CAR_Public/070515.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 15, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 95

                            Headlines



AMERICAN HONDA: Accused of Concealing Defect in CR-V, Element
BEAZER HOMES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.D. Ga.
BEAZER HOMES: Faces S.C. Suit Alleging Violations of RICO Act
BEAZER HOMES: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Litigation in N.C.
BERKLINE BENCHCRAFT: Recalls Massage Recliners Posing Burn Risk

BLUEHIPPO FUNDING: Settles Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuit in Md.
CALIFORNIA: Mt. Diablo Ordered to Change Playground Floor
CAR ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Me. Court to Certify Car Buyer Class
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Plaintiff Withdraws Claims of Illegal VAT
COCA-COLA: Nixing of Ga. "Selbst" Securities Suit Appealed

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Face Ala. Uninsured's Litigation
COVAD COMMS: Executives Still Faces "Khanna" Litigation in Del.
CUTERA INC: Kreindler to Expand Securities Suit Class Period
DELL INC: Wolverhampton Dumps Suit Over $1B Intel "Kickbacks"
ENRON CORP: Shareholders Want Supreme Court to Review Lawsuit

FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Ill. Litigation Over Attorney Services
FIRST COMMUNITY: Awaits Approval of "Gilbert" Lawsuit Settlement
FREIGHT HAULERS: Accused of Conspiring to Fix Fuel Surcharges
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set June
INDYMAC FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.

ISRAIR AIRLINES: Faces $29.31MM Lawsuit in Tel Aviv Court
MEDTRONIC INC: Health Care Plans Allowed to Pursue Civil Case
MENU FOODS: Pet Owners in Hawaii File Suit Over Pet Food Recall
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Ind. Court Certifies Class in "Spears" Case
NETOPIA INC: June 8 Hearing Set for $11.25M Securities Suit Deal

OWENS CORNING: Aug. Trial Set in $19M Debt Securities Suit Deal
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: State Court Refuses to Hear Shareholder Suit
PHILIPPINES: Reporters to Pursue Suit Against First Gentleman
UNITED STATES: Federal Court Junks Claims in "NOW v. Scheidler"


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMGEN INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
ACCREDITED HOME: Labaton LLP Files Securities Suit in Calif.
OPTIONABLE INC: KGS Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
OPTIONABLE INC: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
YAHOO INC: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in Calif.


                            *********


AMERICAN HONDA: Accused of Concealing Defect in CR-V, Element
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hal Pilger of Springfield, Illinois, filed a class action
against American Honda Motor Corp., alleging that a design
defect in certain Honda CR-V and Element models makes the
vehicles prone to fast-spreading engine fires, The
ConsumerAffairs.Com reports.

Mr. Pilger claims his 2003 CR-V burst into flames while he was
driving it.  The suit alleges that the oil filter is dangerously
close to the exhaust manifold on 2003, 2004 and 2005 model CR-
Vs, and is mounted vertically, creating a situation where
leaking oil can spray directly on the hot exhaust manifold.  The
suit further alleges that the defect also occurs in Element
models equipped with the 2.4-liter DOHC i-VTEC engine.

The suit notes that, beginning with 2002 models, Honda modified
its engine design to improve compliance with clean air
standards.  The changes resulted in significantly higher
temperatures in the exhaust manifold and exhaust pipes, creating
a situation where leaking oil is more likely to ignite.

Mr. Pilger alleges that Honda has known of the supposed defect
but has failed to issue a recall.

Honda has denied all of the allegations and says any fires that
have occurred have been the result of improper installation of
the oil filter.

Attorneys for Mr. Pilger said tests performed by consulting
engineers found that the CR-V and Element's front exhaust pipe
exceeded 800 degrees (F) during both city and highway driving
tests.

While not denying that fires have plagued CR-V and Element
owners, Honda has taken the position that the fires are not the
result of a design defect but rather the fault of poor
workmanship by the mechanics who perform oil changes on the
vehicles, the report said.


BEAZER HOMES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. and certain of its current and former
executive officers were named as defendants in a putative
securities class action filed on March 29, 2007 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of Beazer Homes' common stock between July 27, 2006
and March 27, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
prospects because it did not disclose facts related to alleged
improper lending practices in its mortgage origination business.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
according to the company's April 26, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Eugene Kratz, et al. v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

         Holzer & Holzer, LLC
         1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
         Atlanta, GA, 30338
         Phone: (770) 392-0090
         Fax: (770) 392-0029
         E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561.750.3000
         Fax: 561.750.3364
         E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP,
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619.231.1058
         Fax: 619.231.7423


BEAZER HOMES: Faces S.C. Suit Alleging Violations of RICO Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Beazer Homes Corp. and
Beazer Mortgage Corp., are defendants in a putative homeowner
class action that was filed on April 23, 2007 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The complaint alleges that Beazer Homes Corp. and Beazer
Mortgage Corp. illegally financed the purchase of homes sold to
low-income purchasers, who allegedly would not have otherwise
qualified for the loans.  It seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, including damages for alleged violations of federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statutes,
according to the company's April 26, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Green v. Beazer Homes Corp. et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-01098-CMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina under Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.

         Steven Randall Hood, Esq.
         Robert V. Phillips, Esq.
         McGowan Hood Felder and Johnson
         1539 Healthcare Drive
         Rock Hill, SC 29732
         Phone: 803-327-7800
         Fax: 803-328-5656
         E-mail: rhood@mcgowanhood.com
                 rphillips@mcgowanhood.com


BEAZER HOMES: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Litigation in N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Beazer Homes Corp. and
Beazer Mortgage Corp., are defendants in a putative class action
filed on March 23, 2007 in the General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division, County of Mecklenberg, State of North
Carolina.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class defined as
North Carolina residents who purchased homes in subdivisions in
North Carolina containing homes constructed by the defendants
where the foreclosure rate is allegedly significantly higher
than the statewide average.  

It alleges that the defendants utilized unfair trade practices
to allow low-income purchasers to qualify for loans they
allegedly could not afford.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and also request that any damage award be trebled, according to
the company's April 26, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- designs,  
sells and builds primarily single-family homes in various
locations within the U.S.  The company's segments comprise the
locations, in which it operates, and these include West
(Arizona, California, Nevada and New Mexico); Mid-Atlantic
(Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and West Virginia); Florida; Southeast (Georgia,
Nashville, North Carolina and South Carolina), and Other
(Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Memphis, Ohio and Texas).  

The company offers homes at various price points to appeal to
homebuyers across various demographic segments.  Its
homebuilding and marketing activities are conducted under the
name of Beazer Homes in each of its markets.  The company's
products are offered in categories, such as Economy, Value and
Style.  It also offers mortgage services to its homebuyers
through its subsidiary, Beazer Mortgage Corp.


BERKLINE BENCHCRAFT: Recalls Massage Recliners Posing Burn Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berkline Benchcraft LLC, of Morristown, Tenn., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, voluntarily
recalls nearly 1,700 units of Berkline Heated Massage Recliners.

The company says the control device that adjusts the heat and
massage settings can overheat, posing a burn hazard to
consumers.

Berkline has received three reports of the control device
overheating.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall only involves the Berkline heated massage recliners
with model number 13071 and piece code number 2700.  The brand
name, the model number, and the piece code can be found on the
bill of sale and/or product packaging.  The recliners were sold
in brown and burgundy.

These recliners were manufactured in China and were being sold
exclusively at Value City Furniture and American Signature
Furniture stores nationwide from December 2006 through February
2007 for about $400.

Consumers should stop using these recliners immediately and
contact Value City Furniture or American Signature Furniture to
have the recliner removed and to receive a full refund.

Picture of the recliner involved in the recall can be viewed at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07547.html

For additional information, contact Berkline Benchcraft at (800)
235-0822 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.berkline.com.


BLUEHIPPO FUNDING: Settles Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuit in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlueHippo Funding LLC agreed to a settlement that would assure
that Maryland consumers would get money back for electronic
goods they never received or for which they were overcharged,
The Baltimore Sun reports.

Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler estimated the restitution to
cost BlueHippo close to $1 million.  The computer sales and
finance company also agreed to pay $300,000 to the attorney
general's Consumer Protection Division.

The settlement resolves allegations that the firm and owner
Joseph K. Rensin engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices
by selling computers, televisions and other goods for two or
more times retail price and placing delivery conditions that
prevented many consumers from receiving them at all.

