CAR_Public/070514.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 14, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 94

                            Headlines


AGRIPROCESSORS INC: Employees File Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime
ALLIANZ LIFE: Minn. Court Certifies Class in Annuities Lawsuit
BRINKER INT'L: Certification of Calif. Labor Lawsuit Reviewed
BURGER KING: Faces Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit
CALIFORNIA: NLG, MALDEF File Suit Over May Day Rally Dispersal

CANADA: Suit Claims Oath to Queen Violates Charter Provision
CARRIER CORP: Minn. Customers Join High-Efficiency Furnaces Suit
CHARTER ONE: Ind. High Court Orders Dismissal of "Condra" Case
CHOICE HOTELS: Named in Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Colo.
COMCAST CORP: Antitrust Lawsuit in Penna. Granted Certification

CONSECO INC: Ind. Court Frees Insurer from "Russell" Liability
DENTSPLY INT'L: Faces Pa. Suit Over Cavitron Ultrasonic Scalers
DIGIMARC CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ore. Securities Suit Dismissal
DORCHESTER MINERALS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Okla. Natural Gas Suit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Dismissal of Retirees' Suit in Conn. Upheld

DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties Settle "Finley" Litigation in N.Y.
EKONOMY QSR: Employee Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
ENERGY PARTNERS: Motion in Del. Suit Over Terminated Deal Denied
ESTEE LAUDER: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit in N.Y.
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Subsidiaries Face Suits Over Tenant Reports

FISERV TRUST: Appeals Class Certification in "Jenson" Litigation
FLOR LLC: Recalls Carpet Tiles Possibly Embedded with Needles
GURLEY'S FOODS: Recalls Cranberry Mix Due to Undeclared Sulfites
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 18
KAPLAN INC: June Hearing Set in $49M Antitrust Suit Settlement

L G SOURCING: Recalls Table Lamps After Report of Minor Fire
MBNA CANADA: Appeals Court Certifies Suit Over interest Rate
MICHIGAN: Plan to Move Correctional Facility Inmates Rejected
NEW YORK: Baseball Enthusiasts Sue City Over Metal Bat Ban
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Livonia Lawyers Seek $9.9M in Investors Suit

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Faces Calif. Suit Over Andean Operations
PERSONAL TOUCH: Lawsuit in Mo. Alleges Labor Code Violations
REAL ESTATE FIRMS: Sued Over "Illegal" Conveyancing Practice
STATESIDE POWERSPORTS: Recalls ATVs that Lack Safety Devices
STUART FENCE: Accused of Violating Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act

TOTAL TIRE: Faces Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit
TRAVELERS COS: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuits in La.
TRAVELERS COS: Minn. Court Yet to Approve Securities Suit Deal
US AUTO: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set May 28, 2007
WASHINGTON: Judge Certifies Class in Seattle Ticketing Lawsuit

* Two U.S. Class Action Law Firms Open Offices in United Kingdom


                            *********


AGRIPROCESSORS INC: Employees File Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agriprocessors Inc. is facing a federal lawsuit filed March 27,
2007 wherein its former and current employees claim the company
has not paid them for preparation time for the last two years,
Josh Nelson of WCF Courier reports.

The lawsuit now seeks a class-action status that could most
likely include 1,500 Agriprocessors employees, Mr. Nelson's
report stated.

The suit alleges:

     -- Agriprocessors did not pay for the time spent in
        changing into safety gears or the time spent in cleaning
        and sanitizing packing equipments, which is vital to the
        plant's operations;

     -- employees were required to continue working, even after
        compensation stopped to finish daily production and
        clean work areas; and

     -- the company refused to compensate the workers at the
        Postville, Iowa plant despite its knowledge that time
        spent during the said activities were compensable under
        state and federal law.

The lawsuit further says workers' preparation for work could
take up to 35 minutes everyday and that the company adheres to a
common policy where the workers are only paid for hours spent in
production.

Agriprocessors Vice President in Postville Sholom Rubashkin said
the company is aware of the complaint but found no merit to the
claims.

Based on the report, similar lawsuits were filed against Tyson
Foods in February by employees at plants in Denison and Storm
Lake.

The case is "Salazar v. Agriprocessors Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
01006-LRR," filed in Iowa Northern District Court under Judge
Linda R. Reade.

The employees listed in the suit are:

         Eduardo Salazar,          
         Walter Ortiz,
         Gregorio Lux,              
         Gustavo Cujluj,
         Santos Sis Lopez,
         Rubelino Hernandez,
         William Sir,
         Jeronimo Toj Granados,
         Marvin Yovany Lopez,
         Imelda Lozano,
         Cesar Toj Micolax,
         Claudio Ruiz,
         Carlos Ixen Choc,
         Cesar Morroquin,
         Berulo Morillo Jimenez,
         Bernardo Hernandez Lemus,
         Antiono Chavez Figueroa,
         Hugo Jovani Lopez,
         Samuel Lopez Garcia,
         Luis Lopez,
         Jose Dany Lopez,
         Sergio Gergara,
         Jose Damasio Lopez

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         MacDonald Smith, Esq.
         Smith & McElwain
         505 Fifth Street Suite 530
         Sioux City, IA 51101
         Phone: 712 255 8094
         Fax: 712 255 3825
         E-mail: smitmcel@aol.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Thomas M. Cunningham, Esq.
         Nyemaster, Goode, Voigts, West, Hansell and
         O'Brien, PC
         700 Walnut Street Suite 1600
         Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
         Phone: 515 283 3100
         Fax: 515 283 8045  
         E-mail: tmcunningham@nyemaster.com
         
               - and -

         Jeffery A. Meyer, Esq.
         Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP
         135 Crossways Park Drive Suite 201
         Woodbury, NY 11797
         Phone: 516 681 1100
         Fax: 516 681 1101
         E-mail: jmeyer@kdsbvlaw.com


ALLIANZ LIFE: Minn. Court Certifies Class in Annuities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has
granted national class-action status to the lawsuit, "Mooney v.
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:06-
cv-00545-ADM-FLN."

The lawsuit -- filed on Feb. 9 2006 -- accuses Allianz Life of
using deceptive sales and marketing tactics to sell annuities to
senior citizens.

Represented by Karl Cambronne of The Chestnut & Cambronne Law
Firm, plaintiffs in the suit are:

      -- Linda L. Mooney, and
      -- Lieselotte W. Thorpe.

A report by The Minneapolis Star Tribune explains that an
annuity is a financial contract in which the purchaser agrees to
pay a lump sum to an insurer in exchange for regular payments
that last the duration of the contract or until the customer
dies.

The lawsuits focus on an increasingly popular type of product
known as a deferred equity-indexed annuity, in which the buyer
invests money tax-free in an account tied to a stock market
index, such as the Standard & Poor's 500.  

After a set period of time, the account balance, including the
principal and a minimum return guaranteed by the insurer, is
converted into an annuity that pays the customer.

Experts have contended that the elderly should not buy deferred
annuities since they tie up money -- sometimes long past life
expectancy -- and also are difficult for heirs and beneficiaries
to access.

The suit contends that Allianz promised customers immediate cash
bonuses from buying the annuities.  In reality, according to the
suit those who decided to access their money had to pay enormous
"surrender penalties" to collect their bonuses.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that the decision by Judge
Ann Montgomery could affect 400,000 people across the country
that bought Allianz "cash bonus" annuities since February 2000.

Commenting on the recent ruling, a spokesman for Allianz stated
that that it plans to appeal.  In downplaying the significance
of the ruling Allianz spokesman Jim McManus told reporters, "We
want to emphasize that this ruling is procedural only and does
not address the merits -- or lack thereof -- of the plaintiff's
claim."

The suit is "Mooney v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North
America, Case No. 0:06-cv-00545-ADM-FLN," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
         Chestnut & Cambronne
         222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-339-7300
         Fax: 612-336-2940
         E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com

Representing the defendants is:

         David A. Applebaum
         Leonard Street and Deinard, PA
         150 S. 5th St., Ste. 2300
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-335-1943
         Fax: 612-335-1657
         E-mail: david.applebaum@leonard.com


BRINKER INT'L: Certification of Calif. Labor Lawsuit Reviewed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals is reviewing the class
certification of a lawsuit against restaurant operator Brinker
International, Inc. that was filed in San Diego County Superior
Court.

Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed the
suit, alleging violations of California labor laws with respect
to meal and rest breaks.  

The suit seeks penalties and attorney's fees.  Judge Patricia
A.Y. Cowett certified it as a class action in July 2006.  

The class consists of 63,000 current and former employees of the
company who are alleging violations of California law mandating
workers' meal and rest breaks (Class Action Reporter, July 19,
2006).

The California Court of Appeals stayed all trial court activity
in December 2006 and is currently reviewing the certification of
the class.

The company reported no material development in the matter in
its May 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28,
2007.

Brinker International, Inc. -- http://www.brinker.com-- is  
principally engaged in the ownership, operation, development,
and franchising of restaurant concepts.


BURGER KING: Faces Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging
Labor Code violations.

Lead plaintiff Ruben Pacheco, former Burger King Assistant
Manager Trainee, brings this action on behalf of all hourly-paid
employees and/or former employees of Burger King who performed
services and/or worked in excess of the maximum hours provided
by the FLSA but no provisions was made by the employer to
properly pay them at the rate of time-and-one-half for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek as provided in the FLSA.

This is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid
overtime wages, under the laws of the U.S.  

Filed on May 3, the suit alleges Burger King knew and/or showed
reckless disregard of the provisions of the FLSA concerning the
payment of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and remain owing plaintiff and those similarly-
situated these overtime wages since the commencement of
plaintiff's and those similarly-situated employee's employment
with defendant, and plaintiff and those similarly situated are
entitled to recover double damages.

Plaintiffs demand judgment against defendant for:

     -- compensatory and liquidated damages as set forth in the
        complaint, including but not limited to payment of all
        hours worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek at a
        rate of one and one-half time their hourly rate as well
        as payment of double damages;

     -- their costs of suit;

     -- prejudgment interest;

     -- reasonable attorney fees; and

     -- any and all other relief which the court deems just and
        equitable.

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ee6

The suit is "Pacheco v. Burger King, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
21172-ASG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Alan S. Gold.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Sheila Marie Cesarano, Esq.
          Shutts & Bowen
          201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1500 Miami Center
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-379-9103
          Fax: 347-7386
          E-mail: scesarano@shutts-law.com

          - and -

          Jose J. Larraz, Jr., Esq.
          Jose J. Larraz PA
          7270 NW 12th Street, Suite 570
          Miami, FL 33126
          Phone: 305-477-9900
          Fax: 305-477-9976
          E-mail: larrazefilings@email.com


CALIFORNIA: NLG, MALDEF File Suit Over May Day Rally Dispersal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Lawyers Guild (NLG), along with attorneys from the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF),
filed a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of the community
groups who organized a May Day immigrants rights rally at
MacArthur Park in Los Angeles' heavily Latino immigrant
community.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) disrupted the event
when riot-gear clad officers swept through the park without
warning and ordered everyone leave the park.

