preventing the completion of the acquisition by the Company,
rescission if the acquisition is consummated, imposition of a
constructive trust in favor of plaintiffs upon any benefits
improperly received by the defendants, attorneys' fees and
expenses associated with the lawsuit and any other equitable
relief the court deems just and proper.

TODCO is a provider of oil and gas services that operates a
fleet of 64 drilling rigs, consisting of 27 inland barge rigs,
24 jackup rigs, three submersible rigs, one platform rig and
nine land rigs. TODCO also operates through a wholly-owned
subsidiary, Delta Towing LLC, a fleet of U.S. marine support
vessels consisting primarily of shallow water tugs, crewboats
and utility barges along the U.S. Gulf Coast and in the U.S.
Gulf of Mexico.  


TRACFONE WIRELESS: Settlement of Consumer Fraud Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC announces that the
settlement of a class action filed by consumers alleging fraud
in TracFone Wireless, Inc.'s billing has been granted final
court approval.

The court's approval of the settlement guarantees outstanding
benefits to the class, nearly equivalent to 100% of the average
loss incurred by each class member.

The suit, filed by Jeanette Wagner of Walton, alleges claims
based upon common law breach of contract, negligence, and
negligent misrepresentation.

The Action seeks injunctive relief and recovery of damages
resulting from TracFone's alleged deceptive practice of
intentionally and/or negligently misrepresenting the terms and
conditions of its pre-paid wireless phone service by, among
other things, charging consumers at the roaming rate for calls
that are placed within their local calling area, and refusing to
extend the finite period of Pre-Paid Service during times when
consumers' phones are being repaired and/or replaced by
Defendant due to defects in the phone.

In March, TracFone agreed to settle the class action filed by
consumers alleging fraud in the company's billing and was given
preliminary approval by Boone (Ky.) Circuit Judge Tony Frohlich
(Class Action Reporter, Mar. 13, 2007).

The settlement will entitle customers who used the company's
services from Feb. 21, 2001 to June 13, 2006 to an additional 20
units of airtime.  The settlement is estimated to cost up to $70
million, and to benefit 12 million to 13 million customers.

TracFone has agreed to provide to each qualifying Class Member
who completes and returns the Proof of Claim twenty (20)
additional units of airtime on the Pre-Paid Service when a Class
Member purchases and adds an airtime card to a TracFone handset.

In addition, TracFone has agreed to revise its Terms and
Conditions of Service and revise the disclosures on its coverage
maps on its web site to advise customers that, due to
complexities of the wireless industry which are beyond
TracFone's control, TracFone customers' handsets may, while in
their home calling area, roam on the facilities of carriers
other than their home carrier and that in those circumstances
they may be charged at the roaming rate for those calls.

The revised disclosures will also disclose that every TracFone
handset indicates on its screen when it is in the roaming mode
and charging the roaming rate, so that customers are advised as
to the rates they are charged at any given time and can decide
whether or not to place a call at the current rate.

TracFone also agreed it would warn customers that local calls
could be billed for roaming charges because of the nature of
cell-phone systems.

Deadline to file claims is June 28, 2007.

Wagner Case Settlement on the net: http://www.wagnercase.com

The suit is "Wagner v. TracFone Wireless, Inc., Case No. 06-CI-
304," filed in Boone County Circuit Court in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky.

Class Counsel:

          Jeffrey P. Harris, Esq.
          Statman, Harris, Siegel & Eyrich, LLC
          441 Vine Street, Suite 3700
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3009 (Hamilton Co.)
          Phone: 513-621-2666 or 1-888-876-7881
          Fax: 513-587-4477
          E-mail: Jharris@statmanharris.com

          - and -

          Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
          Strauss & Troy
          The Federal Reserve Building
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202




                            *********



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  * * *