In a statement issued last week, BlueHippo did not admit or deny
wrongdoing.

"BlueHippo voluntarily initiated a conversation with the
attorney general's office almost two years ago seeking their
guidance on our policies," said Andrew Campbell, BlueHippo's
general counsel.  "We are pleased that we have finally reached
an understanding and agreement with Maryland about how Maryland
views the application of its laws."

The Better Business Bureau of Greater Maryland helped 1,320
consumers with complaints about BlueHippo, said Kerri Kelly, its
spokeswoman.  Of those, 567 consumers were helped with their
complaint last year, she said.

Maryland consumers who might be entitled to restitution will be
identified from BlueHippo's records and do not need to contact
Mr. Gansler's office.

                          Case History

BlueHippo sells computers and plasma TVs nationwide to people
without access to traditional credit.  Consumers pay through
electronic debits to their bank accounts over one year.  They
were promised the merchandise after completing three months'
payments worth hundreds of dollars.  But early on, consumers
complain, the company reneged on the promise.

In March 2006, two Californians filed a class suit against
Maryland-based BlueHippo Funding LLC alleging they didn't get
their computers and weren't able to get refunds.


CALIFORNIA: Mt. Diablo Ordered to Change Playground Floor
---------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled last week that Mt.
Diablo Unified School District violated a 2000 class action
settlement with a disability organization, Bruce Gerstman of
Contra Costa Times reports.

The settlement ordered the district to make elementary school
playgrounds accessible to children who use wheelchairs.

Judge Wilken said the district violated this agreement by using
wood chips on the playgrounds.  She ordered parties to meet
within a month to select a new material.

Berkeley-based Disability Rights Advocates originally brought
the lawsuit in 1998, alleging that time that children who used
wheelchairs could not access the play structures.

The district did make modifications but Disability Rights
Advocates Attorney Alexius Markwalder said that even after the
changes, children using wheelchairs had a difficult time
navigating over the wood chips on the ground to get to the play
area.  The organization wants the wood chips to be replaced with
rubber.

According the lawyer for the district, Greg Roland, they don't
know how they violated the agreement.  He added that the chips
are made from specially engineered wood fiber and satisfy
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The suit filed in 2000 in the U. S. District Court, Northern
District of California was named "Spieler, et al. v. Mt. Diablo
Unified, et al., Case No. 4:98-cv-00951-CW".

Lead attorney for the plaintiff:

          Alexius M Markwalder
          Disability Rights Advocates
          2001 Center Street Third Floor
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Phone: 510-665-8644
          E-mail: amarkwalder@dralegal.org

Lead attorney for the defendant:

          Gregory J. Rolen
          Lozano Smith
          2000 Crown Canyon Place Suite 200
          San Ramon, CA 94583-1344
          Phone: (925) 302-2000
          E-mail: grolen@mbdlaw.com


CAR ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Me. Court to Certify Car Buyer Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine ruled that it
would certify classes of all purchasers of new vehicles under
the "Canadian Export Antitrust Class Actions."

Eighty-three purported class actions on behalf of all purchasers
of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since January 1, 2001 have
been filed in various state and federal courts against numerous
defendants, including Ford, General Motors Corp.,
DaimlerChrysler Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co.,
Nissan Motor Company, BMW Group, the National Automobile Dealers
Association, and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maine.

On March 21, 2007, the U.S. District Court ruled that it will
certify classes of all purchasers of new vehicles in 20 states
between January 1, 2001 and April 30, 2003 for damages under
various state law theories.  Ford Motor Co. intends to appeal.

The federal and state complaints allege, among other things,
that the manufacturers, aided by the dealer associations,
conspired to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles
produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada
at lower prices than vehicles sold in the U.S.

The complaints seek injunctive relief under federal antitrust
law and treble damages under federal and state antitrust laws.

Ford Motor Co. -- http://www.ford.com/-- is a producer of cars  
and trucks.  The company and its subsidiaries also engage in
other businesses, including financing vehicles.  Ford operates
in two sectors: Automotive and Financial Services.  The
Automotive sector includes the operations of Ford North America,
Ford South America, Ford Europe, Premier Automotive Group, and
Ford Asia Pacific and Africa/Mazda segments.  The Financial
Services sector includes the operations of Ford Motor Credit
Company (Ford Credit), which is engaged in vehicle-related
financing, leasing, and insurance.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Plaintiff Withdraws Claims of Illegal VAT
---------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification of a lawsuit filed against
Cellcom Israel Ltd. alleging the company unlawfully collected
Value Added Tax amounts from subscribers was withdrawn.

Filed on February 28, plaintiff claims that the company
unlawfully collected VAT from its subscribers who are residents
of the city of Eilat in Israel and that the company misled and
failed to disclose the same (Class Action Reporter, March 2,
2007).

Had the lawsuit been certified as a class action, the amount to
be claimed was estimated by plaintiff to be approximately $7.8
million, calculated by multiplying an alleged damage of about
$1,566 per subscriber by the number of the subscribers allegedly
damaged, estimated by the plaintiff to be at least 5,000.

For more information, contact:

          Shiri Israeli
          Investor Relations Coordinator
          Phone: +972-52-998-9755
          E-mail: investors@cellcom.co.il

          - and -

          Ehud Helft
          Ed Job
          Investor Relations Contact
          CCGK Investor Relations
          Phone: +1-866-704-6710 (US) or +1-646-213-1914
          E-mail: ehud@gkir.com or ed.job@ccgir.com


COCA-COLA: Nixing of Ga. "Selbst" Securities Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities fraud class action, "Selbst v. The
Coca-Cola Co., et al.," are appealing the dismissal of their
case.

On May 9, 2005, the putative class action "Selbst v. The Coca-
Cola Co. and Douglas N. Daft," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations
of antifraud provisions of the securities laws by the company
and Mr. Daft, former chairman of the board and chief executive
officer of the company.

The purported class consists of persons, except the defendants,
who purchased company stock between Jan. 30, 2003 and Sept. 15,
2004 and were damaged thereby.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class
period the company and Mr. Daft made false and misleading
statements concerning the financial condition of the company and
its business outlook, strategy, business model and relationship
with key bottlers in internal corporate memoranda,
analysts' conference calls, press releases and U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filings.  

The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, seek
compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial,
extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted
by law to assure that the class has an effective remedy, award
of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert
fees, and such other further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.

On July 8, 2005, a putative class action, styled "Amalgamated
Bank, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Co., et al." was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against:

      -- the company,
      -- Douglas N. Daft,
      -- E. Neville Isdell,
      -- Steven J. Heyer, and
      -- Gary P. Fayard.

The suit is alleging violations of antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws.  The purported class consists of
persons, except the defendants, who purchased company stock
between Jan. 30, 2003 and Sept. 15, 2004 and were damaged
thereby.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class
period the defendants made false and misleading statements
about:

      -- the company's new business strategy/model;

      -- the company's execution of its new business
         strategy/model;

      -- the state of the company's critical bottler
         relationships;

      -- the company's North American business;

      -- the company's European operations, with a particular
         emphasis on Germany;

      -- the company's marketing and introduction of new
         products, particularly Coca-Cola C2; and

      -- the company's forecast for growth going forward.

The plaintiffs claim that as a result of these allegedly false
and misleading statements, the price of the company stock
increased dramatically during the purported class period.  

The complaint also alleges that in September and November 2004,
the company and E. Neville Isdell acknowledged that the
company's performance had been below expectations, that various
corrective actions were needed, that the company was lowering
its forecasts, and that there would be no quick fixes.  

In addition, the complaint alleges that the charge announced by
the company in November 2004 should have been taken early in
2003 and that, as a result, the company's financial statements
were materially misstated during 2003 and the first three
quarters of 2004.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, seek compensatory
damages in an amount to be proved at trial, extraordinary,
equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law to assure
that the class has an effective remedy, award of reasonable
costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, and such
other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

In September 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint providing, among other things, additional details
concerning the original complaint's allegations about
disclosures regarding the company's operations in Germany.  

On November 21, 2005, the company and the individual parties
filed a motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated
complaint.  The plaintiffs filed their response to that motion
on Jan. 27, 2006.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court entered its order granting the
company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety and granted the plaintiffs 20 days from its date of
entry within which to seek leave to file a second amended
complaint to attempt to correct deficiencies noted therein.