The suit seeks changes in how the LAPD responds to
demonstrations, as well as damages for all of the peaceful
participants in the rally who were beaten and shot by the police
and chased from the park on May 1, 2007.

According to the lawsuit, the police broke up the demonstration
without justification.  A dispersal order was given from a
helicopter hovering several blocks away from the park.

The announcement was largely drowned out by the noise of the
helicopter and was given only in English, despite the fact that
the MacArthur Park community is largely Spanish-speaking
immigrants.

The declaration of an unlawful assembly was not made before the
police began shooting people with less lethal munitions and
beating anyone in their path with batons and there was no
warning and an opportunity to leave before people were shot.
Many individuals were shot in the back as they attempted to flee
the police.

"This was nothing short of a police riot," said Carol Sobel,
President of the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Lawyers
Guild and one of the attorneys on the class action.  "The police
shot munitions at anyone in the park.  It was sheer luck that
more people were not injured and that no child was seriously
harmed by the lawless action of the LAPD on May 1."

The original police estimates, provided in the days immediately
following May 1, were that 10 people were injured and 50 to 100
"agitators" prompted the police response.

Since then, the number of injured reported by the police has
risen to 24 and the number of "agitators" dropped to
approximately 30.  

Lawyers for the class action estimate that they have received
reports from dozens of individuals injured that day as they were
chased from the park, including reports of broken bones,
concussions, and other contusions.

Several individuals suffered injuries from head strikes with
batons, a serious categorically lethal use of force according to
the LAPD's own training.  

To date, videos of the rally and police action have failed to
substantiate the police claims of provocation for the massive
and brutal police response.

Since the early 1990s, the City has paid out over $9,000,000 in
damages for police abuse at demonstrations, including
approximately $5,000,000 for the police actions at the
Democratic National Convention in 2000.

Organizational Plaintiffs

      -- MIWON - Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing
         Network;

      -- CHIRLA - Coalition for Humane Immigrants Rights Los
         Angeles;

      -- KIWA - Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance;

      -- IDEPSCA - Institute of Popular Education of Southern
         California;

      -- GWC - Garment Workers Center; and

      -- PWC - Philipino Workers Center.

Individual plaintiffs include:

      -- Kevin Breslin, who was present at the May Day rally as
         a legal observer on behalf of the National Lawyers
         Guild.  He was struck at least 5 times on his legs by
         at least two officers and then hit in the chest.

      -- Luis Galvez tried to help people escape from the park
         and, as he did so, was hit on the head, neck and back
         multiple times, and knocked unconscious by a baton
         strike from behind.

      -- Jorge Lopez was with friends eating snacks when he
         heard yelling and shouting and saw people running.  He
         was shot with a rubber bullet in the chest.  When he
         tried to retrieve the ball that hit him, he was shot
         two more times in the leg.

      -- Leopoldo Ortiz is a 76-year-old veteran who was walking
         in the park when the police attack began.  One officer
         hit him multiple times in the stomach, knocking the
         wind out of him.  He fell to the ground and was kicked
         two times in the backside.

For more details, contact:

         Carol Sobel
         Cyntha Anderson-Barker
         Jorge Gonzalez
         National Lawyers Guild - Los Angeles Chapter
         8124 West Third Street, Suite 101
         Los Angeles, CA 90048
         Phone: 310 393-3055, 213 381-3246, and 213 670-0063
         Web site: http://www.nlg.org


CANADA: Suit Claims Oath to Queen Violates Charter Provision
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Roach, immigrant from Trinidad and Tobago, now a
Canadian resident, filed a lawsuit asserting that the mandatory
oath to Great Britain's monarch violates the charter's freedom
of conscience provision.  He expects his case would stand until
September, when he could move for a class-action status,
according to a report by Joseph Brean of CanWest News Service.

An Ottawa lawyer found the case frivolous and asked Justice
Edward Belobaba to dismiss it.  Contrary to the lawyer's
opinion, the judge found the case "fascinating" and refused to
dismiss it, according to the report.


CARRIER CORP: Minn. Customers Join High-Efficiency Furnaces Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners in Minnesota filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota against Carrier
Corp., the manufacturer of Carrier high efficiency condensing
furnaces.

The homeowners allege that, beginning in 1989, Carrier stopped
manufacturing its high-efficiency condensing furnaces with high-
grade stainless steel and instead used plastic-coated mild steel
that corrodes and fails well before the industry standard and
expected life of 20 years.  Carrier has never disclosed this
problem to its customers, the suit further alleges.

The case was filed on behalf of an estimated 150,000 residents
of Minnesota who own or owned these furnaces manufactured by
Carrier and sold under the Carrier, Bryant, Day & Night, and
Payne brand names.

"My furnace failed in the middle of January when it was 20
degrees outside," said James Nogosek of Winona, Minnesota, one
of the plaintiffs.  The technician who examined Mr. Nogosek's
furnace told him the furnace failed due to the "poor quality
parts" Carrier used.

"Minnesota homeowners often run their furnaces a good part of
the year," stated Vincent J. Esades of Heins, Mills & Olson,
P.L.C. of Minneapolis, one of the firms representing plaintiffs.  
"It is of great concern that Carrier would sell a furnace that
could potentially malfunction in the dead of winter well before
the end of their expected and warranted life."

"Carrier's high efficiency furnaces are defectively designed and
will fail prematurely regardless of installation or
maintenance," said Kim D. Stephens, plaintiffs' counsel with the
Seattle law firm of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC.

"Carrier's warranty does not cover labor charges for replacement
of the part they knew would fail," explained Jonathan D. Selbin,
plaintiffs' counsel with the national law firm of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.  "Homeowners who bought their furnace
on the assurance by Carrier that it would last a lifetime have
been forced to spend hundreds or even over a thousand dollars on
the repair of their faulty furnace, or have had to spend
thousands on a brand new furnace."

This lawsuit marks the fifth class action filed against Carrier
Corporation for failing to disclose defects in its furnaces.  In
2005, homeowners in the State of Washington filed suit, followed
by homeowners in 2006 in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ontario,
Canada.

On May 1, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton
ordered that the case on behalf of Washington homeowners may
proceed as a class action.

                     Factual Allegations

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

     -- The class action complaints in each case allege that, in
        1989, Carrier stopped using high-grade stainless steel
        secondary heat exchangers in favor of cheaper
        polypropylene laminated ("PPL") mild steel.  The
        complaints allege that Carrier knew from before it sold
        the first furnace that the PPL degrades and
        disintegrates due to the high temperatures in the
        furnace, exposing the underlying mild steel to corrosive
        acidic condensate.  In some cases, the corrosion
        proceeds to the point of actually perforating the
        outside wall of the heat exchanger.

     -- The industry standard was (and still is) to use high
        grade stainless steel for condensing heat exchangers to
        prevent corrosion.  The complaints charge that Carrier
        has never disclosed to consumers that the new heat
        exchangers are not as robust as ones manufactured from
        stainless steel or that their furnaces would not last as
        long as consumers typically expect.

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

The suit is "Nogosek et al. v. Carrier Corp., Case No. 0:07-cv-
02262-ADM-AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota under Judge Ann D. Montgomery, with
referral to Judge Arthur J. Boylan.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          Troy J. Hutchinson, Esq.
          David R. Woodward, Esq.
          Heins Mills & Olson, PLC
          80 S 8th St, Ste 3550
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-338-4605
          Fax: 612-338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com or
                  thutchinson@heinsmills.com or
                  dwoodward@heinsmills.com


CHARTER ONE: Ind. High Court Orders Dismissal of "Condra" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion that remanded a
purported class action against Charter One Mortgage Corp. to the
Marion Superior Court with instruction to grant Charter One's
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

In 2002, Kyle Condra borrowed $89,600 to purchase real estate.  
His loan from Charter One was secured by a mortgage on the
property.  

In connection with the loan, Charter One charged Mr. Condra a
$175 fee for the completion of a deed and mortgage.  Charter
One's agents or employees who were not licensed to practice law
prepared these documents.
  
In 2003, Mr. Condra filed a class action against Charter One in
Marion Superior Court.  His complaint for money had and received
and unjust enrichment alleged that Charter One's document
preparation fee was prohibited under Indiana law because
charging a fee for documents prepared by non-lawyers constituted
the unauthorized practice of law.  

The company then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  
The trial court granted Charter One's request to stay all
proceedings in the matter, including class certification,
pending its ruling on Charter One's motion to dismiss.     

Charter One asserted that it was an operating subsidiary of a
national bank, Charter One 1 Bank, N.A.   It therefore was
governed by federal regulations promulgated under the National
Bank Act by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  

Among those regulations is a provision that allows national
banks and their operating subsidiaries to charge incidental fees
for legal services provided by non-lawyers in the preparation of
real estate loan documents.   

Charter One contended that the OCC regulations expressly preempt
any conflicting state law.  The trial court denied the motion,
but certified its order for interlocutory appeal.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Supreme Court's
jurisdiction over the unauthorized practice of law is not
preempted by the federal regulations at issue.  

In a May 2 order, the Supreme Court held that the preparation of
mortgage documents by non-attorneys does not necessarily
constitute the practice of law and that a lender's charging a
fee for the preparation does not convert it into the
unauthorized practice of law.  It thus ordered the remanding and
eventual dismissal of the case.

A copy of the Court's Opinion is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1ee1

The suit is "Condra v. Charter One, Case No. 49D03-0311-PL-
2102," on appeal from the Marion Superior Court under Judge
Patrick L. McCarty.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
         Cohen & Malad, LLP
         One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Phone: (317) 636-6481 or (317) 636-2495 (Voice Mail)
         Fax: (317) 636-2593
         Web site: http://www.cohenandmalad.com

Representing the company is:

         David P. Sanders, Esq.
         Jenner & Block
         330 N. Wabash Avenue
         Chicago, IL 60611-7603
         Phone: (312) 923-2963
         Fax: (312) 840-7363
         E-mail: dsanders@jenner.com
         Web site: http://www.jenner.com/


CHOICE HOTELS: Named in Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Colo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Choice Hotels International, Inc. is facing two purported
securities fraud class actions filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado in April 2007.

The suits were brought on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's stock between April 25, 2006, and July 26, 2006.  
These substantially-similar lawsuits assert claims pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the
company, its current vice chairman and chief executive officer,
and its former executive vice president and chief financial
officer.

These claims are related to the Company's July 25, 2006
announcement of its results of operations for the second quarter
of 2006.

Potential plaintiffs have until June 11, 2007, to move the court
for appointment as lead plaintiff, according to the company's
May 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.  

The first identified complaint is "Anthony Genovese, et al. v.
Choice Hotels International, Inc., et al.," which was filed on
April 11, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case are:

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY, 11747
         Phone: 631.367.7100
         Fax: 631.367.1173

              - and -

         Shuman & Berens LLP
         801 East 17th Avenue
         Denver, CO, 80218-1417
         Phone: 303.861.3003
         Fax: 303.830.6920
         E-mail: info@dyershuman.com


COMCAST CORP: Antitrust Lawsuit in Penna. Granted Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John R. Padova of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted certification to an antitrust
class action against cable television giant Comcast Corp.,
Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer reports.

The company was named a defendant in a purported class action,
filed on behalf of the company's subscriber base in the
"Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters," alleging that certain
subscriber exchange transactions with other cable providers
resulted in unlawful "horizontal market restraints" in those
areas.

The suit alleges, Comcast succeeded, through a series of swap
agreements with AT&T and Adelphia, in establishing monopolies in
the cable television and cable Internet service markets, with 94
percent and 92 percent, respectively, of the two markets.

Since then, the suit says, Comcast has used its monopoly power
to raise cable prices in the Philadelphia and Chicago clusters
to "artificially high, supracompetitive levels."

Plaintiffs are seeking damages pursuant to antitrust statutes,
including treble damages.

Comcast's lawyers moved for dismissal of the suit, arguing that
the plaintiffs' theories were fatally flawed and that the case
failed to allege any antitrust injury.  In September, Judge
Padova refused to dismiss the suit, finding that the plaintiffs
have stated a valid claim that Comcast established a "horizontal
restraint."

Ms. Duffy reported that the defense team argued in court that
the plaintiffs cannot show that any of the swap deals was
unlawful because each of the transactions was approved by
government authorities at the federal, state and local levels.

But the judge disagreed, saying "the mere fact that regulatory
and law enforcement agencies may have reviewed and approved the
challenged transactions is not ground for dismissal."

Instead, Judge Padova said, courts have held that activities
that come under the jurisdiction of a regulatory agency may
nevertheless be subject to scrutiny under the antitrust laws,
and that "there is no general presumption that Congress intends
the antitrust laws to be displaced whenever it gives an agency
regulatory authority over an industry."

Regulatory approval, he said, will act as a bar to an antitrust
claim "only where there is a plain repugnancy between the
antitrust and regulatory provisions."

In his recent 37-page opinion, Judge Padova ruled that the case
should be certified as a class action because the plaintiffs met
all of the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  He certified a class of Comcast subscribers in the
16-county Philadelphia metropolitan area, including six
Pennsylvania counties, two Delaware counties and eight New
Jersey counties.

He also appointed two firms -- Heins Mills & Olson in
Minneapolis and Susman Godfrey in Dallas -- to serve as co-lead
counsel for the class.

Three other firms -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer in New York, Keller
Rohrback in Seattle and Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll in New
York -- were appointed to serve on the plaintiffs' executive
committee.

In a footnote, the judge said the issue of whether to certify a
separate class for Comcast consumers in the Chicago area will be
decided later in a separate opinion.

According to Ms. Duffy, the ruling could reverberate throughout
the cable industry because the suit alleges that many of the big
cable companies cooperated in carving up much of the nation into
separate markets where each would be exclusive providers.

Comcast is likely to take an immediate appeal, she said.

The suit is " Behrend v. Comcast Corp., Case No. 2:03-cv-06604-
JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, under Judge John R. Padova.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Barry C. Barnett, Esq.
          Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
          Jason P. Fulton, Esq.
          Susman Godfrey LLP
          901 Main St., Suite 5100
          Dallas, TX 75202-3775
          Phone: 214-754-1903 or 214-754-1907 or 214-754-1935
          Fax: 214-754-1900 or 214-754-1933
          E-mail: bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com or
                  dcharest@susmangodfrey.com or
                  jfulton@susmangodfrey.com

          - and -

          Allan I. Gilbert, Esq.
          Samuel D. Heins, Esq.
          Heins Mills & Olsen PLC
          3550 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street, Ste. 3550
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          E-mail: agilbert@heinsmills.com

Representing defendants are:

          Jason A. Leckerman, Esq.
          Darryl J. May, Esq.
          Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-864-8266 or 215-864-8103
          Fax: 215-864-9167
          E-mail: leckermanj@ballardspahr.com or
                  may@ballardspahr.com

          - and -

          Michael S. Shuster, Esq.
          Sheron Korpus, Esq.
          James T. Cain, Esq.
          Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP
          New York, New York 10019
          (New York Co.)
          Phone: 212-506-1700
          Fax: 212-506-1800
          Web Site: http://www.kasowitz.com


CONSECO INC: Ind. Court Frees Insurer from "Russell" Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
absolved RLI Insurance Co. from any further responsibility
toward Conseco, Inc. with regard to the settlement of the class
action, "Roderick Russell, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:02-CV-1639 LJM."

According to a report by The Indianapolis Business Journal, when
the case was settled two years ago, Conseco was confident that
its fiduciary insurance carrier would cover "a substantial
portion" of the $10 million payout.

However, according to an SEC filing obtained by The Indianapolis
Business Journal, Judge Larry J. McKinney absolved RLI Insurance
Co. of any further responsibility toward Conseco.  Last month,
Conseco sought to appeal the judge's decision, but their motion
was denied.

With the ruling, RLI is now asking Judge McKinney to force
Conseco to reimburse RLI for its legaal costs.  Conseco said it
would try to appeal Judge McKinney's first judgment after he
decides on RLI's second set of claims.  A trial is scheduled in
August.

Conseco wanted RLI to cover part of its settlement payment to
Roderick W. Russell and other former Conseco employees.  In
2005, the court granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class action, which was filed against Conseco,
Inc., Conseco Services LLC and certain of the Company's current
and former officers.

The suit filed in October 2002 by Mr. Russell was brought on
behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the ConsecoSave
Plan.  It sought an unspecified amount of damages (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 23, 2005).  

The purported class action consists of all individuals whose
401(k) accounts held common stock of the Company's Predecessor
(also named Conseco, Inc.) at any time since April 28, 1999.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by
continuing to permit employees to invest in the Company's
Predecessor's common stock without full disclosure of the
Company's true financial condition.

The suit is "Roderick Russell, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:02-CV-1639 LJM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana under Judge Larry J. McKinney.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         T. David Copley, Esq.
         Keller Rohrback, L.L.P.
         1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
         Seattle, WA 98101-3052
         Phone: (206) 623-1900
         Fax: (206) 623-3384
         E-mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com

              - and -  

         Carol A. Nemeth, Esq.
         Price Waicukauski Riley & Debrota
         301 Massachusetts Avenue
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Phone: (317) 633-8787
         Fax: (317) 633-8797
         E-mail: cnemeth@price-law.com

Representing the company are:
        
         Shannon M. Barrett, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
         1625 Eye Street N.W.
         Washington, DC 20006-4001
         Phone: (202) 383-5300
         Fax: (202) 383-5414

              - and -
      
         Steven Kenneth Huffer, Esq.
         Huffer & Weathers
         151 North Delaware Street, Suite 1850
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Phone: (317) 822-8010
         Fax: (317) 822-8088
         E-mail: steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com


DENTSPLY INT'L: Faces Pa. Suit Over Cavitron Ultrasonic Scalers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International, Inc. is facing a purported class action
alleging that its Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers was sold in
breach of contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations
about the potential uses of the product because it cannot
deliver potable or sterile water.

On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS
filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for
Cavitron scalers and asserts putative class action claims on
behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The suit is "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge R.
Barclay Surrick.

Representing the plaintiff is:

        Alan Klein, Esq.
        Duane Morris LLP
        30 South 17th St.
        Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
        Phone: 215-979-1000
        Fax: 215-979-1020
        E-mail: aklein@duanemorris.com

Representing the defendants is:

        Richard G. Placey
        Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP
        123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor
        Philadelphia, PA 19109
        Phone: 215-772-7424
        Fax: 215-772-7620
        E-mail: rplacey@mmwr.com


DIGIMARC CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ore. Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit against Digimarc
Corp. are appealing the dismissal of the suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon, according to the
company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

Beginning in September 2004, three purported class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
against the company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities during the period April 17, 2002 to July 28, 2004.

These lawsuits were later consolidated into one action for all
purposes.  The amended complaint, which sought unspecified
damages, asserted claims under the federal securities laws
relating to the company's restatement of its financial
statements for 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004 and
alleged that the company issued false and misleading financial
statements and issued misleading public statements about the
company's operations and prospects.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and entered judgment in the
company's favor.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal in
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Aug. 24, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion and
dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal on Sept. 22, 2006.  

Plaintiffs' appellate brief was due April 27, 2007.  The company
expects to file its appellate brief in late May of 2007.

The suit is "Garcia et al. v. Digimarc Corp. et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-01455-BR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon under Judge Anna J. Brown.
   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gary M. Berne, Esq.
         Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter
         PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor
         Portland, OR 97204
         Phone: (503) 227-1600
         Fax: (503) 227-6840
         E-mail: gberne@ssbls.com

              - and -

         Gary I. Grenley, Esq.
         Paul H. Trinchero, Esq.
         Grenley Rotenberg Evans Bragg & Bodie PC
         1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100
         Portland, OR 97204
         Phone: (503) 241-0570
         Fax: (503) 241-0914
         E-mail: ggrenley@grebb.com
                 ptrinchero@grebb.com


DORCHESTER MINERALS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Okla. Natural Gas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed against Dorchester
Minerals, L.P., and several other natural gas companies in the
District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma, have dismissed their
case.

Dorchester Minerals is a publicly traded Delaware limited
partnership that commenced operations on Jan. 31, 2003 upon the
combination of Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd., which was a publicly
traded Texas limited partnership, and Republic Royalty Company
and Spinnaker Royalty Company, L.P., both of which were
privately held Texas partnerships.

The suit initially named as defendants:

      -- Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd.,
      -- Anadarko Petroleum Corp.,
      -- Conoco, Inc.,
      -- XTO Energy Inc.,
      -- ExxonMobil Corp.,
      -- Phillips Petroleum Company, Incorporated,
      -- Texaco Exploration and Production, Inc.,
      -- Dorchester Minerals Operating L.P.

In January 2002, some individuals and an association called
Rural Residents for Natural Gas Rights, referred to as RRNGR,
filed the suit.  The individuals and RRNGR consist primarily of
Texas County, Oklahoma residents who, in residences located on
leases use natural gas from gas wells located on the same
leases, at their own risk, free of cost.

The plaintiffs seek declaration that their domestic gas use is
not limited to stoves and inside lights and is not limited to a
principal dwelling as provided in the oil and gas lease
agreements with defendants in the 1930s to the 1950s.  
Plaintiffs' claims against defendants include failure to
prudently operate wells, violation of rights to free domestic
gas, violation of irrigation gas contracts, underpayment of
royalties, a request for accounting, and fraud.  Plaintiffs also
seek certification of class action against defendants.