On Oct. 23, 2006, plaintiffs advised the court that they would
not seek leave to file a second amended complaint.  The court
entered its final order of judgment on March 23, 2007.

On April 16, 2007, plaintiffs filed notice of appeal of the
Court's order dismissing this case to the U.S. Court of Appeals,
according to the company's April 26, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 30, 2007.

The suit is "Selbst v. The Coca-Cola Co., et al., Case No. 1:05-
cv-01226-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under Judge Richard W. Story.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David Andrew Bain, Esq.
         Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
         1230 Peachtree Street N.E.
         2300 Promenade II
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900
         E-mail: dab@classlaw.com

              - and -

         James A. Caputo, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-4297
         Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the defendants are:

         Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
         King & Spalding
         191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763
         Phone: 404-572-4600
         E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com

              - and -

         Paul R. Bessette, Esq.
         Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP
         Suite 2100, 300 West 6th Street
         Austin, TX 78701
         Phone: 512-499-6250


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Face Ala. Uninsured's Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. remains a defendant in a
purported class action filed in the Circuit Court of Barbour
County, Alabama, Eufaula Division.  

The suit was filed by Arleana Lawrence and Lisa Nichols against
Eufaula Community Hospital, Community Health Systems, Inc.,
South Baldwin Regional Medical Center and Community Health
Systems Professional Services Corp.

The class action, previously, captioned, "Arleana Lawrence and
Robert Hollins v. Lakeview Community Hospital and Community
Health Systems, Inc.," was brought by the plaintiffs on behalf
of themselves and as the representatives of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Lakeview
Hospital or any of the company's other Alabama hospitals.

Plaintiffs allege that uninsured patients who do not qualify for
Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high
rates for services and materials and that the company use
unconscionable methods to collect bills.  

They seek restitution of overpayment, compensatory and other
allowable damages and injunctive relief.

In October 2005, the complaint was amended to eliminate one of
the named plaintiffs and to add Community Health's management
company subsidiary as a defendant.  

In November 2005, the complaint was again amended to add another
plaintiff, Lisa Nichols and another defendant, the company's
hospital in Foley, Alabama, South Baldwin Regional Medical
Center.

Discovery has been concluded on the class determination issues
and briefs have been filed with the Circuit Court, according to
the company's April 26, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net-- through  
its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals
that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services
in non-urban communities.


COVAD COMMS: Executives Still Faces "Khanna" Litigation in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain executives of Covad Communications Group remain
defendants in a purported class action filed by the company's
former general counsel and secretary Druv Khanna in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware, New Castle County.

In June 2002, Dhruv Khanna was relieved of his duties as the
company's general counsel and secretary.  Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Khanna alleged that, over a period of years, certain current
and former directors and officers had breached their fiduciary
duties to the company by engaging in or approving actions that
constituted waste and self-dealing, that certain current and
former directors and officers had provided false representations
to the company's auditors and that he had been relieved of his
duties in retaliation for his being a purported whistleblower
and because of racial or national origin discrimination.

Based on the events mentioned, in September 2003, Mr. Khanna
filed a purported class action and a derivative lawsuit against
the company's current and former directors.  

On Aug. 3, 2004, Mr. Khanna amended his complaint and two
additional purported shareholders joined the lawsuit.  In this
action the plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the company
from the individual defendants for their purported breach of
fiduciary duty.  

Plaintiffs also seek to invalidate the company's election of
directors in 2002, 2003 and 2004 because they claim that the
company's proxy statements were misleading.

On Oct. 11, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety and a motion to disqualify Mr.
Khanna and the additional plaintiffs as class representatives.

On May 9, 2006, the court dismissed several of the claims for
breach of fiduciary duty as well as the claims relating to the
company's proxy statements.  The court also determined that Mr.
Khanna could no longer serve as a plaintiff in this matter.  

The litigation with respect to the remaining claims is still
pending, 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.

Covad Communications Group, Inc. -- http://www.covad.com/--  
provides voice and data communications products and services to
consumers and businesses.  Covad provides these services
throughout the U.S. in approximately 235 major metropolitan
areas in 44 states.  Its products and services include high-
speed, or broadband, data communications, Internet access
connectivity, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) telephony and
a variety of related services.  Covad uses digital subscriber
line and DS-1, also referred to as T-1, technologies to deliver
its services.


CUTERA INC: Kreindler to Expand Securities Suit Class Period
------------------------------------------------------------
Kreindler & Kreindler LLP filed a class action on April 18,
2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock and
other securities of Cutera, Inc. from January 31, 2007 through
April 4, 2007.

Defendants included Cutera and certain of its top officers and
directors.  Plaintiff will be amending this complaint to assert
a new, longer class period: from January 31, 2007 through May 7,
2007.

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

None of these adverse developments were adequately disclosed on
April 4, 2007 when, in announcing disappointing results, CEO
Connors stated: "This quarter's shortfall was due primarily to
lower than expected productivity levels of our recent sales
expansion.  We are implementing specific initiatives to address
this matter and remain confident in our ability to increase our
revenue growth."  On May 8, 2007, Cutera shares closed at
$23.40, down $5.84, on heavy volume.

Members of the class described above may move the court no later
than June 18, 2007.

For more information or to obtain a copy of the complaint,
contact the counsels for the plaintiff:
                  
          Mark Labaton, Esq.
          Kreindler & Kreindler LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 622-6469
          Toll Free: 1-800-331-2782
          E-mail: mlabaton@kreindler.com
          Web Site: http://www.kreindler.com

                 - and -

          Gabriel Barenfeld, Esq.
          Kreindler & Kreindler LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 622-6469
          Toll Free: 1-800-331-2782
          E-mail: gbarenfeld@kreindler.com
          Web Site: http://www.kreindler.com


DELL INC: Wolverhampton Dumps Suit Over $1B Intel "Kickbacks"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amalgamated Bank, as trustee for the Longview Collective
Investment Fund and other class plaintiffs, including
Wolverhampton City Council, no longer intends to pursue the case
"Amalgamated Bank et al. v. Dell, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00077-LY," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, The Inquirer reports.

Earlier, the law firm of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman
& Robbins LLP filed the suit on behalf of two institutional
investors, claiming the computer maker inflated profits with
secret payments of about $1 billion a year from chip maker Intel
Corp. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7, 2007).

The lawsuit named as defendants:

     -- Dell and 16 current and former officials;
     -- Intel; and
     -- Dell's accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status for investors who
bought Dell stock from February 2003 to September 2006, alleges
Dell's profits were inflated by hundreds of millions of dollars
through quarterly rebates from Intel that Dell did not properly
account for or disclose, court papers say.

The lawsuit charges that Dell got the Intel payments "for
shipping only Intel-based products and not doing business with
[Advanced Micro Devices Inc.]"  Dell began using chips from
Intel's rival last year.

The lawsuit also claimed that Dell concealed problems in
accounting and product quality from shareholders while company
executives reaped $3.3 billion from selling their stock.

It further claims that Dell withheld knowledge about such
problems as faulty laptop computer batteries that were later
recalled and a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
investigation of Dell.

Last week, Amalgamated Bank said has dismissed its claim without
prejudice.

The suit is "Amalgamated Bank et al. v. Dell, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00077-LY," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas under Judge Lee Yeakel.

Representing plaintiffs are:
   
          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          William S. Lerach, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 231-1058
          Fax: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com or maryb@lerachlaw.com or
                  e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          Provost Umphrey LLP
          3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Fax: 214/744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@provostumphrey.com or           
                  wbriscoe@provostumphrey.com

          - and -

          G. Paul Howes, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713) 571-0911
          Fax: (713) 571-0912


ENRON CORP: Shareholders Want Supreme Court to Review Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enron Corp. shareholders have taken their case to the U.S.
Supreme Court to file a petition for a review of their
class action against several banks, whose alleged "active
and knowing participation in the Enron fraud led to tens of
billions of dollars in investor losses."

The Petition seeks to overturn the 2-1 decision by a three-judge
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which
ruling was issued on March 19, 2007.

In their Petition, the Plaintiffs ask the Supreme Court: does
liability exist under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b
5, where an actor knowingly employs deceptive devices and
contrivances as part of a scheme to defraud investors in another
public company, but makes no affirmative misrepresentations to
the market?

The Plaintiffs contend that Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, which
both prohibit any person from directly or indirectly using or
employing a deceptive device or contrivance, clearly encompasses
the banks' conduct in the Enron fraud case.