On Oct. 1, 2004, the plaintiffs severed claims against the
operating partnership regarding royalty underpayments.  

On April 9, 2007, plaintiffs, for immaterial costs, dismissed
with prejudice all claims against the operating partnership
regarding domestic gas use, according to the company's May 3,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Dorchester Minerals, L.P. is the owner of producing and non-
producing natural gas and crude oil royalty, net profits, and
leasehold interests in 573 counties and 25 states.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Dismissal of Retirees' Suit in Conn. Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the purported class action, "McCarthy, et al. v.
Dun & Bradstreet Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU,"
which was originally filed in the U.S. District Court of the
District of Connecticut.

In March 2003, a lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed
against the company on behalf of 46 specified former employees
in relation to the company's retirement plans.  During the
fourth quarter of 2004, most of the counts in the complaint were
dismissed.

The complaint, as amended in July 2003, sets forth these
putative classes:

      -- current Dun & Bradstreet employees who are participants  
         in The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Retirement Account and
         were previously participants in its predecessor plan,
         The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

      -- current employees of Receivable Management Services
         Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         Previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

      -- former employees of Dun & Bradstreet or Dun &
         Bradstreet's Receivable Management Services (RMS)
         operations who received a deferred vested retirement
         benefit under either The Dun & Bradstreet Corp.
         Retirement Account or The Dun & Bradstreet Master
         Retirement Plan; and

      -- former employees of Dun & Bradstreet's RMS operations
         whose employment with Dun & Bradstreet was terminated
         after the sale of the RMS operations but who are not
         employees of RMSC and who, during their employment with
         Dun & Bradstreet, were Eligible Employees for purposes
         of The Dun & Bradstreet Career Transition Plan.

The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers
over 5,000 individuals.  There are four counts in the Amended
Complaint.  

Count 1 claims that the company violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by not paying severance benefits to
plaintiffs under its Career Transition Plan.  

Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that the firm's sale of
the RMS business to RMSC and the resulting termination of
employees constituted a prohibited discharge of the plaintiffs
and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs for the intentional
purpose of interfering with their employment and/or attainment
of employee benefit rights, which they might otherwise have
attained.

Count 3 claims that the plaintiffs were materially harmed by the
company's alleged violation of ERISA's requirements that a
summary plan description reasonably apprise participants and
beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the plans
and that, therefore, undisclosed plan provisions -- in this
case, the actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they
leave Dun & Bradstreet before age 55 and elect to retire early -
- cannot be enforced against them.  

Count 4 claims that the 6.60% interest rate (the rate is
actually 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce early retirement
benefits is unreasonable and, therefore, results in a prohibited
forfeiture of benefits under ERISA.

In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs sought:

      -- payment of severance benefits;

      -- equitable relief in the form of either reinstatement of
         employment with Dun & Bradstreet or restoration of
         employee benefits, including stock options;

      -- invalidation of the actuarial reductions applied to
         deferred vested early retirement benefits, including
         invalidation of the plan rate of 6.60% -- the actual
         rate is 6.75% -- used to actuarially reduce former
         employees' early retirement benefits;

      -- attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court may
         deem just.

The company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.  In September
2003, the firm filed a motion to dismiss Counts 1, 3 and 4 of
the Amended Complaint on the ground that plaintiffs cannot
prevail on those claims under any set of facts, and in February
2004, the court heard oral argument on the motion.  With respect
to Count 4, the court requested that the parties conduct limited
expert discovery and submit further briefing.

In November 2004, after completion of expert discovery on Count
4, the company moved for summary judgment on Count 4 on the
ground that an interest rate of 6.75% is reasonable as a matter
of law.  On Nov. 30, 2004, the court issued a ruling granting
the motion to dismiss Counts 1 and 3.  

Shortly after that ruling, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to
dismiss with prejudice Count 2, which challenged the sale of the
RMS business as an intentional interference with employee
benefit rights, but which the motion to dismiss did not address.  

Plaintiffs' counsel also stipulated to a dismissal with
prejudice of Count 1, the severance pay claim, agreeing to
forego any appeal of the Court's dismissal of that claim.  

Plaintiffs' counsel did file a motion to join party plaintiffs
and to amend the Amended Complaint to add a new count
challenging the adequacy of the retirement plan's mortality
tables.  The court granted the motion and the company filed its
objections.

On June 6, 2005, the court granted Dun & Bradstreet's motion for
summary judgment as to Count 4 -- the interest rate issue -- and
also denied the plaintiffs' motion to further amend the Amended
Complaint to add a new claim challenging the mortality tables.  

On July 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal;
they are appealing the ruling granting the motion to dismiss,
the ruling granting summary judgment, and the denial of leave to
amend their Amended Complaint.  

Oral argument before the Second Circuit took place on Feb. 15,
2006, and on March 29, 2007 the Second Circuit issued an opinion
affirming the judgment of the District Court dismissing the
case, according to the company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
  
Unless there is a further appeal by the plaintiffs in this
matter, this will be the last time the company reports on this
case.

The suit is "McCarthy, et al. v. Dun & Bradstreet, et al., Case
No. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU," filed in the U.S District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Stefan R. Underhill.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

Representing the defendants are:

         Sandra K. Lalli, Esq.
         Patrick W. Shea, Esq.
         Carla R. Walworth, Esq.
         Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
         1055 Washington Blvd., 9Th Floor
         Stamford, CT 06901
         Phone: 203-961-7400 and 203-961-7465
         Fax: 203-359-3031
         E-mail: sandralalli@paulhastings.com
                 patrickshea@paulhastings.com
                 carlawalworth@paulhastings.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties Settle "Finley" Litigation in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action "Finley v. Dun &
Bradstreet Corp., et al.," which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, have settled the matter.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, was filed in
originally filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Sept. 7, 2005, on behalf of a current
employee raising complaints against the company's retirement
plans.  

The complaint seeks certification of these putative classes:

      -- current or former Dun & Bradstreet employees (other
         than employees who on December 31, 2001, were at least
         age 50 with 10 years of vesting service);

      -- had attained an age which, when added to his or her
         years of vesting service, was equal to or greater than
         70; or

      -- had attained age 65, who participated in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan before January 1,
         2002 and who have participated in The Dun & Bradstreet
         Corporation Retirement Account at any time since
         Jan. 1, 2002.

The complaint estimates that the proposed class covers over
1,000 individuals.  There are five counts in the complaint.  

Count 1 claims that the company violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by reducing the rate of an employee's
benefit accrual on the basis of age.  

Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability
requirement, because the plan allegedly conditions receipt of
cash balance benefits on foregoing the early retirement benefits
plaintiff earned prior to the adoption of the cash balance
amendment.  

Count 3 claims that the cash balance plan violates ERISA's
"anti-backloading" rule.  

Count 4 claims that Dun & Bradstreet failed to supply advance
notice of a significant benefit decrease.  

Count 5 claims that Dun & Bradstreet failed to provide an
adequate Summary Plan Description.

In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks:

      -- a declaration that Dun & Bradstreet's cash balance plan
         is ineffective and that the Dun & Bradstreet Master
         Retirement Plan is still in force and effect, and
         plaintiff's benefit accrual under the cash balance plan
         must be unconditional and not reduced because of age;

      -- an injunction prohibiting the application of the cash
         balance plan's reduction in the rate of benefit
         accruals because of age and its conditions of benefits
         due under the plan, and ordering appropriate equitable
         relief to determine plan participant losses caused by
         D & B's payment of benefits under the cash balance
         plan's terms and requiring the payment of additional
         benefits as appropriate;

      -- attorneys' fees and costs;

      -- interest; and

      -- such other relief as the court may deem just.

A Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District of New Jersey
was filed on Jan. 27, 2006 and was granted on March 31, 2006.
The action was transferred to the District of New Jersey, and,
on June 5, 2006, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which
omitted the claim for violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability
requirement and added a claim for breach of fiduciary duty based
on allegedly misleading plan communications.

On July 5, 2006, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant
to Section 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules on Civil Procedures, on
the grounds that:

      -- the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations
         and the doctrine of laches;

      -- the cash balance plan does not discriminate on the
         basis of age;

      -- the cash balance plan does not violate ERISA's anti-
         backloading rule;

      -- D&B complied with Section 204(h) of ERISA by providing
         sufficient advance notice of the plan amendment;

      -- D&B's Summary Plan Description fully complies with the
         requirements of ERISA; and

      -- plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of
         fiduciary duty.

On Jan. 26, the court issued a decision granting in part and
denying in part the company's Motion to Dismiss.  The Court
dismissed Counts 1 and 2 with prejudice on the merits, holding
that the D&B Plan did not reduce the rate of benefit accrual on
the basis of age and that the Plan did not violate ERISA's anti-
backloading rule.  

The Court dismissed without prejudice Counts 3 and 4, holding
that plaintiff had failed to plead extraordinary circumstances,
which are a necessary element of a claim for violation of
ERISA's disclosure requirements, but allowed plaintiff to file
an amended complaint restating the claims within 45 days.  The
Court denied the company's Motion to Dismiss with respect to
Count 5.

The company filed its answer to Count 5 on Feb. 9, 2007, prior
to the plaintiff's filing of an Amended Complaint, the matter
was resolved, and Plaintiff has dismissed the case with
prejudice, according to the company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp. et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-01838-SRC-CCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Claire C. Cecchi.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Jonathan I. Nirenberg, Esq.
         Resnick Nirenberg & Siegler
         100 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 301
         East Hanover, NJ 07936
         Phone: 973-781-1204
         E-mail: jnirenberg@njemploymentlawfirm.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Christopher H. Mills, Esq.
         Fisher & Phillips, LLP
         Corporate Park III, 580 Howard Avenue
         Somerset, NJ 08873
         Phone: (732) 560-7100
         E-mail: cmills@laborlawyers.com


EKONOMY QSR: Employee Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ekonomy QSR, Inc. d/b/a Dunkin Donuts, is facing a class-action
complaint filed on May 3, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, alleging Labor Code
violations.

Plaintiff Melissa Read brings these claims pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as amended 29 U.S.C Section 201, et. seq.
to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The suit alleges that from at least Jan. 2007 and continuing
through March 12, 2007, defendants failed to compensate
plaintiff at a rate of one-half times plaintiff's regular rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work
week.

The suit further alleges plaintiff should be compensated at the
rate of one-and-one-half times plaintiff's regular rate for
those hours that plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week
as required by the FLSA.

Defendants have allegedly violated Title 29 U.S.C. Section 207
from at least Jan. 4, 2007 through March 12, 2007, in that:

     (a) plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week for the
         period of employed with defendants;

     (b) no payments, and provisions for payment, have been made
         by defendants to properly compensate plaintiff at the
         statutory rate of one and one-half times plaintiff's
         regular rate for those hours worked in excess of 40
         hours per work week as provided by the FLSA; and

     (c) defendants have failed to maintain proper time records
         as mandated by the FLSA.

Additionally, as part of plaintiff's compensation, she was
entitled to a percentage of pooled tips collected in a "tip
jar."  Although there was no way for plaintiff to track the
amount of pooled tips, defendants failed to provide plaintiff
with any portion of the pooled tips for plaintiff's last week of
work, the suit claims.

Defendants' actions were allegedly willful and/or showed
reckless disregard for the provisions of the FLSA as evidenced
by its failure to compensate plaintiff at the statutory rate of
one and one-half times plaintiff's regular rate of pay for the
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week when it knew, or
should have known, such was, and is due.

Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of
defendants, plaintiff allegedly suffered and continues to suffer
damages and lost compensation for time worked over 40 hours per
week, plus liquidated damages.

Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in her favor against
defendants:

     -- declaring, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202,
        that the acts and practices complained of are in
        violation of the maximum hour provisions of the FLSA;

     -- awarding plaintiff overtime compensation in the amount
        due her for plaintiff's time worked in excess of 40
        hours per work week;

     -- awarding plaintiff liquidated damages in an amount equal
        to the overtime award;

     -- awarding plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs
        and expenses of the litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
        Section 216(b);

     -- awarding plaintiff pre-judgment interest; and

     -- ordering any other further relief the court deems just
        and proper.

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

                 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ee9

The suit is "Read v. Ekonomy QSR, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
14135-KMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge K. Michael Moore, with referral
to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
          Rosenthal & Levy PA
          1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 350
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-478-2500
          Fax: 561-478-3111


ENERGY PARTNERS: Motion in Del. Suit Over Terminated Deal Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court denied a plaintiffs' motion seeking expedited
consideration of the claims in a putative securities class
action against Energy Partners Ltd. in relation to the company's
terminated merger agreement with Stone Energy Corp.

On June 22, 2006, the company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger with Stone Energy, pursuant to which EPL Acquisition
Corp. LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company, would
acquire all of the shares of Stone for a combination of cash and
stock valued at approximately $2.1 billion.

Prior to entering into the Merger Agreement, Stone terminated
its then existing merger agreement with Plains Exploration and
Production Company on the same day.  

As required under the terms of the terminated merger agreement
between Stone and Plains, Plains was entitled to a termination
fee of $43.5 million, which was advanced by the company to
Plains and was included in other assets in the Consolidated
Balance Sheet.

On Aug. 28, 2006, Woodside Petroleum, Ltd. announced its
intention to commence a tender offer, through its U.S.
subsidiary ATS Inc., for all of the company's outstanding shares
of common stock for $23.00 per share subject to, among other
conditions, the company's stockholders voting down the proposed
Stone acquisition.

The tender offer was commenced on Aug. 31, 2006 and was
effective until Sept. 28, 2006.  On Sept. 14, 2006, the company
announced that, on Sept. 13, 2006, the Company's board of
directors rejected as inadequate the unsolicited conditional
offer by Woodside and recommended that its stockholders not
tender their shares.

Woodside extended its offer three times and announced on October
26, 2006 that it was extending its offer for the final time
until Nov. 17, 2006.  

On Oct. 12, 2006, the company announced that it had terminated
the Merger Agreement with Stone and that the Board had directed
the company, assisted by its financial advisors, to explore
strategic alternatives to maximize stockholder value, including
the possible sale of the company.

In conjunction with the termination of the Merger Agreement, the
company paid to Stone $8.0 million, which will be included in
general and administrative expenses in the fourth quarter of
2006.  

In addition, the $43.5 million termination fee that was advanced
to Plains in June 2006 on behalf of Stone was expensed in the
third quarter of 2006 along with $3.0 million of other Stone
merger related costs.

                  The Farrington Class Action

On Sept. 12, 2006, Thomas Farrington, a purported stockholder of
the company, filed a putative class action in the Delaware Court
against:

     -- the company,
     -- all of the company's directors,
     -- EPL Acquisition Corp. LLC, and
     -- Stone

As amended on Oct. 19, 2006, the complaint in the Farrington
Action alleges that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by:

     -- agreeing to the termination fee provisions in the
        Merger Agreement,

     -- adopting the sixth-month stockholders rights agreement,

     -- amending and extending coverage to all full time
        employees of its change of control severance
        arrangements, and paying a fee to Stone in connection
        with the termination of the Merger Agreement.

"Farrington" also alleges that the company's directors have
failed to adequately disclose material information relevant to
the Company stockholders' decision whether to accept the Tender
Offer.  It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
unspecified damages.

As amended on Oct. 19, 2006, the complaint in the Farrington
Action alleges that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to the termination fee provisions
in the merger agreement, adopting the sixth-month stockholders
rights agreement, amending and extending coverage to all full
time employees of its change of control severance arrangements,
and paying a fee to Stone in connection with the termination of
the Merger Agreement.

The suit also alleges that the Company's directors have failed
to adequately disclose material information relevant to the
Company stockholders' decision whether to accept the Tender
Offer.  It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
unspecified damages.

On Oct. 19, 2006, the Delaware Court denied a motion filed by
Farrington seeking expedited consideration of these claims,
according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

Energy Partners Ltd. -- http://www.eplweb.com/-- is an oil and  
natural gas exploration and production company.  The Company's
operations are concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico Shelf, the
deepwater Gulf of Mexico, as well as the Gulf Coast onshore
region (the Gulf of Mexico Region).


ESTEE LAUDER: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Estee Lauder Cos. Inc. is seeking the dismissal of an
amended complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class
action pending against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, according to the
company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007

On March 30, 2006, a purported securities class action
complaint, "Thomas S. Shin, et al. v. The Estee Lauder Cos.
Inc., et al.," was filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.

The complaint alleged that the defendants made statements during
the period April 28, 2005 to October 25, 2005 in press releases,
the company's public filings and during conference calls with
analysts that were materially false and misleading and that
artificially inflated the price of the company's stock.  It also
alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Additionally, the complaint asserted that during the class
period, certain executive officers and the trust for the benefit
of a director sold shares of our Class A Common Stock at
artificially inflated prices.  

Three additional purported securities class action complaints
were subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York containing similar allegations.

On July 10, 2006, the court consolidated these actions as "In Re
Estee Lauder Companies Securities Litigation," appointed lead
plaintiff, and approved the selection of lead counsel.  

A consolidated amended complaint addressing the same issues as
the original complaint was filed on Sept. 8, 2006.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Nov. 7, 2006 and the plaintiff responded to the motion on Jan.
5, 2007.  Defendants replied to plaintiff's response on Feb. 5,
2007.  

The suit is "In re: Estee Lauder Cos. Securities Litigation,  
Case No. 1:06-cv-02505-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A.  
Kaplan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:
   
         James Henry Glavin, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 687-7230
         Fax: (212) 490-2022
         E-mail: jhglavin@ssbny.com;   

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

         Michael Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067,  
         Phone: (310) 201-9150

              - and -

         Marc I. Gross Esq.
         Pomerantz, Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, L.L.P.
         100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017, US
         Phone: (212) 661-1100
         Fax: (212) 661-8665


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Subsidiaries Face Suits Over Tenant Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of First Advantage Corp. were named as defendants
in purported class actions filed in California state court with
regards to tenant reports, according to the company's May 3,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs in both cases allege that the company's
subsidiaries, directly and through their agents, violated the
California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency Act (ICRA) by failing to
use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible
accuracy when issuing tenant reports and to comply with ICRA.

The actions seek injunctive relief, an accounting, restitution,
statutory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

First Advantage Corp. -- http://www.fadv.com/-- is an  
international provider of risk mitigation and business
solutions.


FISERV TRUST: Appeals Class Certification in "Jenson" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiserv Trust Co. is appealing a decision by the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California that certified a
class in a lawsuit that was filed against the company in 2005 by
investors who maintained self-directed individual retirement
accounts administered by Fiserv Trust.

The suit alleges that Fiserv Trust, which serves as a custodian
and administrator of investment accounts, knew or should have
known that third parties were perpetrating an alleged Ponzi
scheme and that it breached its contractual and common law
duties and aided and abetted the scheme by not advising the
plaintiffs to avoid investing in the alleged scheme.

It was brought on behalf of a class of investors who maintained
self-directed individual retirement accounts administered by
Fiserv Trust and others who invested in the alleged scheme,
including investors that were never customers of Fiserv Trust,
and seeks compensatory damages of $120 million and punitive
damages.

Fiserv Trust has filed a petition for permission to appeal the
class certification order, according to the company's May 3,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007

The suit is "Jerome Jenson et al. v. First Trust Company et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-03124-ABC-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Audrey B.
Collins with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Casey N. Carrington, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         E-mail: ccarington@gibsondunn.com


FLOR LLC: Recalls Carpet Tiles Possibly Embedded with Needles
-------------------------------------------------------------
FLOR LLC of LaGrange, Georgia, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling
nearly 24,000 tiles of Heartfelt Carpet Tiles.

The firm said that the pin-like needles could be embedded in the
carpet tiles, posing a puncture wound hazard to consumers.

FLOR has received three reports from consumers who have received
a puncture, scratch or a small cut from coming into contact with
needles in the carpet tiles.  None of the injuries required
outside medical attention.

The carpet tiles are made from a blend of wool and Kenaf,
measure 20-inches by 20-inches and come in colors Corazon
(beige), Herz (gray), and Coeur (light gray).  The tiles have
"Made in USA" embossed on the bottom of each tile.

These carpet tiles involved in the recall were being sold at
FLOR's Web site, home decor boutiques, and in the firm's catalog
nationwide from January 2006 through December 2006 for about $12
per tile.

Consumers are advised to stop using the product immediately.  
The company is directly notifying those consumers who purchased
the affected tiles on-line or through their catalog.  They will
receive a full refund when the tiles are returned, or free
replacement tiles of an equal value.  

Photo for the carpet tile can be viewed at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07545.html

For more information, contact FLOR at (866) 219-2197 between 9
a.m. and 5:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.florcatalog.com


GURLEY'S FOODS: Recalls Cranberry Mix Due to Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gurley's Foods, Inc., of Willmar, Minnesota, with the knowledge
of the U.S Food and Drug Administration, is recalling their
Golden Recipe Cranberry Trial Mix, packaged in 7.25 ounce
packages (UPC77449 49872) in printed bags, sold primarily
through various convenience stores nationwide, due to the
presence of undeclared sulfites.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to sulfites run
the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction
(anaphylaxis) if they ingest 10 milligrams or more of sulfites
per serving.  

Code Numbers included in the recall are: 0508, 0608, 0618, 0678,
0758, 0888, 0898, 0938, and 1158.  These items may contain
sulfur dioxide, a food preservative used in many brands of dried
fruit products.

A recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of the Cranberry
Trail Mix, which did not declare sulfites on the label.