William S. Lerach, Esq., at Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
Rudman & Robbins LLP, in San Diego, California, lead counsel for
the Plaintiffs, maintains that "[T]he banks should be held
accountable because the Fifth Circuit's decision gives other
corporations the green light to commit fraud without consequence
in the future, threatens the credibility of the securities
markets, and leaves investors without any legal recourse."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Petition is available for free at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ede

Moreover, in a statement issued by the University of California,
Office of the President, the Fifth Circuit imposed "a very
narrow interpretation of the securities law to hold accountable
and liable only those who have made affirmative misstatements in
the market."

"The Enron shareholders deserve the opportunity to present their
case at trial," according to the University of California's
issued statement, citing Charles Robinson, the university's
general counsel.  "On behalf of the victims of one of the
largest securities frauds in history, we believe the law is
broad enough to include parties who intentionally engage in
deceptive conduct for the purpose of misleading investors."

Mr. Robinson added, "The evidence clearly proves that these
financial institutions were active, knowing and crucial
participants in the Enron fraud and not innocent bystanders.  We
are simply asking for our day in court."

Given the Fifth Circuit's ruling, Judge Melinda Harmon of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
stayed the trial in the U.S. District Court in Houston.  No new
trial date has been set.

The University of California stated, however, that prior
settlements are not affected by the Fifth Circuit's ruling.  The
prior settlement money will be allocated to the settlement class
according to a plan of allocation, which will be presented to
Judge Harmon for approval.

The remaining defendants in the case which was set for trial
include Barclays Bank, Credit Suisse First Boston, and Merrill
Lynch, as well as several former Enron officers, including Jeff
Skilling, CEO; Richard Causey, chief accounting officer; Richard
Buy, chief risk officer; Jeff McMahon, treasurer; and Mark
Koenig, executive vice president of investor relations.

The cases against Royal Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Scotland
and Toronto Dominion Bank have not been set for trial and are
stayed pending the appeal of the Fifth Circuit's ruling.

                      Plea for SEC Support

Representative from groups composed of individuals who lost
retirement saving in Enron's collapse asked the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission to endorse the shareholders' suit
against the banks, the Associated Press reports.

The SEC had no immediate comment.

                    About Enron Corporation

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Enron Corporation filed for
chapter 11 protection on December 2, 2001 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case
No. 01-16033) following controversy over accounting procedures,
which caused Enron's stock price and credit rating to drop
sharply.  Judge Gonzalez confirmed the Company's Modified Fifth
Amended Plan on July 15, 2004, and numerous appeals followed.  
The Debtors' confirmed chapter 11 Plan took effect on Nov. 17,
2004.

(Enron Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 190 and 183; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000)

The class action was filed October 2001 and certified in June
2006.


FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Ill. Litigation Over Attorney Services
------------------------------------------------------------
The First American Title Insurance Co. is a defendant in a
purported federal class action that accuses it of charging for
attorney services done by people who are not attorneys.

Douglas Sharbaugh, a Cook County resident, filed the suit on May
9, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

According to the general allegations of the complaint, in many
real property transactions in the state, the buyer(s) and/or
sellers(s) of the real property conduct their business through
attorneys.  These attorneys provide services related to the
contract for sale and follow the transaction through to its
closing.

When these real property transactions occur, title insurance is
purchased to protect the new owner(s) and/or mortgagee of the
property.  The title insurance policies are issued through
"agents" acting on behalf of or for the benefit of, the issuing
insurance company.  These agents, usually lawyers, earn fess for
their services provided in association with the title insurance
placement.

The agents' services with respect to the real property
transaction usually include examining title search reports,
generating the title commitment, performing any necessary pre-
closing title clearance, and retaining liability for his or her
errors (if any) in producing the final status of title, which is
evidenced in the title insurance policy.  These services are
commonly referred to as "core title services."

In some real property transactions in the state, the attorney
representing either buyer(s) or seller(s) of the property also
acts as the "agent" of the title insurance company, issuing the
policy through a title insurance company which he normally does
business. Because of tier roles as attorney for the buyer(s)
and/or seller(s), these "attorney agents" invariably designate
the title insurance company, which issues the owners' and
mortgage title insurance policies for their client(s).

Recognizing the role of the parties' attorneys in selecting the
company to issue title insurance with respect to a transaction,
defendant began soliciting  "attorney agents" to place title
insurance with them.  However, in order to gain market share,
defendant created for itself an improper advantage in soliciting
"attorney agents" in that defendant did not require its attorney
agents" to perform core title services in exchange for their
fees. Thus, defendant allowed the "attorney agents" to earn fees
based solely on their client(s)' choice of defendant as trhier
tile insurer.

Defendant's practice of paying fees to attorneys who do not
perform "core title services" results in attorney "agents"
receiving compensation for nothing other than the referral of
their clients to deendants.

That practice, the suit claims is violating certain provisions
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and the Illinois
Title Insurance Act, as well as Chapter 24 of the Code of
Federal Regulations and Section 8100 of the Illinois
Administrative Code.

Plaintiff seeks to bring the action on behalf of all people who
purchased or sold real property in the State of Illinois, and
who paid for a title insurance policy from the defendant, any
part of which policy fee or premium was then shared with an
"attorney agent" in exchange for the referral of the business to
the defendant.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
           
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1f1e

The suit is "Sharbaugh v. First American Title Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:07-cv-02628," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Ronald
A. Guzman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         George A. Zelcs, Esq.
         Korein Tillery
         205 N. Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 641-9750
         E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com

              - and -

         Daniel J. Becka, Esq.
         Myron M. Cherry & Associates
         30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: (312) 372-2100
         E-mail: dbecka@cherry-law.com


FIRST COMMUNITY: Awaits Approval of "Gilbert" Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Community Bancorp is still awaiting final approval of a
settlement in the class action, "Gilbert, et al. v. Cohn, et
al., Case No. BC310846."

On June 8, 2004, the company was served with an amended
complaint naming First Community and Pacific Western as
defendants in a class action filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
known as the Gilbert Litigation.  

A former officer of First Charter Bank, N.A., which the company
acquired in October 2001, was also named as a defendant.  That
former officer left First Charter in May of 1997 and later
became a principal of Four Star Financial Services, LLC, an
affiliate of 900 Capital Services, Inc.

On April 18, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class
action complaint.  The second amended complaint alleged that the
former officer of First Charter improperly induced several First
Charter customers to invest in 900 Capital or affiliates of 900
Capital and further alleges that Four Star, 900 Capital and some
of their affiliated entities perpetuated their fraud upon
investors through various accounts at First Charter, First
Community and Pacific Western with those banks' purported
knowing participation in and/or willful ignorance of the scheme.

The key allegations in the second amended complaint dated back
to the mid-1990s and the second amended complaint alleged
several counts for relief including aiding and abetting,
conspiracy, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, relief pursuant to
the California Business and Professions Code, negligence and
relief under the California Securities Act stemming from an
alleged fraudulent scheme and sale of securities issued by 900
Capital and Four Star.

In disclosures provided to the parties, plaintiffs have asserted
that the named plaintiffs have suffered losses well in excess of
$3.85 million, and plaintiffs have asserted that "losses to the
class total many tens of millions of dollars."  

While the company understands that the plaintiffs intend to seek
to certify a class for purposes of pursuing a class action, a
class has not yet been certified and no motion for class
certification has been filed.

On June 15, 2005, the company filed a demurrer to the second
amended complaint, and on Aug. 22, 2005, the court sustained the
company's demurrer as to each of the counts therein, granting
plaintiffs leave to amend on four of the six counts, and
dismissing the other counts outright.

In November 2005, along with certain other defendants, the
company reached an agreement in principle with respect to the
Gilbert Litigation.  

That agreement is reflected in a written Stipulation of
Settlement dated Feb. 9, 2007, which has been executed by all
the parties to that settlement.

The settlement is subject to approval by the Los Angeles
Superior Court and a certain level of participation in the
settlement by class members.  

Assuming all conditions to final consummation of the settlement
are met, the company's contribution to the settlement will be
$775,000, which was accrued in 2005, 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.

First Community Bancorp -- http://www.firstcommunitybancorp.com/
-- serves as a holding company for its banking subsidiaries.  As
of Dec. 31, 2005, those subsidiaries were First National Bank
and Pacific Western National Bank.  As of Feb. 23, 2007, the
Company had one wholly owned banking subsidiary, Pacific
Western, with 63 branches located in Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego Counties, California.
Pacific Western's business includes the asset-based lending and
accounts receivable factoring division, doing business as First
Community Financial, with a loan production office in Phoenix,
Arizona and marketing offices in Austin, Texas and Los Angeles
and Orange Counties, California.


FREIGHT HAULERS: Accused of Conspiring to Fix Fuel Surcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Five major U.S.-based railroad freight haulers are sued in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged
price-fixing conspiracy.

Named defendants in the suit are:

          -- CSX Transportation, Inc.;
          -- Norfolk Southern Railway Company;
          -- BNSF Railway Company;
          -- Union Pacific Railroad Company; and
          -- Kansas City Southern Railway Company.

Dust Pro, Inc. -- a Phoenix- based company that manufactured and
distributed soil stabilizers -- filed the complaint claiming it
had rail fuel surcharges applied to rail freight transport
purchased at unregulated rates.

The complaint alleges the railroads, which collectively control
more than 90 percent of the rail freight traffic in the U.S.,
have since mid-2003 participated in a conspiracy to fix the
prices of rail fuel surcharges applied to freight shipped at
unregulated rates.
]
According to the complaint, the railroads "conspired to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of rail freight
transportation services sold in the U.S. through use of rail
fuel surcharges added to customers' bills."

The complaint alleges that the railroads "moved in uniform
lockstep" to fix prices for the fuel surcharges, which bore no
direct relationship to their actual fuel cost increases.  
Because of this practice, the suit says, the railroads
"restrained competition in the market for unregulated rail
freight transportation services" and "realized billions of
dollars in revenues ... in excess of their actual increase in
fuel costs from the specific customers on whom they imposed the
surcharge."

The lawsuit notes that the surcharges were tied to base shipping
rates instead of fuel costs.  The federal Surface Transportation
Board (STB) found in January 2007 that these same fuel surcharge
practices, as applied to freight shipped at federally regulated
rates, were "unreasonable" and amounted to "double dipping."

However, that STB decision addressed only rate-regulated freight
traffic, which makes up only a minority of all rail freight
shipments in the U.S.  The complaint here addresses the
unregulated private rail freight transport contracts, and other
unregulated rail transport, that constitute the majority of U.S.
rail freight shipments.

According to the complaint, the railroads "have acknowledged
that their fuel surcharge program is not a cost recovery
mechanism, but a revenue enhancement measure intended to achieve
across-the-board increases in the prices charged by defendants
for unregulated rail freight transportation."

The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of all direct
purchasers of rate-unregulated rail freight transport services
as to which the fuel surcharges were applied.

    Complaint Alleges Railroads "Moved in Uniform Lockstep"

The complaint contends that: "The fact that the defendants have
moved in uniform lockstep for a period of nearly 38 months
indicates that defendants were coordinating their behavior and
conspired to fix prices for rail fuel surcharges. In a
competitive environment, free of collusion, carriers with lower
fuel costs would impose a lower surcharge to obtain a
competitive advantage."

According to the complaint, by July 2003 the freight haulers
"agreed to stop competing with one another with respect to
prices they charged ... [and to] act in concert with one another
in demanding the rail fuel surcharges," using rising oil prices
as "an easy way to increase dramatically their revenues" without
having to negotiate new contracts with shippers.

    STB Has Ruled Surcharges "Unreasonable Practice" and "Double   
    Dipping"

In January 2007, the STB -- in a decision that applied only to
rate- regulated rail freight transport -- ordered the railroads
to stop computing the surcharge based on shipping rates, which
it called an "unreasonable practice" because the fuel surcharges
are not tied to the fuel consumption associated with the
individual movements to which they are applied.  The STB also
found that the railroads had engaged in "double dipping" by
imposing both the fuel surcharge and a separate rate increase
that included a fuel cost component.

The lawsuit filed contends, with respect to rail freight traffic
that is not subject to STB rate regulation, that: "Rail freight
shippers across the nation are being subjected to an endless
string of rate increases by railroads made possible by a
concentrated market structure, tight capacity, and coordinated
pricing.  Although the reason for deregulation of the railroad
industry was to promote competition and lower freight rates, it
is now clear that the opposite has come true -- railroads are
collectively charging shippers supracompetitive rates.

The railroad industry today does not behave like a competitive
market at all.  Instead, it is dominated by the defendants in
this case."

For more information, contact:

          Stephen Neuwirth, Esq.
          Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: (212) 849-7000
          Fax:  (212) 849-7100


FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set June
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Travis County, Texas J-98th Judicial
District, will hold a fairness hearing on June 25, 2007, at
10:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the purported class
action, "In re Freescale Semiconductor Inc. Shareholder Lawsuit,
Case No. D-1-GN-06-003501."

The hearing will be held at the District Court for Travis
County, Texas, at the Travis County Courthouse, 1000 Guadalupe,
Austin, Texas 78704.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before May 28, 2007.  Deadline for the submission of
claims forms is on Oct. 6, 2007.

                        Case Background

Initially, the company was named as a defendant in six purported
class action petitions, alleging, among other things, that the
company's directors benefited substantially from the sale of the
company, and therefore didn't take the proper steps to maximize
shareholder value (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2006).

The suits are:

     -- "Merger Gerber v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et al.,
        Cause No.D-1-GN-06-003501;"

     -- "Lifshitz v. Michel Mayer, et al., Cause No. D-1-GN-06-
        003585;"

     -- "Warner v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Cause
        No. D-1-GN-06-003673;"

     -- "Tansey v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et al., Cause
        No. D-1-GN-06-003685;"

     -- "Hockstein v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et al.,
        Cause No. D-1-GN-06-003717;" and

     -- "International Union of Operating Engineers Local No.
        825 Pension Fund v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et
        al., Cause No. D-1-GN-06-003918."

All of the petitions name Freescale and the current members of
the board of directors as defendants.  The Gerber and Lifshitz
petitions also name The Blackstone Group, The Carlyle Group,
funds advised by Permira Advisers LLC, and Texas Pacific Group
as defendants.  The Lifshitz and Hockstein petitions also name
B. Kenneth West, a former member of our board of directors, as a
defendant.

Plaintiffs purport to represent stockholders of Freescale who
are similarly situated with them.  Among other things, the
petitions allege that directors, in approving the proposed
merger breached fiduciary duties owed to stockholders because
they failed to take steps to maximize the value to public
stockholders.

The petitions further allege that The Blackstone Group, The
Carlyle Group, funds advised by Permira Advisers LLC, and Texas
Pacific Group aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

The petitions allege that the Company's directors will receive
substantial benefits from the acquisition that would not be
shared with other stockholders.

The petitions further allege that the directors who approved the
transaction were not sufficiently independent and disinterested,
and did not conduct a competitive auction.

The petitions also allege that the Company took impermissible
steps to hinder other potential acquirers, including a buyout
group led by Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts Co.

Some of the petitions also allege that the Company failed to
disclose certain details regarding the proposed Merger and the
process leading up to the Merger.

The petitions seek class certification, damages, and certain
forms of equitable relief, including enjoining the consummation
of the Merger.

On Oct. 12, 2006, the company and the current members of the
board of directors filed answers to five petitions in which the
company generally denied the allegations.  The company moved to
consolidate the actions that same day, which was eventually
granted, and the case became known as, "In re Freescale
Semiconductor Inc. Shareholder Lawsuit."

For more details, contact   

         Tommy Jacks, Esq.
         The Jacks Law Firm
         1205 Rio Grande Street
         Austin, TX 78701
         Phone: 512-478-4422
         Fax: 512-478-5015
         Web site: http://www.jackslawfirm.com/

         Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP
         One California Plaza, 300 South Grand Ave., Ste. 3900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3149
         Phone: (213) 617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975
         Web site:
         http://www.milbergweiss.com/FreescaleSettlement

              - and -

         Gilardi & Co. LLC
         P.O. Box 808061
         Petaluma, CA 94975-8061
         Phone: 800-447-7657
         Web site: http://www.gilardi.com


INDYMAC FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
IndyMac Financial, Inc. is facing a purported class action filed
on or about March 12, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The suit, "Reese v. IndyMac Financial, Inc., CV-07-01635," is
alleging facts about the company's public statements and
asserting claims based on Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5, and state fiduciary
duty law.

The suit is "Reese v. IndyMac Financial, Inc., CV-07-01635,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge George H. Wu with referral to Judge
Victor B. Kenton.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William F. Salle, Esq.
         William F. Salle Law Offices
         425 East Colorado Street, Suite 755
         Glendale, CA 91205
         Phone: 818-543-1900


ISRAIR AIRLINES: Faces $29.31MM Lawsuit in Tel Aviv Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Israir Airlines and Tourism Ltd. is facing a $29.31 million
lawsuit, seeking class-action status, in the Tel Aviv District
Court for providing misleading information about the distance
between seats in its planes, reports say.

Plaintiff Avraham Speizman, through attorneys Michael Bach and
others, claims that Israir presents its Boeing 767-300 ER planes
as having 82 centimeters between seats, whereas the actual
distance is 76 centimeters.

He feels that Israir knew the real gap was 76 cm., which means
that it is misleading customers in its promotions, though
knowing full well that the gap is one of the main parameters
when setting ticket prices, because it determines how many seats
will fit onto the plane.  It is also key to client's decision to
buy a ticket on a long-distance flight, he claims.

He further claims that Israir says that it offers the greatest
legroom in these planes, whereas it has actually added 25 seats,
thereby illegally enriching itself at the public's expense.

He calculated that IsrAir was illegally earning ticket income on
each flight made by the plan with the extra 25 seats, at the
expense of the distress of the passengers.

Beyond monetary compensation, he demands that Israir reduce the
number of seats on the plane from 243 to 218.


MEDTRONIC INC: Health Care Plans Allowed to Pursue Civil Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum declared that U.S. health
care plans could bring Medtronic Inc. to a civil trial, Lawyers
and Settlements reports.

The judge also encouraged all employers, labor unions and
commercial insurers to seek refunds for their costs even in
cases where the patients aren't seeking for damages.

In fact, health care plans are already planning to amend their
case into class action on behalf of all private insurers.

In addition, several individual lawsuits have already been filed
against the company in connection with the recall of about
87,000 units of implantable cardioverter defibrillators or ICDs
in 2005.  

Medtronic is also facing lawsuits over some of its faulty
external defibrillators that allegedly stop working without
warning, like the one filed by Lodi Unified school District in
San Joaquin County Superior Court.  The suit claims the company
is negligent and liable for a student's brain damage.


MENU FOODS: Pet Owners in Hawaii File Suit Over Pet Food Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii resident Kelly Engle filed a class action on behalf of
2,000 pet owners against pet food manufacturers that supplied
contaminated pet food, TheHawaiiChannel.com reports.

Ms. Engle's lawyers said they went after Menu Foods Inc. for
failing to test its products and selling food that wasn't safe
to eat.

"Because Menu Foods failed to take this small step, we are here
today," said Engle's attorney, Emily Gardner.

The lawyers have filed the lawsuits in state court because they
said Hawaii has very strong consumer protection laws that allow
plaintiffs to be awarded triple damages.

Ms. Gardner said she's preparing a third suit representing
residents whose pets died or got sick from eating food made by
other manufacturers.

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

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

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

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

Menu Foods is facing other federal class actions in other parts
of the country.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Ind. Court Certifies Class in "Spears" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
granted class-action status to the purported class action,
"Spears et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al.,
Case No. 2:2007cv00088."

The suit was filed on March 22, 2007, charging defendants with
of violating the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1942, in the
marketing and sale of retirement plans to Indiana public
educators.  It defined as a class any Indiana Public educators
during the period Jan. 1, 2003 to the present.

For the moment, identified as plaintiffs in the case are:

      -- Daniel R. Spears,
      -- Jeffrey Yelton,
      -- Katherine Lang,
      -- Daniel Massa, and
      -- Raymond R. Commers

Specifically, the suit names the following as defendants:
    
      -- Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
      -- Metlife Securities, Inc., and
      -- ISTA Financial Services Corp.

Generally, the suit alleges that defendants used the endorsement
of the Indiana State Teachers Association, and its subsidiary,
ISTA Financial to sell securities and other investment options
to public educators throughout the state.

The process and procedure in which defendants sold such
securities and other investments options to the public educators
was in violations of both federal and state law, including the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act, and the Indiana Consumer Deceptive
Practices Act.  The defendants caused the sale of such
securities through the misrepresentation and concealment of
pertinent facts.

The suit also alleges that defendants have conducted a pattern
of racketeering activity and that the plaintiffs have suffered
from corrupt business influence of the defendants.

Plaintiffs are seeking are seeking relief, not only on their
behalf, but also on behalf of all Indiana public school
educators who where duped into purchasing securities and other
investments by the defendants.

Essentially, they seek to recover damages on behalf of all
Indiana public educators who invested in retirement investments
offered by the defendants during the class period.

The suit is "Spears et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et
al., Case No. 2:2007cv00088," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana under Judge Rudy Lozano
with referral from Judge Paul R. Cherry.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert E. Stochel, Esq.
         Hoffman and Stochel
         One Professional Center Suite 308
         Crown Point, IN 46307
         Phone: 219-662-0165
         Fax: 219-662-2151
         E-mail: res@reslaw.org

              - and -

         Glenn S. Vician, Esq.
         Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician PC
         8605 Broadway
         Merrillville, IN 46410
         Phone: 219-769-6671
         Fax: 219-738-3044
         E-mail: bhbv2@netnitco.net

Representing the defendants are:

         Linton J. Childs, Esq.
         Sidley Austin LLP
         One S. Dearborn St.
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-853-7000
         Fax: 312-853-7036
         E-mail: lchilds@sidley.com

              - and -

         Mark J. Dinsmore, Esq.
         Barnes & Thornburg LLP
         11 S. Meridian Street, Suite 1313
         Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535
         Phone: 317-231-7488
         Fax: 317-231-7433
         E-mail: mark.dinsmore@btlaw.com


NETOPIA INC: June 8 Hearing Set for $11.25M Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on June 8, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. for
the proposed  $11,250,000 settlement in the class action "In re
Netopia, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-3364."

The hearing will be held before Judge Ronald M. Whyte in
Courtroom #6, Fourth Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA
95113.    

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before May 25, 2007. Deadline for the submission of
claims forms is on Oct. 6, 2007.

                         Case Background

On Dec. 3, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order consolidating previously
filed class actions as "In re Netopia, Inc. Securities
Litigation," and appointing lead plaintiffs and plaintiffs'
counsel.

On June 29, 2005, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint.  On June 19, 2006, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class of shareholders who
purchased company stock between Nov. 6, 2003 and Aug. 16, 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, based on allegations that during the class
period, the company made false and misleading statements or
failed to disclose material facts, and that the market price of
the company's common stock was artificially inflated as a result
of such alleged conduct.

In December 2006, the company reached a proposed settlement in
principle of this litigation contingent upon a number of
factors, including the closing of the acquisition by Motorola
and the entering into of a binding agreement regarding the
settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2006).

The suit is "In re Netopia, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-3364," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

For more details, contact:

         Jeffrey S. Nobel
         Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
         One Corporate Center, 20 Church Street
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: (860) 493-6292
         Fax: (860) 493-6290
         E-mail: jnobel@snlaw.net
         Web site: http://www.snlaw.net/

              - and -

         In re Netopia Securities Litigation
         FRG Information Systems Corp.
         P.O. Box 460, Peck Slip Station,
         New York, NY 10272
         Phone: (800) 556-9955
         E-mail: info@FRGInfoSys.com
         Web site: http://www.frginfosys.com/


OWENS CORNING: Aug. Trial Set in $19M Debt Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 9, 2007 fairness hearing is set in $19.25 million
settlement of a suit "John Hancock Life Insurance Co., et al. v.
Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al., C.A. No. 01-10729-RWZ," filed
before the U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts.

The class includes all persons or entities who purchased Owens
Corning's:

     * 7.5% notes due May 1, 2005 (CUSIP: 69073faba),

     * Owens Corning's 7.7% notes due May 1, 2008 (CUSIP:
       69073faca), and/or

     * 7 1/2% debentures due August 1, 2018 (CUSIP: 69073fada)

during the period between April 30, 1998 and October 5, 2000
whose purchases were pursuant to or traceable to an offering by
Owens corning of the 2005 notes and 2008 notes occurring on or
about April 30, 1998 and/or an offering by Owens Corning of the
2018 debentures occurring on or about july 22, 1998.

The class representatives are John Hancock Life Insurance Co.,
John Hancock Variable Life Insurance Co., Investors Partner Life
Insurance Co. and John Hancock Life Assurance.

The hearing will be on Aug. 9, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge, at the John Joseph
Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210,
Courtroom #12, 5th Floor.

Claims filing deadline is October 10, 2007.

The suit was filed on April 30, 2001.  The complaint alleges
that the registration statements pursuant to which the offerings
were made contained untrue and misleading statements of material
fact and omitted to state material facts, which were required to
be stated therein and which were necessary to make the
statements therein not misleading, in violation of sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The amended
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages or, where
appropriate, rescission of the plaintiffs' purchases.  

On Mar. 9, 2004, the court granted class certification as to
those claims relating to written representations but denied
certification as to claims relating to alleged oral
representations.

For more information, contact Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel or Claims
Administrator:

          Mark A. Strauss, Esq.
          Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP
          830 Third Ave, 10th
          Floor, New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 371-6600
          Web site: http://www.kmslaw.com

          Owens Corning Bondholder Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 9125
          Dublin, OH 43017-4125
          Toll Free Telephone: 1-800-349-5116
          Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: State Court Refuses to Hear Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Superior Court Judge Joan M. Lewis dismissed a lawsuit
against former Peregrine Systems Inc. board members and
executives, including John Moores, according to a report by
Bruce V. Bigelow of the Union-Tribune.

The court concluded that federal law prohibits state courts from
hearing shareholder lawsuits seeking to recover damages for more
than 50 shareholders.  To further support her decision, Judge
Lewis stressed that federal authority is paramount in securities
class actions, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
"Merrill Lynch v. Dabit."

San Francisco lawyer Robert C. Friese, appointed as Peregrine's
litigation trustee in 2003, had argued that the suit should be
exempted from federal law.  He said it was originally brought by
a trust created in 2003, directed by a federal bankruptcy judge
to pursue claims against Peregrine's former directors and
executives.

The lawsuit stems from the 2002 financial collapse of the
company that resulted in eight former executives and others
pleading guilty to securities fraud and other federal charges.

The suit, which was filed by lawyers for the trust, alleges
extensive insider trading by certain former executives and board
members, including Mr. Moores (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 12,
2006).

Attorney John Quinn, representing the Mr. Moores, commended the
court's decision.  Attorney Friese plans to appeal it.

Representing the plaintiff:

          Robert C. Friese, Esq.
          Shartsis Friese LLP
          18th Floor 1 Maritime Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 421-6500 (Ext: 244)
          Fax:  (415) 421-2922

Representing the defendant:

          John Quinn, Esq.
          Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP
          865 S. Figueroa St. 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 443-3000
          Fax: (213) 624-0643


PHILIPPINES: Reporters to Pursue Suit Against First Gentleman
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dozens of Filipino journalists who filed a civil suit against
Philippines First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo at the Makati
Regional Trial Court are bent on pursuing the class action, The
Philippine Daily Inquirer reports.

The journalists, who are facing libel suits filed by Mr. Arroyo,
lodged the class action on Dec. 28, 2006 (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 29, 2006).  The plaintiffs are contesting the First
Gentleman's claim that he has been maligned as a private
citizen, and is seeking at least $2,872,275.41 (PHP141 million)
in damages.

The libel cases were in connection with reports of alleged
election fraud and corruption involving Mr. Arroyo.  The
journalists are accusing Mr. Arroyo of trying to stifle freedom
of the press and of abusing his power (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 21, 2006).

The suit is asking $305,561.21 (PHP15 million) in damages for
the anxiety, loss of income, and other inconveniences Mr.
Arroyo's libel suits have allegedly caused.  In April, the
Makati Regional Trial Court accepted amendments to the suit
(Class Action Reporter, April 5, 2007).

Recently, the Philippine President's husband decided to drop all
the libel cases he filed against the journalists.  But
University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque,
representing the journalists, said Mr. Arroyo never admitted to
doing anything wrong and never apologized.

Mr. Roque said they will pursue the case, as "the damage has
been done."

The media have already felt the chilling effect. The media have
felt the intimidation," Mr. Roque told the Inquirer.

The hearing on the case, pending before Judge Zenaida Galapate-
Laguilles of Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 143, will resume
on May 17, during which Mr. Arroyo is expected to defend himself
against the charges.

According to Mr. Roque, the complainants would meet again after
the May 17 hearing to determine their next course of action, so
it was still possible they would withdraw the case.


UNITED STATES: Federal Court Junks Claims in "NOW v. Scheidler"
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge David Coar handed down a "final judgment"
for pro-life activist defendants in the landmark national class
action, "NOW v. Scheidler."

The court's ruling marks the definitive rejection of claims by
the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the nation's
abortion providers against the defendants.  The lawsuit claimed
the defendants had orchestrated and directed a nationwide
protest movement using illegal methods outlawed by the federal
antitrust, extortion and racketeering laws.  The defendants
included prominent pro-life leaders Joseph Scheidler, Randall
Terry, Andrew Scholberg, Timothy Murphy, the Chicago-based Pro-
Life Action League and Operation Rescue.

The judgment is not only against NOW, but is also against "the
members of NOW" and against "the members of the Certified Class
of women" whom NOW also represented in the suit.  This includes
women who are not NOW members, but might use the services of a
women's health center anywhere in the U.S., as well as the
entire "class of women's health centers in the U.S. at which
abortions are performed."  Since the case was "certified" as a
class action, the judgment could have far reaching implications.

Tom Brejcha, lead counsel for most of the defendants and
President of Chicago's Thomas More Society and Pro-Life Law
Center explains, "The plaintiffs designed this case as a huge
dragnet and they cast it far and wide as if to encompass the
entire pro-life activist movement in America.  The law of 'res
judicata' or 'claim preclusion' varies from state to state, but
all pro-life activists who face lawsuits by their local abortion
providers may have a defense based on today's final judgment.  

"The judgment bars 'all claims that might have been brought in
this case' on behalf of all class member abortion clinics.  This
is not just federal RICO or antitrust claims, but also state and
local trespass or harassment claims of all sorts.  As NOW and
the other plaintiffs have met a final defeat, the tables are
turned against them."

This lawsuit traced an erratic course up and down all three
levels of the federal judicial system over the span of two
decades, including an apparently unprecedented three full dress
hearings before the U.S. Supreme Court.  

In February 2003, a decisive majority voted 8-1 for the pro-life
defendants, ruling that a RICO judgment and nationwide RICO
injunction against the defendants and their "co-conspirators,"
must be overturned.  Later, when the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals tried to breathe new life into the case, the Supreme
Court intervened a third time, ruling last February, 2006, 8-0
that the case should end once and for all.  In May of 2006 the
Seventh Circuit sent the case back down to Judge Coar for
dismissal.

"We are very grateful for all those who helped us with their
prayers and support on what has been a long and arduous journey
to reach this day," states Brejcha.  "We join our clients in
celebrating this victory for all those committed to restore the
law's protection for all human beings, wanted or 'unwanted',
rich or poor, humble or exalted, from the moment of conception
through natural death.  We salute this victory for robust,
peaceable citizen activism and the vigorous exercise of First
Amendment rights."

A full timeline of NOW vs. Scheidler is available online at:
http://www.prolifeaction.org/nvs/summary.htm

A complete copy of the judgment is available upon request.

For more information, contact Joseph Scheidler, Defendant, Pro-
Life Action League, 773-777-2900; Andrew Schadegg, TC Public
Relations, 312-422-1333; E-mail: drew@tcpr.net


                      New Securities Fraud Cases


AMGEN INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Amgen Inc. from May 4, 2005 through May 10, 2007.

The suit charges Amgen and certain of its officers and directors
of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It alleges,
inter alia, that during the Class Period, defendants improperly
marketed Amgen's anti-anemia drugs Aranesp and Epogen to doctors
for off-label uses. As a result, Amgen sold several hundred
million dollars worth of drugs each year for off-label uses.

The Complaint further alleges that in October 2006, a group of
researchers conducting a clinical study of head and neck cancer
patients treated with Aranesp immediately discontinued the
study, prior to its completion, because more deaths occurred in
patients taking Aranesp than in those taking a placebo, which
was not disclosed to investors, and that on February 16, 2007, a
publication called The Cancer Letter published an article about
the results of the study.

The Complaint further alleges that on March 9, 2007, the FDA
mandated a "black box" warning regarding the off-label use of
both Aranesp and Epogen, and then on May 8, 2007, in
anticipation of an advisory panel meeting, the FDA issued a
report suggesting that there is not enough data to ensure that
Aranesp is safe even when used as directed.

It is further alleged that on May 10, 2007, it was reported that
an FDA outside panel of experts voted to expand warnings and
require Amgen and Johnson & Johnson to conduct new studies to
test the safety of ESAs and that these revelations caused
Amgen's stock price to significantly decline on high trading
volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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

For more information, contact:

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
          Donald R. Hall, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, New York 10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501
          San Francisco, California 94111
          Phone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax:  (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


ACCREDITED HOME: Labaton LLP Files Securities Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------

Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP filed a class action on May 9,
2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Accredited Home Lenders
Holding Co. between January 28, 2004 and March 12, 2007,
inclusive.  This represents an expansion of the class period in
previously filed complaints.  

The lawsuit was filed against Accredited and James A. Konrath,
Joseph J. Lydon, Stuart D. Marvin, John S. Buchanan, David E.
Hertzel and Jeffrey W. Crawford.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and the company's representations
made during the class period were materially false and
misleading when they were made because they failed to disclose
that:

     (1) Accredited did not make higher quality, lower risk
         loans than its peers, and Defendants' statements to the
         contrary misled investors and understated the risk
         facing the Company and investors;

     (2) the company misled the market about its underwriting
         processes;
    
     (3) the company routinely disregarded internal underwriting
         guidelines; and

     (4) the company's apparent success was attributable in
         material part to its unsustainable practice of granting
         loans that were far riskier than Defendants had led the
         market to believe.

On February 14, 2007, Accredited reported its financial and
operating results for the fourth quarter and year ended December
31, 2006, indicating that it had continued to strengthen its
reserve balances, increasing total reserves by $42 million for
the quarter.  On March 12, 2007, Accredited announced that its
cash resources had effectively been depleted and that it was
forced to pay approximately $190 million in margin calls since
January 1, 2007.  The company further revealed that it was
forced to seek financial waivers and extensions of the covenants
it made with its financial lenders.  Shares of Accredited
declined $7.43 per share, or 65%, to close on March 13, 2007 at
$3.97 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later that May 15,
2007.  The copy of the complaint can be viewed at
http://www.labaton.com/en/about/press/Accredited-Home-Lenders-
Holding.cfm


The law firm of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP is representing
the plaintiff.

For more information regarding the case, contact:

          Christopher Keller, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 800-321-0476
          Fax: (212) 883-7053
          

OPTIONABLE INC: KGS Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC filed the first class action against
Optionable, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company in connection with its Initial Public
Offering in or about May 9, 2005, or who purchased shares
thereafter in the open market.

Optionable and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with including, or allowing the inclusion of, materially false
and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in violation of
the Securities Act of 1933.

The Complaint alleges that, unbeknownst to investors, defendants
failed to conduct an adequate due diligence investigation into
the Company prior to the IPO, and failed to disclose at the time
of the IPO that:

     (1) two of the Company's board members, including Chairman
         Mark Nordlicht, and its only purported independent
         director, Albert Helmig, were actually related parties
         and board members of a company called Platinum Energy;

     (2) the Company's customer base suffered from greater
         concentration than previously reported, with Bank of
         Montreal directly connected to over 80% of revenues,
         higher than the 20% to 30% reported; and

     (3) defendants had conspired with Bank of Montreal ("BMO")
         brokers to provide false trade data that was designed
         to avoid reporting hundreds of millions of dollars in
         trading losses -- losses that, if disclosed, would have
         terminated the BMO trading relationship.

It was only beginning in late April 2007 -- after defendants
sold $28.94 million of their own shares to NYMEX Holdings in a
private sale -- that investors learned the truth about the
Company.

On April 30, 2007, BMO's announcement of over $300 million in
options-related losses shed light on the magnitude of
Optionable's reliance on BMO for a large portion of its
revenues.

Days later on May 10, 2007, BMO suspended trading through
Optionable and announced that its private forensic accountants
had discovered that its own brokers -- who by then had been
terminated -- had conspired to under-report trading losses, in
order to maintain trading and avoid accountability to BMO.

On this news, Optionable's shares collapsed from just under
$5.00 per share on April 30, 2007 to just over $1.00 per share
on May 10, 2007 -- a decline of almost 80% in two trading days,
on huge volume of tens of millions of shares.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn, Esq.
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 (Toll Free)
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com
          Website: http://www.kgscounsel.com


OPTIONABLE INC: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. filed a lawsuit seeking
class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Optionable, Inc. between
May 6, 2005 and May 10, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Optionable and certain of its
officers and directors violated Federal Securities laws by
making misleading statements concerning the Company's business
prospects and growth.

Specifically, throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to
disclose the following facts:

     (i) Optionable was engaged in improper deals with its
         biggest client, the Bank of Montreal ("BMO");

    (ii) Optionable's business was extremely dependent upon BMO;
         and

   (iii) Defendants were able to retain BMO only because they
         helped its star options trader mismark options, falsify
         the trading price at which BMO traded those options,
         and hide massive losses incurred by BMO as a result of
         those trades.

While the stock was trading at artificially inflated prices, as
a result of this fraudulent scheme, Defendants sold roughly
10,758,886 shares of Optionable, for proceeds of approximately
$28,941,403.

On April 27, 2007, BMO announced that it had lost between $300
to $400 million on trades executed through Optionable. In
response to this disclosure, the Company's stock dropped 33%.

Then, on May 8, 2007, BMO announced it was suspending all of its
business relationships with Optionable. Finally, on May 10,
2007, it was disclosed that Deloitte & Touche LLP had conducted
an audit of the trades BMO had conducted with Optionable and
found there had been "serious mismarking of the book of natural-
gas options."

On this news, the price of Optionable fell further to $0.84,
representing a total drop of nearly 90%. During the Class
Period, Optionable stock traded as high as $9.10 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 10,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C.
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          E-mail: firm@snlaw.net
          Website: http://www.snilaw.com


YAHOO INC: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of purchasers of Yahoo! Inc. publicly
traded securities during the period between April 8, 2004 and
July 18, 2006.

The complaint charges Yahoo! and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Yahoo! is a leading global Internet brand and one of the
most trafficked Internet destinations worldwide.

The complaint alleges that Yahoo!'s stock rose precipitously on
defendants' positive statements concerning Yahoo!'s sales
growth, record reported revenues and earnings and strong
business fundamentals, which defendants stated would provide
further stability and growth, reaching a Class Period high of
over $43 per share on January 6, 2006.

However, concealed from investors was the fact that due to
operational deficiencies in its ad technology, Yahoo! was
rapidly losing market share to Google and other search engines
and Web destinations that would significantly undermine its
revenues, earnings and value.

On July 19, 2006, the Company's stock price fell precipitously
by 22% on heavy volume after the Company announced second
quarter 2006 financial results that were lower than investors
had been led to expect and analysts downgraded Yahoo!'s stock,
erasing billions of dollars in market capitalization.

According to the complaint, defendants' Class Period statements
describing Yahoo!'s business model, financial results and
continued sales and earnings growth potential were false and
misleading as:

     (a) Yahoo! generated fraudulent revenue by deliberately
         misleading Internet advertising business customers to
         induce these customers to buy Yahoo! advertising
         products through deceptive means;

     (b) Yahoo! made false, misleading, and deceptive
         representations regarding its advertising technology
         and products to investors and potential investors,
         industry analysts, and customers to increase sales and
         stock prices;

     (c) Yahoo!'s false, deceptive, and misleading
         representations were material in that they had a
         natural tendency to influence, or were capable of
         influencing, purchasing decisions, and they related to
         the essential characteristics, quality, and/or nature
         of competing products and commercial activities,
         including relevance, potential click-throughs and
         quality;

     (d) Yahoo!'s advertising technology was operationally
         defective, causing its own advertising offerings to
         substantially under-perform those of its rivals;

     (e) whereas Yahoo!'s rivals were paying high-traffic
         vendors to route traffic through their Web sites,
         Yahoo! was charging large vendors for access and was
         dependent on that revenue to make its revenue targets,
         making Yahoo!'s Web site a less desirable location for
         vendors to drive traffic to; and

     (f) Yahoo! was losing market share to Google and other
         Internet search providers.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Yahoo! publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          William Lerach, Esq.
          Darren Robbins, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com
          Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/yahoo/.


                            *********


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  * * *