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

Consumers who have purchased any of these packaged treats should
return them to the place of purchase.  Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 1-800-426-7845.


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 18
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced a June 18, 2007
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of International Rectifier Corp. between October 27, 2005
and April 9, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of International Rectifier
Corp. securities.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that, unknown to investors,
during the Class Period, defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that IRF's:

     (i) revenues,
    (ii) gross profits
   (iii) earnings, and
    (iv) accounts receivable were false and misleading,

in violation of generally accepted accounting principles. In
addition, the Complaint alleges that the company's internal
controls were inadequate (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 20, 2007).

The Complaint further alleges that on April 9, 2007, before the
markets opened, IRF disclosed, among other things, that an
internal investigation at the company revealed "accounting
irregularities" at one of the company's foreign subsidiaries.

The company further disclosed that the accounting irregularities
included among other things premature revenue recognition of
product sales.

In addition, according to the Complaint, based on an interim
report of the investigation, the Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors concluded that the company's financial statements for
the quarters ended Dec. 31, 2006, Sept. 30, 2006, March 31,
2006, Dec. 31, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005, and for the year ended
June 30, 2006, should no longer be relied upon.

Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that the company cited
"material weaknesses in the internal control over financial
reporting at a foreign unit."

On April 9, 2007, in reaction to IRF's surprising disclosure,
its shares declined from $38.80 per share at the close of
trading on April 5, 2007, to close at $35.97 per share, a
decline of $2.83 per share or approximately 7.3%, on unusually
heavy volume.

The Complaint also alleges that certain individual Defendants
collectively sold approximately 364,000 IRF shares at
artificially inflated prices for proceeds of approximately $13
million.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 (Toll-Free)
          E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com
          Website: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


KAPLAN INC: June Hearing Set in $49M Antitrust Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A June 18, 2007 fairness hearing is set for a $49 million
settlement of a class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against BAR/BRI and
Kaplan, Inc.

The hearing will be at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Manuel J.
Real, at the U.S. District Courthouse at 312 N. Spring Street,
Los Angeles, California, 90012.  

The class includes individuals who purchased a BAR/BRI bar
review course in the U.S., between August 1, 1997 and July 31,
2006.  Class members have until Sept. 17, 2007 to make a claim.  
Objections are due May 21, 2007.

The case was filed by former law students in California,
Michigan and Louisiana, who had brought it on behalf of all
persons who purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI Bar
Review from August 1997 (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006).

Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/a
BAR/BRI of violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiring
with Kaplan, Inc. to prevent competition in the market for full-
service bar review courses.  Kaplan is an international provider
of educational and career services.

BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. to
assist would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one or
more bar examinations required by each state and the District of
Columbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law.

Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct,
consumers had to pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than
they should have (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2007).

Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-service
bar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. where
BAR/BRI directly operated a course anytime from August 1997 up
to the present time.

Therefore, any individual who purchased a full-service bar
review course from BAR/BRI to prepare for the winter 1998 bar
examination or any subsequent bar examination is a class member.

In early December 2006, the parties agreed to a settlement of
the litigation.  On Feb. 2, 2007, the parties filed a settlement
agreement with the court together with documents setting forth a
procedure for class notice (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29,
2007).

As a part of the Settlement, Defendants have agreed to establish
a $49 million Fund. The Settlement also provides for other non-
monetary relief.

Class Members are eligible to obtain up to 30% of the total
amount they paid for a bar review course from the Fund.

The Class includes persons who purchased a BAR/BRI full-service
bar review course between August 1, 1997 and July 31, 2006,
unless they requested exclusion on or before August 13, 2006.

BAR/BRI Class Action Litigation on the net:

                http://www.barbri-classaction.com

The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al. v. West Publishing Corp. et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Eliot G. Disner, Esq.
          Noah E Jussim, Esq.
          McGuireWoods, LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-315-8299
          Fax: 310-315-8298
          E-mail: edisner@mcguirewoods.com

          Sidney K. Kanazawa, Esq.
          Tracy Evans Moyer, Esq.          
          Colleen M. Regan, Esq.
          Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-315-8200
          E-mail: skanazawa@vsblaw.com or cregan@vsblaw.com

          - and -

          Joanna Shally, Esq.
          Shearman and Sterling
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-848-4700

Representing the defendants are:

          Edward A. Klein, Esq.
          Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif
          1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
          Phone: 310-500-3500

          Stuart N. Senator, Esq.
          Lee Scott Taylor, Esq.
          Munger Tolles & Olson
          355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl.,
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100
          E-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com

          - and -

          Jeffrey A. LeVee, Esq.
          Courtney M. Schaberg, Esq.
          Brian A. Sun, Esq.
          Jones Day
          555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-489-3939
          E-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com or
                  cmschaberg@jonesday.com or basun@jonesday.com

For more details, contact:

          BAR/BRI Class Action Administrator
          P.O. Box 24639
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 1-888-285-7850
          E-mail: BARBRI@completeclaimsolutions.com


L G SOURCING: Recalls Table Lamps After Report of Minor Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
L G Sourcing, Inc., of North Wilkesboro, N.C., in cooperation
with The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling nearly 97,000 units of Halogen Table Lamps.

According to the firm, these lamps can short circuit, posing a
fire hazard.

L G Sourcing has received one report of a minor fire with the
halogen table lamp.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled table lamps have a plastic base and two extendable
arms connecting the base to a halogen lamp.  The lamps were sold
in white, red, blue, orange and purple.  Item number 101988 is
printed on the bottom of the lamp base.

Winsource Industries Ltd., of Hong Kong manufactured these table
lamps in China and were being exclusively sold at Lowe's retail
outlets nationwide from April 2006 through March 2007 for about
$10.  

Consumers are advised to stop using the lamps immediately and
return them to any Lowe's retail outlet to receive a full
refund.

Photo of the table lamp involved in the recall:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07183.html

For additional information, contact L G Sourcing toll-free at
(866) 284-9162 anytime, or visit http://www.lowes.com


MBNA CANADA: Appeals Court Certifies Suit Over interest Rate
------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Court of Appeals certified a suit against the
Ottawa-based MBNA Canada Bank, a unit of Bank America Corp., to
proceed as a class action, overturning two lower court rulings
that denied the status to customers who sued, Joe Schneider of
Bloomberg News reports.

According to Judge Marc Rosenberg, one of the three judges who
decided the case, "Access to justice overwhelmingly favors a
class proceeding.  The amounts involved are so small that no
litigant would have an interest in pursuing an individual
claim."

The lawsuit between Stephen Markson and MBNA Canada Bank, Court
of Appeal for Ontario (Toronto), Case No C45191, was originally
filed in 2003 in Ontario Superior Court after Mr. Markson got
charged 94% interest on a CAN$100 cash advance from the bank's
credit card.  He said the interest rate was way too high and he
believes the bank violated the Criminal Code, limiting the
interest rate up to 60% annually (Class Action Reporter, Sep.
17, 2003).

According to court documents, the bank had about 2.5 million
credit card accounts as of December 2003.  Between January 2000
and December 2003 the bank issued 8 million cash advances, of
which 17 percent were for less than CAN$62.  Customers are
charged compound interest from the day of the advance until it
gets fully paid and a transaction fee of CAN$7.50.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          William G. Horton, Esq.
          400- 112 Adelaide St. E Toronto
          ON, Canada M5C 1K9
          Phone: (416) 564-9560,
          Fax: (416) 504-7257
          Email: wgh@williamghorton.com


MICHIGAN: Plan to Move Correctional Facility Inmates Rejected
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Richard Enslen rejected the state's plan for
moving and caring for the hundreds of medically fragile inmates
at the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility, Fredericka Paul
of The Jackson Citizen-Patriot reports.

Just last year, Judge Enslen heard a lawsuit demanding that the
state improve the care of medically and mentally ill inmates of
the said prison.

The case filed in the 1980s against the prison system alleges
that the hospital and other medical units in the Jackson prison
complex are understaffed with doctors and nurses.  As a result,
written requests by inmates for medical help often are delayed
for several days or ignored; referrals to outside medical
specialists are routinely delayed for weeks and even months
while sick inmates get sicker and, in some case, die; and
prescriptions for serious illnesses often go unfilled for
several days (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 18, 2006).

The case is named "USA v. Michigan, State of, et al., Case No.
1:84-cv-00063-RAE", filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan under the above mentioned judge,
Mr. Richard Enslen.

Based on the report, the state announced a plan to shut down the
facility on July 15 as part of its cost-cutting plan because it
said the old prison was too expensive to operate, but a legal
fight over concerns about prisoner health care has complicated
the state's plans.

Mr. Russ Marlan, corrections department spokesman, said the plan
is not yet complete and they're not sure which direction to
take.

The lead attorneys for the case are:

          Elizabeth Alexander, Esq.
          National Prison Project of the ACLUF
          915 15th St., NW, 7th Fl.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 393-4930
          E-mail: ealexander@npp-aclu.org
          
                    - and -

          Michael Barnhart, Esq.
          221 North Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48103
          Phone: (734) 213-3703
          Fax: (734) 213-3704
          E-mail: michaelbarnhart@comcast.net


NEW YORK: Baseball Enthusiasts Sue City Over Metal Bat Ban
----------------------------------------------------------
A group of coaches, players, parents and sporting goods
manufacturers filed a suit to scrap Brooklyn's ban on metal bats
at high school baseball games, arguing there is no conclusive
proof that metal bats are dangerous, Karla Schuster of Newsday
reports.

The class action filed on March 7 in the U.S. District Court in
Manhattan claims that high school baseball without aluminum bats
is less competitive and more expensive, and does not guarantee
safety.  The complaint also alleges that the ban is
unconstitutional because there is no solid proof at all that
aluminum bats are harmful.

Last month, the City Council proposed a law to ban metal bats on
the ground that these bats produce faster hits, which could most
likely harm the players.  Mayor Michael Bloomberg vetoed the law
and said the city is not in the position to determine which bat
is unsafe.  The City Council overrode the veto and the said law
will take effect in September.

Anne Berg from Park Slope, mother of one of the plaintiffs,
believes that more kids get killed in cars on their way to
baseball games, than all the kids seriously injured or killed by
a baseball.

Atty. David Ettinger is representing the plaintiffs that include
Easton Sports, the nation's largest manufacturer of metal bats.

For more information about the case, contact:

          David Ettinger, Esq.
          Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP
          2290 First National Building 660 Woodward Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48226-3506
          Phone:  (313) 465-7368
          Fax:  (313) 465-7369


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Livonia Lawyers Seek $9.9M in Investors Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff attorneys in a shareholder class action against
NorthWestern Corp., d/b/a NorthWestern Energy, are seeking $9.9
million in fees, which defendants have opposed.

In November 2005, the company and its directors were named as
defendants in a shareholder class action and derivative action,
"City of Livonia Employee Retirement System v. Draper, et al."

The plaintiff claims, among other things, that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by not sufficiently negotiating
with Montana Public Power Inc. and Black Hills Corp., two
entities that had made public, unsolicited offers to purchase
NorthWestern.

On April 26, 2006, Livonia amended its complaint to add
allegations that company directors had erred in choosing the
Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited (BBI) offer because it
was not the most attractive offer they had received for the
company.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement which
provides that NorthWestern will redeem the existing shareholder
rights plan either following shareholder approval of the Merger
Agreement with BBI or upon termination of the Merger Agreement
with BBI -- whichever occurs first.

The Board may adopt a new shareholder rights plan if the
shareholders approve adoption of such a plan in advance or, in
the event that circumstances require timely implementation of
such a plan, the Board seeks and receives approval from
shareholders within 12 months after adoption.

After limited confirmatory discovery, the settlement agreement
has been filed.  In December 2006 the federal court indicated it
would not approve the settlement because it did not provide any
benefit to the class members.

Based on the federal court's order, the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice on the condition that the
federal court would retain jurisdiction over any award of
attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have filed a motion, seeking discovery in
advance of its motion for an award of attorneys' fees.  The
motion was denied.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs
seeking $9.9 million to which the company have responded arguing
that plaintiffs' lawyers are entitled to no fees.

The plaintiffs will file a reply in May 2007, and the company
anticipates a decision by the court within two months, according
to the company's May 1, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.
Draper, et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-04178-LLP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota under Judge
Lawrence L. Piersol.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Randall J. Baron, Esq.
         Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Timothy J. Dougherty, Esq.
         Dougherty & Dougherty
         P.O. Box 1004
         Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1004
         Phone: 335-8586

Representing the defendants are:

         Filiberto Agusti, Esq.
         Scott T. Bielicki, Esq.
         David F. Rifkind, Esq.
         Andrew Sloniewsky, Esq.
         Steptoe and Johnson, LLP
         1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: 202-429-6428, 202-429-6751, 202-429-8094 and
         202-429-6759
         E-mail: fagusti@steptoe.com, sbielicki@steptoe.com,
         drifkind@steptoe.com and asloniewsky@steptoe.com

              - and -

         Roberto Antonio Lange, Esq.
         Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith
         P.O. Box 1030
         Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1030
         Phone: 336-2880
         Fax: 335-3639
         E-mail: rlange@dehs.com


OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Faces Calif. Suit Over Andean Operations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Members of an indigenous group in Peru have filed a lawsuit in
Los Angeles County Superior Court, claiming Occidental Petroleum
Corp.'s oil production operations in the Andean nation resulted
in toxic levels of pollution that left many people sick or at
risk of serious illness, the Associated Press reports.

Twenty-five Achuar Indians, who claim they suffered health
problems from cancer to lead poisoning due to exposure to
contaminants from Occidental's oil production operation, brought
the complaint.

The group, native to Peru's Upper Corrientes Basin, claims the
region gradually became contaminated by pollutants over the
three decades since Occidental first established operations
there.

According to the lawsuit, Occidental discharged millions of
gallons of water used to process crude oil back into local
waterways, flooding rivers with heavy metals, radioactive
compounds and other harmful compounds.  The crude oil processing
also released gasses that have contributed to air pollution and
acid rain, the group claims.

The suit further alleges the Achuar's land was also exposed to
contamination from chemical waste, which the company stored in
unlined earthen pits.

Government health studies have found that Achuar Indians in the
zone suffer high blood concentrations of cadmium and lead  -- a
problem that Peruvian officials have said goes back to the 1970s
when Occidental operated in the region.

The company pumped oil in Peru's northern jungle until 1999,
when its operations were bought by the Argentine-run company
Pluspetrol, the report said.

According to the AP report, Pluspetrol, last year, signed an
agreement with the Peruvian government to stop dumping
contaminated oil waste by July 2008 after two weeks of protests
by an Indian group.

The suit seeks class-action status and unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.

Apu Tomas Maynas Carijano is the lead plaintiff in the suit.

Richard S. Kline, spokesman for Los Angeles-based Occidental,
said the company had not seen the lawsuit.

"We have no scientific data of any negative health effects
resulting from our former operations in Peru," Mr. Kline said.


PERSONAL TOUCH: Lawsuit in Mo. Alleges Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Touch Home Care, Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, alleging the home health care agency violated labor
law by refusing to pay overtime, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The complaint alleges company Chief Operating Officer Gertrude
Balk implemented a company-wide scheme to avoid paying overtime
to non-exempt hourly field staff Licensed practical nurses with
the knowledge and approval of the corporate parent company.

Allegedly, in implementing this illegal scheme, Ms. Balk
specifically instructed management personnel not to pay overtime
unless and until an employee lodged a complaint.

Plaintiff Erin Keeley, a former Personal Touch Home Care Field
Staff-Licensed Practice Nurse, was hired in 2000 as a licensed
practical nurse, paid on an hourly basis.  She says she was
required to work 50 to 75 hours a week, but allegedly received
no overtime.

Ms. Keeley brings this claim as a collective action pursuant to
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on behalf of all current or former
field staff LPNs employed by Personal Touch between May 8, 2004,
who worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and were
intentionally and willfully denied overtime compensation
pursuant to defendant's illegal overtime scheme.

Plaintiff request that the court, after due consideration:

     -- judicially recognize this proceeding as a collective
        action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA;

     -- require defendants to provide plaintiff with the names
        and addresses of all potential opt-in collective action
        members who have been employed by defendants from May 8,
        2004 through the present, within the United States,
        approve and authorize dissemination of notice to all
        potential collective action members advising them of the
        nature of this claim and their right to opt in to this
        lawsuit; and

     -- after due proceedings, plaintiffs be awarded all unpaid
        overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
        costs as allowed by Section 216(b) of the FLSA, pre-
        judgment and post-judgment interests as provided by law,
        and such other relief the court deems fair and
        equitable.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ee2

The suit is "Keeley v. Personal Touch Home Care, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 4:07-cv-00923-JCH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri under Judge Jean C.
Hamilton.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Timm W. Schowalter, Esq.
          Lashly and Baer, P.C.
          714 Locust Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1699
          Phone: 314-621-2939
          Fax: 314-621-6844
          E-mail: tschowalter@lashlybaer.com


REAL ESTATE FIRMS: Sued Over "Illegal" Conveyancing Practice
------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts attorneys filed a suit on May 9 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against real
estate firms over alleged use of agents who are not licensed
attorneys in real estate conveyances, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- National Real Estate Information Services, Inc.;  
     -- National Real Estate Information Services;  
     -- ATM Corporation of America;  
     -- First American Signature Services, Inc.;  
     -- Trans State Closers, Inc.;  
     -- Liberty Title & Escrow Co., Inc.; and  
     -- Service Link, Inc.  

Typically when an individual purchases residential real estate,
she borrows money from a bank or mortgage lender.  As a security
for the loan, the lender will receive a mortgage on the
property.  The same is true in the case of an individual
refinancing an existing mortgage loan on her home.  The mortgage
lender will normally want to protect its interests in the
transaction by ensuring that the conveyance of the real estate
is completed in a legally enforceable manner.

In Massachusetts, this process is known as conveyancing and
includes:

     (1) the review of the legal title to the property to ensure
         that the seller has good and clear and marketable title
         to the property;

     (2) the supervision of the process by which any title
         issues or encumbrances are resolved;

     (3) controlling the settlement or "closing" of the real
         estate transaction to ensure that the appropriate legal
         documents are properly executed, the consideration for
         the property is exchanged, and the parties' obligations
         to one another are fulfilled;

     (4) recording the appropriate documents to protect the
         various interests in the property; and

     (5) disbursement of closing proceeds.

According to the CourtHouse News Service report, New England
states typically require attorneys to handle real estate
conveyances, due to ancient land titles and accompanying
complications.

Class actions have been brought in several New England states,
accusing title companies and other real estate businesses of
using non-attorneys to perform legal services during the late
real estate boom.

In this case, covering transactions that occurred in the past
four years, lead plaintiff Michael Katin, brings this action on
behalf of a proposed class of Massachusetts real estate
conveyancing attorney who, during the last four years, were
Massachusetts-licensed attorneys in good standing who were
engaged in the practice of performing conveyancing services for
Massachusetts real estate transactions.

The suit alleges defendants practice of utilizing settlement
service agents who are not Massachusetts attorneys, or utilizing
attorneys who have been divested of all meaningful
responsibility and oversight and who merely fulfill the same
function as a notary public would in the conveyancing process.

The suit further alleges that this practice is in violation of
Massachusetts law that defines conveyancing as the practice of
law, and statutory provisions that require the involvement of
attorneys in the conveyancing process.  Thus defendants and
their agents are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
violation of Mass.Gen.Laws Ann.c.221, Sections 46A and 46B.

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

     (a) whether the elements for the claim for tortious
         interference with business expectancies are satisfied
         in this case;

     (b) whether defendants, failing to use plaintiffs and the
         class members, and instead entering into contracts with
         non-lawyers or lawyers who did not retain any
         meaningful responsibility in the conveyancing process,
         as settlement service agents, engaged in unfair
         competition and /or deceptive actions and practices
         under Mass.Gen.Laws Ann.ch 93A, Section 2(a); and

     (c) whether defendants' actions constitute an unfair or
         deceptive act under Mass.Gen.Laws Ann.ch. 93A by
         operation of Mass.Gen.Laws Ann.ch. 93, Section 70, The
         Good Funds Statute, "willful" failure by an attorney to
         render a certification to the mortgagor as required by
         the provisions of this section shall constitute an
         unfair or deceptive act or practice under the
         provisions of the chapter 93A.

Plaintiffs prey for judgment against defendants for themselves
and the class members as follows:

      -- determining that this action is a proper class action
         pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
         Procedure and ALM GL c. 93A, Section11, and for an
         order certifying this case as a class action;

     -- awarding compensatory damages on behalf of plaintiffs
        and the class members in an amount to be proved at
        trial;

     -- awarding punitive damages;

     -- awarding multiple damages as well as costs and attorney
        fees under ALM GL c. 93A, Section 11;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class all expenses, costs
        and disbursements incident to the prosecution of this
        action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- granting such other relief as the court deems just and
        proper.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ee5

The suit is "Katin et al. v. National Real Estate Information
Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10882-JLT," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under
Judge Joseph L. Tauro.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Robert T. Naumes, Esq.
          Thornton & Naumes, LLP
          100 Summer Street, 30th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-720-1333
          Fax: 617-720-2445
          E-mail: rnaumes@tenlaw.com


STATESIDE POWERSPORTS: Recalls ATVs that Lack Safety Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Stateside Powersports, of Bluffton, Ind., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 100 Long Chang Lion 90cc All-Terrain Vehicles.  
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The company said that the ATVs lack adequate tire labeling, tire
pressure gauge, adequate stop engine switch, and other safety
requirements that could result to injuries.

Stateside has not yet received any incident or injury reports.

The recall includes all Long Chang Lion 90cc ATVs sold in black,
blue, green and red.  "Lion" is printed on the side of the gas
tank and "90" is printed below the seat area on each side of the
ATV.

The vehicles were manufactured in China and were being sold at
ATV dealerships and online store nationwide from May 2006
through December 2006 for about $1,000.

Registered owners have been notified about this recall by mail.  
Consumers with a recalled ATV should contact Stateside
Powersports or their local dealer to schedule a free repair.

Photo of the recalled ATV can be viewed at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07544.html

For additional information, contact Stateside Powersports:
Phone: (888) 801-4424 from 9a.m.-5p.m. ET Monday through Friday;
Web site: http://www.statesidepowersports.com;E-mail:  
support@statesidepowersports.com


STUART FENCE: Accused of Violating Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Fence Company, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed May 3, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations.

Lead plaintiff Damion Daniel brings these claims damages as a
result of wages owed and is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Section 207.

The suit alleges defendant failed to compensate plaintiff up to
one and half time his hourly rate for all worked performed in
excess of 40 hours.

Defendant's failure to properly compensate the plaintiff is in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 207.

The suit further alleges defendant's failure to pay plaintiff's
overtime was the result of intentional, willful misconduct, such
that plaintiff is entitled to overtime payments for the entire
preceding 3 year period.

As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's action, the
plaintiff has obtained counsel to represent him in this action
and has agreed to incur reasonable attorney's fees and costs for
the prosecution of this matter.  As a result, plaintiff is
entitled to reimbursement and/or an award of reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C Section 216.

Plaintiff pray that judgment be entered in his favor and against
defendant as follows:

     -- that plaintiff be awarded general and compensatory
        damages, liquidated damages and pre-judgment interest;

     -- that plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and          
        costs of suit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216; and

     -- that plaintiff be awarded such other and 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?1eef

The suit is "Daniel v. Stuart Fence Co., Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-14134-JEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Judge Jose E. Martinez, with
referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Cathleen Ann Scott, Esq.
          Cathleen A. Scott
          250 South Central Boulevard
          Jupiter Gardens Suite 104
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Phone: 561-653-0008
          Fax: 653-0020
          E-mail: CScott@floridalaborlawyer.com


TOTAL TIRE: Faces Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Tire of Palm City, Inc. is named defendant in a May 3,
2007 class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Jon-Erik Sparks brings these claims pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended29 U.S.C Section 201, et.
seq. to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The complaint alleges that from at least July 20, 2006, and
continuing through March 19, 2007, defendant failed to
compensate plaintiff at a rate of one-half times plaintiff's
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single work week.

Defendant has allegedly violated Title 29 U.S.C. Section 207
from at least July 20, 2006, and continuing through March 19,
2007 in that:

     (a) plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week for the
         period of employed with defendants;

     (b) no payments, and provisions for payment, have been made
         by defendants to properly compensate plaintiff at the
         statutory rate of one and one-half times plaintiff's
         regular rate for those hours worked in excess of 40
         hours per work week as provided by the FLSA; and

     (c) defendants have failed to maintain proper time records
         as mandated by the FLSA.

Additionally, defendant allegedly wrongfully deducted $80 from
plaintiff's last paycheck.

Defendants' actions were allegedly willful and/or showed
reckless disregard for the provisions of the FLSA as evidenced
by its failure to compensate plaintiff at the statutory rate of
one and one-half times plaintiff's regular rate of pay for the
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week when it knew, or
should have known, such was, and is due.

Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of
defendants, plaintiff allegedly suffered and continues to suffer
damages and lost compensation for time worked over 40 hours per
week, plus liquidated damages.

Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in her favor against
defendants:

     -- declaring, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202,
        that the acts and practices complained of are in
        violation of the maximum hour provisions of the FLSA;

     -- awarding plaintiff overtime compensation in the amount
        due her for plaintiff's time worked in excess of 40
        hours per work week;

     -- awarding plaintiff liquidated damages in an amount equal
        to the overtime award;

     -- awarding plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs
        and expenses of the litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
        Section 216(b);

     -- awarding plaintiff pre-judgment interest; and

     -- ordering any other further relief the court deems just
        and proper.

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

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

The suit is "Sparks v. Total Tire of Palm City, Inc., Case No.
2:07-cv-14136-DLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Judge Donald L. Graham.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
          Rosenthal & Levy PA
          1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 350
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-478-2500
          Fax: 561-478-3111


TRAVELERS COS: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuits in La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., formerly The St. Paul Travelers
Companies, Inc., is a defendant in consolidated federal lawsuit
arising out of disputes with certain policyholders over whether
insurance coverage is available for flood losses arising from
Hurricane Katrina.  The case is before the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana

The suits are:

      -- "Chehardy, et al. v. State Farm, et al., C.A. No. 06-
         1672, 06-1673 and 06-1674,"

      -- "Chehardy, et al. v. State Farm, et al., C.A. No., 06-
         1673,"

      -- "Chehardy, et al. v. State Farm, et al., C.A. No., 06-
         1674," and

      -- "Vanderbrook, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et
         al. C.A. No. 05-6323," and

The suits are proposed class actions in which the company is one
of several insurer defendants, 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 Travelers Companies, Inc. -- http://www.travelers.com/-- is  
a holding company that is principally engaged in providing a
range of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, government units,
associations and individuals.


TRAVELERS COS: Minn. Court Yet to Approve Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to
approve a proposed settlement of a consolidated securities class
action against The Travelers Companies, Inc., formerly The St.
Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., 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.

Initially, three actions were filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  Two of these
actions were:

      -- "Kahn v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al.
         (Nov. 2, 2004);" and

      -- "Michael A. Bernstein Profit Sharing Plan v. The St.
         Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Nov. 10,
         2004)."

Certain shareholders of the company brought the putative class
actions against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  These actions have been
consolidated as, "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation
II," and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed.

On July 11, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  The amended consolidated complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with
the company's alleged failure to make disclosure relating to the
practice of paying brokers commissions on a contingent basis,
the company's alleged involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids
and the company's allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance
products.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the company and the other defendants in "In
re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II" moved to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim.
Oral argument on the company's motion to dismiss was presented
on June 15, 2006.

By order dated Sept. 25, 2006, the court denied the company's
motion to dismiss.  In the third of these actions, an alleged
beneficiary of the company's 401(k) savings plan commenced a
putative class action against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors captioned, "Spiziri v.
The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Dec. 28, 2004)."

The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act based on the theory that defendants were
allegedly aware of issues concerning the value of St. Paul's
loss reserves yet failed to protect plan participants from
continued investment in company stock.  

On June 1, 2005, the company and the other defendants in Spiziri
moved to dismiss the complaint.  On Jan. 4, 2006, the parties in
Spiziri entered into a stipulation of settlement.  

The settlement remains subject to court approval, according to
the company's regulatory filing.

The suit is "In Re: St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II,
Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim
with referral to Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
         Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
         Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         270 Madison Ave.
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4690, 212-545-4605 and 212-545-4762
         Fax: 212-545-4653
         E-mail: isquith@whafh.com, bruckner@whafh.com and
         rifkin@whafh.com

              - and -

         Jack L. Chestnut, Esq.
         Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
         Chestnut & Cambronne
         222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700
         Mpls., MN 55402
         Phone: (612) 339-7300
         Fax: 612-336-2940
         E-mail: jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com and
         kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) David H. LaRocca, Esq.
         Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
         Michael J. Garvey, Esq.
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
         425 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10017-3954
         Phone: 212-455-2377, 212-455-2598 and 212-455-7358
         E-mail: dlarocca@stblaw.com, mchepiga@stblaw.com and
         mgarvey@stblaw.com

              - and -

         Peter W. Carter, Esq.
         Richard B. Solum, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney,
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Mpls., MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-2600
         Fax: 612-340-2868
         E-mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com and
         solum.rick@dorsey.com


US AUTO: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set May 28, 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced a May 28, 2007,
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all common stock purchasers
of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the
Company's Feb. 8, 2007 Initial Public Offering.

The Complaint charges U.S. Auto Parts and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933 (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 (Toll-Free)
          E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com
          Website: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


WASHINGTON: Judge Certifies Class in Seattle Ticketing Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The King County Superior Court certified as a class action a
lawsuit against City of Seattle, Washington over its issuance of
parking tickets and collecting money from parking meters the day
before and the day after holidays, Chris Halsne of KIRO 7
Eyewitness News reports.

Attorney Dewelle Ellsworth filed the case on behalf of all the
people who got ticketed for illegally parking on a holiday or
for failure to go back to their car in time.  He said they
should get their money back.

Despite the street signs saying "You don't have to pay for
parking or feed the meter on holidays," the city still issued
tickets and had been doing so for three years, according to KIRO
Team 7 Investigators, who found out about the city's exploit.

Colette Turner of Bellevue filed the $700,000 class action on
Nov. 21, 2006.  In it, Ms. Turner claims that she was ticketed
in Seattle on Dec. 31, 2004, even though according to city law,
she should have been allowed to park free that New Year's Eve
day (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006).  

The lawsuit alleges:

      -- refund the money it made from the parking-meter
         revenue;

      -- reimburse people for the parking tickets they were       
         forced to pay; and

      -- reimburse them for any towing fees.

According to the law at the time, people could park free on city
streets the day after Thanksgiving, the Friday before a holiday
that fell on a Saturday, and the Monday after a holiday that
fell on a Sunday.

The city council has already redefined the holidays to avoid any
misunderstanding in the future.

For more information contact:

          Dewelle Ellsworth, Esq.
          P.O. Box 31743
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Phone: 206-351-2525


* Two U.S. Class Action Law Firms Open Offices in United Kingdom
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two American law firms recently opened their own offices in the
United Kingdom, according to a post by Alexia Garamfalvi in The
Blog of Legal Times.

One of the U.S-based firms is Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, which launched a class-action defense practice in the
United Kingdom in anticipation of an onslaught of class-action-
style litigation in the country  

Skadden Arps' class-action defense team will be headed by D.C.
litigation partner Andrew Sandler and London-based counsel Penny
Madden.

The launching came at the same time that Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., another U.S.-based law firm, opened
its London branch.  

Cohen Milstein, which already had affiliations with various
European firms, announced last fall that it would open in London
in January, but the launch was delayed until this month.  

Earlier in the week, Cohen Milstein scooped Rob Murray, former
DLA Piper competition head, and Vincent Smith, senior
competition director from the U.K. Office of Fair Trading, to
spearhead its European push.  

Michael Hausfeld, a partner at Cohen Milstein explains that
London office would focus competition, securities, and
employment matters initially.  

Mr. Hausfeld noted that Great Britain, the Netherlands, and
Germany already allow some form of group or class action-style
litigation, and many other European countries are considering
following suit, especially in the competition and securities
arenas.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *