---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 21, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 99

                            Headlines


3M CO: Penn. Court Approves $39.75M Antitrust Suit Settlement
ABLEST INC: Investor Files Del. Suit Over Koosharem Buyout Offer
ADVANTAGE HOME: Employees Sue in Ind. to Claim Unpaid Wages
AK STEEL: June 2008 Trial Set for Ohio Racial Bias Litigation
AMERICAN TRAVELER: Ex-Worker Files FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.

ANDERSEN WINDOWS: Sued for Imposing "Improper" Fees on Consumers
BANYAN HOMES: Suit Looms Over Plan to Move Subdivision Entrance
BOOKSPAN: Recalls Books with Metal Clip for Stroller, Clothing
CANADA MORTGAGE: Fights Motion to Certify Condo Buyers' Lawsuit
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Moves to Stay Banana Buyers Antitrust Suits

CONOCOPHILLIPS: Wash. Couple Files Lawsuit Over Debit Card Holds
CURREY & CO: Recalls Lamps Posing Electrical Shock, Fire Hazard
DAPHINIS MASONRY: Employee Files Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime
GEORGE AKERS: Appeals Court Dismisses Suit Over Balzac Land Sale
HEALTH FIRST: Surgeon Sues Over Alleged Anti-Trust Violations

HERBALIFE INT'L: Continues to Face W.Va. Privacy Violation Suit
HERBALIFE INT'L: Still Faces Calif. Unfair Trade Practices Suit
HILB ROGAL: Va. Securities Fraud Complaint Dismissal Appealed
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Urethane Antitrust Suit
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Still Faces Urethane Antitrust Suits in Canada

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Eleventh Circuit Considers Appeal in "Culpepper"
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Faces Consolidated Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
L-3 COMMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Motions in Stock Options Litigation
LONE STAR: Settles Suit Seeking to Block U.S. Steel Merger

MISTER PLUMBER: Ex-Employee Files FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.
NBTY INC: Recalls Shark Capsules Due to Salmonella Contamination
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Fla. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
PEDERNALES ELECTRIC: Faces Suit for Overpaying Co-op Managers
PET FOOD MANUFACTURERS: Face Lawsuit by Missouri Resident

QWEST COMMS: Colo. Court Approves $33M ERISA Suit Settlement
QWEST COMMS: Continues to Face Colo. Suit Over U.S. WEST Merger
QWEST COMMS: Continues to Face Multiple Rights-of-Way Lawsuits
QWEST COMMS: N.Y. Court Approves KPNQwest Securities Suit Deal
QWEST COMMS: Retirees File Lawsuit Over Life Insurance Benefits

SEMCO ENERGY: Settles Suit by Advantage Investors in Mich.
SOUTHERN CO: Seeks Dismissal of Energy Claims in Mirant Lawsuit
SPRINT NEXTEL: Settles Age Discrimination Suit in Kans. for $57M
STEWART TITLE: Property Owners Sue Over "High" Insurance Fees
UNITED STATES: GAO Snubs Document Subpoena in Bias Lawsuit

US INSTALLATION: Fla. Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime Compensation


                            *********


3M CO: Penn. Court Approves $39.75M Antitrust Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John R. Padova of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted final approval to a $39.75
million settlement reached in a protracted antitrust class
action, "Bradburn Parent/Teacher Store, Inc. v. 3M (Minnesota,
Mining, and Manufacturing Co.)," Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal
Intelligencer reports.

The suit, filed by direct purchasers and retailers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, accuses
the office supply company of abusing its monopoly power in the
market for transparent tape by driving a competitor out of
business.

                        Case Origins

The suit is one of many that stemmed directly from the 1997
case, "LePage's Inc. v. 3M," which resulted in a $68 million
verdict and a finding that 3M had set out to monopolize the
market for transparent tape.

LePage's, a competing supplier of tape, had accused 3M of using
illegal tactics to drive it out of business by offering
"bundled" rebates to large retailers for reaching sales goals in
several categories of 3M products.   In reality though the
rebates could be earned only by removing LePage's products from
their shelves, the suit alleged.

A jury agreed and in an October 1999 verdict awarded LePage's
$22,828,899 in damages.  Judge Padova trebled the award to
$68,486,697.

3M appealed that verdict and won when a three-judge panel of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned it,
saying that the case was fatally flawed, since there was no
evidence that 3M had ever slashed its prices to below-cost
levels.

However, the case was reargued before a 10-judge en banc panel,
which reinstated the original verdict, saying that LePage's had
a valid antitrust claim, since the evidence showed that 3M had
set out to "kill" the niche market LePage's had created for
discount "private label" tape.  The U.S. Supreme Court would
later decline to hear the case.

Since then, retailers have been filing class actions that said
the LePage's verdict had proven that the company was selling its
tape at "supra-competitive" prices.

                         Lawyers' Fees

In January, plaintiffs' attorneys asked Judge John R. Padova to
grant final approval to the deal.  In addition, they also sought
an award of attorney fees worth around $13.9 million as well as
nearly $1 million in litigation costs (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 26, 2007).

Judge Padova granted the request in full for more than four
years litigating the case, logging more than 9,000 hours in
attorney time, and about 2,000 hours in paralegal time.

If paid at their normal billing rates for those 11,000 hours,
Padova found that the lawyers would have earned more than $5.4
million, making a fee award of $13.5 million reasonable within
the standard range for fee awards in similarly large class
action settlements.

The suit is "Bradburn Parent/Teacher Store, Inc. v. 3M
(Minnesota, Mining, and Manufacturing Co.), Case No. 2:02-cv-
07676-JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge John R. Padova.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert Stephen Berry, Esq.
          Gerry Baruch, Esq.
          Berry & Leftwich
          1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 450
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-296-3020
          Fax: 202-296-3038
          E-mail: sberry@berry-leftwich.com

          - and -

          Charles M. Jones, Esq.
          Jones Osteen Jones & Arnold
          P.O. Box 800
          206 E. Court St.
          Hinesville, GA 31310-0800
          Phone: 912-876-0111
          Fax: 912-368-2979

Representing the defendants are:

          Paul Alexander, Esq.
          Heller, Ehrman, LLP
          1717 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-912-2000
          Fax: 650-324-0638
          E-mail: PALEXANDER@HEWM.COM

          - and -

          Fred H. Bartlit, Jr., Esq.
          Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, LLP
          1899 Wynkoop Street, 8th Fl.
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303-592-3100


ABLEST INC: Investor Files Del. Suit Over Koosharem Buyout Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ablest, Inc. is facing a purported class action filed in
Delaware Chancery Court by an investor who claims that the
company's stock is undervalued in an $11 per-share buyout offer
from Koosharem Corp., Phil Milford of Bloomberg News reports

Santa Barbara, California-based Koosharem, parent of Select
Remedy, a staffing service with 280 offices in North America,
said on April 4 that it would pay about $32.5 million for
Clearwater, Florida-based Ablest.

Lawrence W. Mandell, the investor who filed the complaint claims
that the per-share price "is unconscionable, unfair and grossly
inadequate," and Ablest should be auctioned.  The suit seeks
class-action status on behalf of outside stockholders.

According to a statement issued by Ablest on April 4, the Heist
family, including Chairman Charles H. Heist III, owns 50.4
percent of the stock in the company and will vote for the sale.
The buyout may be completed by the end of June, the company
said.

Ablest Inc. -- http://www.ablest.com/-- offers staffing  
services in the U.S. Staffing services are principally provided
through 61 Company-owned service locations in the Eastern U.S.
and selected Southwestern markets with the capability to supply
staffing services for the clerical, industrial, information
technology, and finance and accounting needs of their customers.
Positions often filled include, but are not limited to, data
entry, office administration, telemarketing, light industrial
assembly, order picking and shipping, network administration,
database administration, program analyst (both mainframe and
client server), Web development, project management, technical
writing, accounting, financial analysis and internal auditing.
The Company does not service any specific industry or field.


ADVANTAGE HOME: Employees Sue in Ind. to Claim Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advantage Home Health Care, Inc. is facing a class action filed
on May 16 at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiffs Linda Clemons and Hazel Burnette bring this action as
a collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) on behalf of all
individuals who were or are employed by Advantage as Certified
Nurses Aides/Home Health Aides throughout the U.S. within three
years from commencement of this action, and who have not been
compensated at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay
for all work performed in excess of 40 hours per work week.

Plaintiffs allege that Advantage unlawfully classified
plaintiffs as exempt from receiving overtime payments under
Federal law and failed and refused to pay the plaintiffs
overtime pay for overtime worked.

The complaint alleges that at all relevant times, Advantage's
practice and policy was to willfully fair and refuse to pay
overtime compensation due and owing to the plaintiffs in direct
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, overtime premiums for all
overtime worked, liquidated and/or damages as permitted by
applicable law; and attorney's fees, costs and expenses of
litigation.

Plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- designate this action as a collective action on behalf
        of the proposed FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and order
        issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
        to all similarly situated members of the FLSA Opt-In-
        Class, apprising them of the pendency of this action,
        and permitting them to assert timely FLSA claims in this
        action by filing individual consents to sue pursuant to
        29 U.S.C. Section 216(b);

     -- designate lead plaintiffs as representatives of the FLSA
        Collective Plaintiffs;

     -- grant lead plaintiffs relief, finding that Advantage's
        practices complained of are unlawful under the FLSA, 29
        U.S.C. Section 201 et.seq.;

     -- award damages, including but not limited to, liquidated
        damages of twice the amount of wages withheld by
        Advantage as mandated by 29 U.S.C. 216(b);

     -- award costs and expenses of this action incurred,  
        including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as
        provided by law; and

     -- grant such other legal and equitable relief as the
        court deems just and proper.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f8b

The suit is "Clemons et al. v. Advantage Home Health Care, Inc.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-00619-RLY-WTL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge Richard
L. Young with referral to Judge William T. Lawrence.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nathan D. Foushee, Esq.
          John J. Morse, Esq.
          Morse Foushee PC
          320 North Meridian Street, Suite 506
          Indianpolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 686-1540
          Fax: (317) 686-1541
          E-mail: foushee@mflawpc.com or morse@mflawpc.com


AK STEEL: June 2008 Trial Set for Ohio Racial Bias Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2008 trial is scheduled for a racial discrimination class
action filed against AK Steel Holding Corp. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Seventeen individuals filed the suit on June 26, 2002.  As
subsequently amended, the complaint alleges that the company
discriminates against African-Americans in its hiring practices
and that it discriminates against all of its employees by
preventing its employees from working in a racially integrated
environment free from racial discrimination.

The plaintiffs seek various forms of declaratory, injunctive and
unspecified monetary relief, including back pay, front pay, lost
benefits, lost seniority and punitive damages, for themselves
and unsuccessful African-American candidates for employment at
the company.  

Defendants have responded to the complaint and discovery is
ongoing.  

On Jan. 19, 2007, the Court conditionally certified two
subclasses of unsuccessful African-American candidates.  

The trial of this matter has been scheduled for June 2008,
according to the company's May 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Bert, et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:02-cv-
00467-SSB-TSH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with
referral to Judge Timothy S. Hogan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David Donald Kammer, Esq.
         Paul Henry Tobias, Esq.
         Tobias, Kraus & Torchia
         Phone: 513-241-8137
         Fax: 513-241-7863
         E-mail: davek@tktlaw.com
                 tkt@tktlaw.com

         Allison W. Lowell, Esq.
         Wiggin Childs Quinn & Pantazis
         301 19th Street N.
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-314-0575
         Fax: 205/254-1500
         E-mail: awl@wcqp.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Lawrence James Barty, Esq.
         Patricia Anderson Pryor, Esq.
         Gregory Parker Rogers, Esq.
         Taft Stettinius & Hollister
         1800 Firstar Tower, 425 Walnut St.
         Cincinnati, OH 45202-3597
         Phone: 513-381-2838, 513-357-9409 and 513-357-9344
         Fax: 513-381-0205
         E-mail: barty@taftlaw.com
                 Pryor@Taftlaw.com
                 Rogers@Taftlaw.com


AMERICAN TRAVELER: Ex-Worker Files FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Traveler Staffing Professionals LLC and its owner Donna
Garlicki face a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jessica Manella, a former employee of American Traveler, filed
the suit on May 15, 2007.  Ms. Manella, who worked as a
recruiter for the company, brought the suit on behalf of herself
and other current and former employees for overtime compensation
and other relief under the FLSA.

In general the complaint states that defendant failed to comply
with FLSA, because plaintiff performed services for defendant
for which no provisions were made by defendant to properly pay
her for all hours worked in excess of the forty within a
workweek.

Specifically, under FLSA, the suit seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.  It also seeks for a jury trial.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1f9b

The suit is "Manella v. American Traveler Staffing
Professionals, LLC et al., Case No. 9:07-cv-80422-KLR,"" filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
under Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp with referral to Judge Ann E.
Vitunac.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Stacey Hope Cohen, Esq.
         Shavitz Law Group
         1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-447-8888
         Fax: 561-447-8831
         E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com


ANDERSEN WINDOWS: Sued for Imposing "Improper" Fees on Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three Michigan residents filed a motion to certify a class in a
suit over alleged hidden charges and other improper fees imposed
on consumers who had Andersen windows installed in their homes.

The lawsuit against Andersen Windows and its Michigan branch
office, Renewal By Andersen was assigned to the Hon. Kathleen
Macdonald in Wayne County Circuit Court.  

The motion seeks court approval for the three residents to
represent all who are similarly situated in the State of
Michigan.  

Counsel for the plaintiffs, Mark C. Rossman, stated, "This is
the type of case for which the class action rule was designed.  
Our information leads us to believe that the same improper
charges were imposed according to the identical illegal scheme,
as to thousands of customers."

For more information, contact:

          Mark Rossman, Esq.
          Mantese and Rossman, P.C.
          1361 Big Beaver Rd
          Troy, Michigan 48083
          Phone: 248-457-9200
          Fax: 248-457-9201
          Cell phone: 313-590-0915
          Web Site: http://www.manteselaw.com


BANYAN HOMES: Suit Looms Over Plan to Move Subdivision Entrance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quail Valley subdivision residents in Lake County, Florida are
planning to sue the subdivision's developer Banyan Homes after
getting word they are losing the entrance to their neighborhood,
Central Florida News reports.

Subdivision residents complained that they've been paying a lot
of money in homeowners' association dues just for the
maintenance of the entrance to their subdivision only to find
out it's being relocated.  An Alabama company that owned the
land where the entrance is has sold the land.

According to Quail Valley resident Barbara Feger, Walgreens, who
currently owns the land, is not cooperating with nearly 500
homeowners.


BOOKSPAN: Recalls Books with Metal Clip for Stroller, Clothing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bookspan, of Garden City, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, voluntarily recalls nearly
9,500 of Baby Buddy Clip-on Books.

The company said the metal clip used to attach the book to a
stroller or article of clothing can break, posing a choking
hazard to young children.

Bookspan has received one report of a clip breaking when an 8-
month-old baby pulled on the toy while attached to a play mat.  
No injuries were reported.

This recall involves Baby Buddy clip-on clothes/stroller books.  
The 4-inch round book titled "Baby Faces" displays eight babies
making faces that correspond with the emotion listed on the
page.  A wooden bead strap with 10 small beads and four wooden
circles is attached to the book.  Baby Buddy is one of six books
sold in a set.

Golden Ocean International Enterprise Ltd., of Hong Kong
manufactured these clip-on books sold through Bookspan mail
order catalogues and http://www.bookspan.com(to book club  
members only) from September 2006 through March 2007 for between
$17 and $27.

Photo can be viewed at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07550.html

Consumers should immediately take the recalled books from
children and either discard it or return it to Bookspan.  
Consumers will receive a full credit on their book club account.  
Bookspan has directly notified purchasers of the product recall
by mail.

For additional information, call Bookspan at (800) 509-2997
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.bookspan.com.

The media may contact Paula Batson, at (212) 930-4531 or
paula.batson@bmgch.com.


CANADA MORTGAGE: Fights Motion to Certify Condo Buyers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. asked the B.C.
Supreme Court to dismiss a latest motion to certify as class
action a suit filed by condo buyers against the company, Martin
van den Hemel of the Richmond Review reports.  The court denied
a certification motion in the same suit in 2002.

Many condominium owners who purchased a home from the company
early in the 1990s were later hit with extensive repair costs
due to moisture damage and mould in their units.

Lawyer Ross Clark argued recently in court to free Canada's
national housing agency from liability saying it owes no
statutory duty of care to homeowners.  He said the
responsibility rests with those behind the "poor design and
construction."

Lawyer John Singleton, who is arguing the certification
application, reasoned that under the National Housing Act, the
department is responsible for initiating "investigations...into
housing conditions...and to cause steps to be taken for the
distribution of information."

Representing the company is:
          
          D. Ross Clark, Q.C.
          Davis LLP
          2800 Park Place, 666 Burrard Street
          Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 2Z7
          (Vancouver Co.)
          Phone: 604-687-9444
          Fax: 604-687-1612

Representing plaintiffs is:

          John R. Singleton, Q.C.
          Singleton Urquhart LLP
          1200-925 West Georgia Street
          Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3L2
          (Vancouver Co.)
          Phone: 604-682-7474
          Fax: 604-682-1283


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Moves to Stay Banana Buyers Antitrust Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. asked the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida to stay a purported
antitrust class action filed by direct and indirect purchasers
of bananas, while a settlement is worked out, the Associated
Press reports.

Earlier, co-defendant Dole Food Company, Inc. announced it has
entered into settlement agreements resolving the two
consolidated putative class action alleging a conspiracy to fix
banana prices (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007).

Consequently, Kevin Love -- plaintiff's liaison counsel -- filed
for a stay in the case, though no details were released from the
possible agreement between the large corporations and several
smaller produce companies.

The settlement agreements and their terms are still subject to
various court approvals and required notices.

In July through November 2005, eight class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against the company and three of its competitors on behalf of
entities that purchased bananas in the U.S. either directly (6
cases) or indirectly (2 cases) from the defendants from May 1999
to December 2005.

The complaints allege that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to artificially raise or maintain prices and control
and restrict output of bananas in the U.S.  

Plaintiffs seek treble damages for violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  The complaints provide no specific
information regarding the allegations.

The suit is "Jockers, et al. v. Chiquita Brands Int'l, et al.,
Case No. 0:05-cv-61335-AJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida under Judge Adalberto Jordan.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Thomas J. Ciarlone, Esq.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: 212-239-4340
          Fax: 239-4310

          - and -

          Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
          Sharp McQueen PA
          6900 College Boulevard, Suite 285
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Phone: 913-661-9931
          Fax: 913-661-9935

Representing defendants are:

          Martin Leonard Steinberg, Esq.
          Hunton & Williams
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-810-2500
          Fax: 810-2460
          E-mail: msteinberg@hunton.com

          William Todd Thomas, Esq.
          Boies Schiller & Flexner
          401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-356-0011
          Fax: 356-0022
          E-mail: tthomas@bsfllp.com

          - and -

          Lawrence P. Bernis, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis
          777 S Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-680-8413
          Fax: 213-680-8500


CONOCOPHILLIPS: Wash. Couple Files Lawsuit Over Debit Card Holds
----------------------------------------------------------------
ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell plc (Shell) are facing a
purported class action filed in Chelan County, Washington for
allegedly violating the Washington State Consumer Protection Act
by putting holds on customer bank accounts when customers use
debit cards to buy gasoline, Travis Pittman of KING5.com
reports.

The suit brought on behalf of a Wenatchee couple calls on the
defendants to inform customers when a hold is being placed on
their debit card accounts for gas purchases.

Attorneys behind the suit say that the holds can be as much as
$100, even if the amount of gas purchased is only a few dollars.  
The problem is, the companies allegedly don't tell customers
about the hold, which can cause some customers to overdraw on
their accounts if they keep taking money out for other things.

Adam Berger of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender told KING5.com, "This
case is about fairness and full disclosure for consumers."  He
adds, "We're not trying to stop the oil companies from placing
these holds, but we are demanding that they inform customers
before tying up the money in their bank accounts."

The suit asks for a court order requiring the companies to
inform customers about the amount of the holds and how long they
will last.

For more details, contact:

         Adam Berger, Esq.
         Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender P.S.
         810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: (206) 622-8000 or (800) 809-2234
         Fax: (206) 682-2305
         Web site: http://www.sgb-law.com/


CURREY & CO: Recalls Lamps Posing Electrical Shock, Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Currey & Company, of Atlanta, Ga., is conducting a voluntary
recall of about 1,500 Currey & Company Table Lamps.

According to the firm, the light sockets on these lamps have a
defect, which poses electrical shock and fire hazards.

Currey & Company has received one report of a lamp tripping the
circuit breaker.  No injuries or property damage have been
reported.

This recall involves Currey & Company table lamps that ranged in
height from 26 to 34 inches.  The recalled table lamps include
model numbers:

     6037,  6038,  6039,  6040,  6043,
     6044,  6045,  6046,  6047,  6048,
     6632,  6633,  6685,  6913,  and 6954.

The model number is printed on the packaging and on the bottom
of the lamp base.  A Currey & Company hangtag was attached to
the lamp at the time of sale.

These table lamps were manufactured in China and were sold at
specialty stores, lighting showrooms and through interior
designers from April 2006 through January 2007 for between $240
and $420.

Consumers should immediately stop using these lamps, and contact
Currey & Company to determine if they are included in the
recall.  The firm will arrange for the return of the recalled
lamps for a free repair.

To view photo of the recalled product, visit:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07191.html

For more information, consumers should contact Currey & Company
toll-free at (866) 577-6430 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.curreyco.com.


DAPHINIS MASONRY: Employee Files Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daphinis Masonry, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
on May 14 at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Elneuve Antoine brings this action for unpaid overtime
compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Plaintiff claims that in the course of his employment, he was
not paid time and one-half of his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 during a work week.  He asserts
that he is entitled to his overtime premium for each hour worked
in excess of 40 per work week.

As a result of defendant's alleged willful and unlawful acts in
refusing to pay plaintiffs time and one-half their regular rate
of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per work week on one
or more weeks, plaintiffs have suffered damages plus incurring
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Thus, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendant for the
payment of all overtime hours at one and one-half the regular
rate of pay for the hours worked for which they were not
properly compensated, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs incurred, declaratory relief and any and all
further relief that the court determines to just and
appropriate.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f81

The suit is "Antoine v. Daphinis Masonry, Inc., Case No. 0:07-
cv-60683-WPD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kelly Allyssha Amritt, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Phone: 954-318-0268
          Fax: 954-333-3515
          E-mail: kamritt@forthepeople.com


GEORGE AKERS: Appeals Court Dismisses Suit Over Balzac Land Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that a lawsuit against George
Akers and his law firm over a Balzac property sale should be
dismissed, Kevin Martin of the Sun Media reports.

The class action was filed in 2004 by Kristal Inc. and Marion
Berg, two members of a group of 27 parties that owned the land.  
The plaintiffs claim the sale of the land in 1999 for $2.33
million, with Mr. Akers acting as a trustee, is questionable
because of the relationship between Mr. Akers' former law
partner and the principal of the numbered company who brought
the land.

The company resold the land in 2001, for $4.6 million, to
Genesis Land Development Corp.  The land is now reserved for a
mall and a horse racing track.

A lower court refused to dismiss the case.  The appeal judges
now has overturned the ruling saying Mr. Akers didn't discuss
the sale with his ex-partner, and wasn't aware of the
relationship.


HEALTH FIRST: Surgeon Sues Over Alleged Anti-Trust Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Surgeon Richard Hynes and his Melbourne-based medical group The
B.A.C.K. Center have filed an antitrust lawsuit against Health
First in state court, Susan Jenks of Florida Today reports.

Dr. Hynes accuses Health First, Brevard County's (Florida)
largest health care provider, of anticompetitive, deceptive and
unfair acts.

The complaint charges the health care provider with 11 counts of
anti-trust violations and one count of "tortuous interference"
with business relationships.  It was filed in the 18th Judicial
Circuit Court.

The 71-page suit also claims that Health First's dominant market
position in South Brevard restricts patient choice, interfering
in the relationship between doctor and patient, while costing
the community $100 million or more in excessive health care
costs.

Dr. Hynes and about 50 employees of The B.A.C.K. Center, an
orthopedic clinic in Brevard County, Florida, are moving for a
class-action status on behalf of consumers of health insurance
and health care services.

The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and injunctive relief that
requires Health First to pay damages to the class.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Sammy M. Cacciatore, Esq.
          Nance, Cacciatore, Hamilton, Barger, Nance &  
          Cacciatore
          525 North Harbor City Boulevard
          Melbourne, Florida 32935
          Phone: 321-777-7777
          Fax: 321-259-8243
          Web site: http://www.nancelaw.com


HERBALIFE INT'L: Continues to Face W.Va. Privacy Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. and certain of its distributors
remain as defendants in a purported class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Ohio County in the State of West Virginia.

Filed on July 16, 2003, the complaint, "Mey v. Herbalife
International, Inc., et al," alleges that certain telemarketing
practices of certain company distributors violate the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and seeks to hold the company
vicariously liable for the practices of its distributors.  

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

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

On Apr. 21, 2006, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification in West Virginia (Class Action Reporter, May 25,
2006).

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

Herbalife International, Inc. -- http://www.herbalife.com/-- is  
known for its weight loss products.  Herbalife also makes
dietary supplements as well as skin and hair care products.  Its
weight management products include dietary shakes, protein
snacks, energy enhancers, appetite suppressants, and digestive
supplements.  The company also offers a variety of supplements
that target men's and women's health, reduce stress, and support
immune system function.  Herbalife sells its plethora of
products through a network of more than 1 million independent
distributors located in more than 60 countries.


HERBALIFE INT'L: Still Faces Calif. Unfair Trade Practices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. and certain of its independent
distributors continue to face a class action in the Los Angeles  
County Superior Court in California.

On Feb. 17, 2005, a suit, "Minton v. Herbalife International, et
al.," was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco.  The suit was served on the company on March 14,
2005.  The company moved to transfer the case to the Los Angeles
County Superior Court.

The suit is challenging the marketing practices of certain
Herbalife International independent distributors and the company
under various state laws prohibiting "endless chain schemes,"
insufficient disclosure in assisted marketing plans, unfair and
deceptive business practices, and fraud and deceit.

Plaintiff alleges that the Freedom Group system operated by
certain independent distributors of Herbalife International
products places too much emphasis on recruiting and encourages
excessively large purchases of product and promotional materials
by distributors.

Plaintiff also alleges that Freedom Group pressured distributors
to disseminate misleading promotional materials.  Plaintiff
seeks to hold the company vicariously liable for the actions of
its independent distributors and is seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

The plaintiff seeks to hold Herbalife International vicariously
liable for the actions of its independent distributors and is
seeking damages and injunctive relief.

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

Herbalife International, Inc. -- http://www.herbalife.com/-- is  
known for its weight loss products.  Herbalife also makes
dietary supplements as well as skin and hair care products.  Its
weight management products include dietary shakes, protein
snacks, energy enhancers, appetite suppressants, and digestive
supplements.  The company also offers a variety of supplements
that target men's and women's health, reduce stress, and support
immune system function.  Herbalife sells its plethora of
products through a network of more than 1 million independent
distributors located in more than 60 countries.


HILB ROGAL: Va. Securities Fraud Complaint Dismissal Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of an amended complaint
in a purported securities fraud class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Hilb
Rogal & Hobbs Co. and certain of its officers.

The Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund has filed a putative
class action complaint against the company and Andrew L. Rogal,
Martin L. Vaughan, III, Timothy J. Korman, Carolyn Jones, Robert
W. Blanton, Jr. and Robert B. Lockhart.

The plaintiff alleges violations by each of the defendants of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In October 2005, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended
putative class action complaint.  On April 27, 2006, an order
was entered granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the
amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice.  

On May 23, 2006, the plaintiff appealed this order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The company reported no development in the case at its May 7,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund v. Hilb Rogal &
Hobbs Co. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00735-GBL-TCB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, under
Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Benjamin Joseph Weir, Esq.
         Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran
         1050 30th St NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone:
         (202) 337-8000
     
              - and -

         Harvey B. Cohen, Esq.
         Miles & Stockbridge, PC
         1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 500
         McLean, VA 22102-3833
         Phone: (703) 903-9000

Representing the defendant is:

         Terence James Rasmussen, Esq.
         Hunton & Williams, LLP
         951 E. Byrd St., Riverfront Plaza
         Richmond, VA 23219
         Phone: (804) 788-8200


HUNTSMAN INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Urethane Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated antitrust class action
filed against Huntsman International, LLC and several other
defendants for alleged conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene
diphenyl diisocyanate, oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether
polyols industries.

The suits are now consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols Cases"
in multidistrict litigation known as "In re Urethane Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," by
virtue of an initial order transferring and consolidating cases
filed Aug. 23, 2004.  The case is currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

Other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases" are
Bayer, BASF, Dow, and Lyondell.  Bayer recently announced that
it entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs,
which is subject to approval by the court.  Class certification
discovery is underway in these consolidated cases.

The company reported no development in the case at its May 7,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616,
Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum
with referral to Judge David J. Waxse.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mario Nunzio Alioto, Esq.
         Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP
         2280 Union Street
         San Francisco, CA 94123
         Phone: 415-563-7200
         Fax: 415-346-0679
         E-mail: malioto@tatp.com

              - and -

         Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
         Arthur N. Bailey & Associates
         111 West Second Street, Suite 4500
         Jamestown, NY 14701
         Phone: 716-664-2967
         Fax: 716-664-2983
         E-mail: artlaw@alltel.net

Representing the defendants are:

         Floyd R. Finch, Jr., Esq.
         Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, LLP
         4801 Main Street, Ste. 1000, P.O. Box 219777
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Phone: 816-983-8128
         Fax: 816-983-8080
         E-mail: ffinch@blackwellsanders.com

              - and -

         James S. Jardine, Esq.
         Ray, Quinney & Nebeker
         36 South State Street, Suite 1400
         Salt Lake City, UT 84111
         Phone: 801-323-3337
         Fax: 801-532-7543
         E-mail: jjardine@rqn.com


HUNTSMAN INT'L: Still Faces Urethane Antitrust Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman International, LLC along with other firms remain
defendants in putative antitrust class actions in Canada,
alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate, oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether polyols
industries.

The suits were filed in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario,
Canada on May 5, 2006 and in Superior Court, Quebec, Canada on
May 17, 2006.  

The company reported no development in the case at its May 7,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Huntsman International, LLC -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is  
engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemical products.  The
company manufactures these products at facilities located in
North America, Europe, Asia and Africa, and these products are
sold throughout the world. The company's products are divided
into two categories differentiated and commodity chemicals.  
Huntsman International has four segments: Polyurethanes,
Performance Products, Pigments and Base Chemicals.  Its
Polyurethanes and Performance products businesses mainly produce
differentiated products, and its Pigments and Base Chemicals
businesses mainly produce commodity chemicals.


INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Institute of Sleep, Inc. is facing a class action
filed on May 14 at the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Carol Laughrey brings this action for unpaid overtime
compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

She brings this action on behalf of all International Institute
of Sleep techinicians and other non-exempt employees who have
worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more work weeks or
after May 2004 and the present who did not receive time-and-a-
half wages for all of their overtime hours worked.

Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for the payment of
all overtime hours at one and one-half the regular rate of pay
for the hours worked for which they were not properly
compensated, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs incurred, declaratory relief and any and all further
relief that the court determines to just and appropriate.

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f82

The suit is "Laughrey v. International Institute of Sleep, Inc.
et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-60684-CMA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Cecilia
M. Altonaga.

Representing plaintiffs is:

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


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Eleventh Circuit Considers Appeal in "Culpepper"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal made by plaintiffs in the class action, "Culpepper
v. Inland Mortgage Corp.," according to the company's May 4,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs are questioning a decision by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama in which it denied
their motion for summary judgment in the case.

Inland Mortgage Corp. is now known as Irwin Mortgage, an
indirect subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp.

Since it was filed back in April 1996, the plaintiffs obtained
class-action status for their complaint, alleging that the
company violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act relating to it's payment of broker fees to mortgage brokers.

In June 2001, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld
the district court's certification of the class.  However, in
October 2001, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) issued a policy statement that explicitly disagreed with
the 11th Circuit's interpretation of RESPA in upholding class
certification.

Subsequent to the HUD policy statement, the 11th Circuit decided
a RESPA case similar to the company's, concluding the trial
court had abused its discretion in certifying the class.  The
11th Circuit expressly recognized it was, in effect, overruling
its previous decision upholding class certification in the
company's case.

On Feb. 7, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama dismissed this case, by granting the motions
of the company, to decertify the class and for summary judgment,
and by denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  The Court of Appeals held oral
argument on the appeal on Nov. 15, 2006.  

The suit is "Culpepper, et al. v. Inland Mortgage Corp., Case
No. 2:96-cv-00917-VEH-HGD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David R. Donaldson, Esq.
         David J. Guin, Esq.
         Tammy McClendon
         Stokes, Donaldson & Guin, LLC
         Two North Twentieth Bldg., North 20th St., Suite 1100
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 226-226-2282
         Fax: 226-226-2357
         E-mail: DavidD@dglawfirm.com
                 davidg@dglawfirm.com
                 tstokes@dglawfirm.com

              - and -

         Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
         Kieron F. Quinn, Esq.
         Quinn Gordon & Wolf
         40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 408
         Baltimore, MD 21204-4803
         Phone: 1-410-825-2300
         Fax: 1-410-825-0066

Representing the company are:

         David S. Hay, Esq.
         Janel E. LaBoda, Esq.
         Alan Hall Maclin, Esq.
         J. Patrick McDavitt, Esq.
         Robert J. Pratte, Esq.
         Margaret K. Savage, Esq.
         Briggs & Morgan
         2200 IDS Center
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 1-612-977-8400
         Fax: 1-612-977-8650

              - and -

         Sarah Y. Larson, Esq.
         Alexander J. Marshall, III, Esq.
         Cathy S. Wright, Esq.
         Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC
         AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Ste. 2400, 1901 6th Ave. North
         Birmingham AL 35203-2618
         Phone: 254-1000
         Fax: 254-1999
         E-mail: slarson@mcglaw.com


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Faces Consolidated Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corp. and several of its current and former directors
and officers were named defendants in a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, 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.

Initially, the company was named as a defendant in a putative
securities class action filed on June 29, 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  Two
similar actions were filed later in the same court, and all
three cases have been consolidated into one action, under the
caption "In re KLA-Tencor Corp. Securities Litigation, No. C06-
04065."

The consolidated complaint alleges claims under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of the Company's
past stock option grants and related accounting and reporting,
and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of
purchasers of KLA-Tencor stock between June 30, 2001 and May 22,
2006 who allegedly suffered losses as a result of material
misrepresentations in KLA-Tencor's SEC filings during that
period.

The lead plaintiffs, who seek to represent the class, are the
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, and the
City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement.

The defendants are KLA-Tencor, Edward W. Barnholt, H. Raymond
Bingham, Robert J. Boehlke, Robert T. Bond, Gary E. Dickerson,
Richard J. Elkus, Jr., Jeffrey L. Hall, Stephen P. Kaufman, John
H. Kispert, Kenneth Levy, Michael E. Marks, Stuart J. Nichols,
Kenneth L. Schroeder, Jon D. Tompkins, Lida Urbanek and Richard
P. Wallace.

The suit is "In re KLA-Tencor Corp. Securities Litigation, No.
C06-04065," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert S. Green, Esq.
         Green Welling LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2750
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710
         E-mail: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM

              - and -

         Lesley Ann Hale, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         425 California Street, Suite 2100
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-433-3200
         Fax: 415-433-6382
         E-mail: lhale@bermanesq.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Benjamin P. Smith, Esq.
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         One Market, Spear Street Tower
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-442-1000
         Fax: 415-442-1001
         E-mail: bpsmith@morganlewis.com


L-3 COMMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Motions in Stock Options Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on motions filed by parties in a purported class
action against L-3 Communications Corp. in relation to its stock
options award practices.

On Nov. 20, 2006, Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund
IBEW filed a class action complaint in the Supreme Court of New
York, County of New York against the company and certain current
and former directors and officers.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with disclosures concerning the company's stock options award
practices.  It seeks monetary damages, rescission of the 2004
amendment to the 1999 Long Term Performance Plan, equitable
relief, and that fees and expenses be awarded.  

The company and other defendants filed a notice of removal of
the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on Jan. 9, and a motion to dismiss pursuant to the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act on Jan. 11.

On Feb. 8, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
action to New York State court.  The motion to dismiss and the
motion to remand are 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.

The suit is "Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW
v. Millard et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00172-JGK," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge John G. Koeltl.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
         Grant & Eisenhofer, PA
         Chase Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302) 622-7000
         Fax: (302) 622-7100
         E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com

Representing the defendants is:
          
         Peter Eric Kazanoff, Esq.
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
         425 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 2124552000
         Fax: 2124552502
         E-mail: pkazanoff@stblaw.com


LONE STAR: Settles Suit Seeking to Block U.S. Steel Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Lone Star Technologies, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a suit filed by a purported shareholder
seeking to block the company's sale to U.S. Steel Corp.

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

The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief related to
the merger.  Specifically, the petition alleges self-dealing and
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the Lone Star
board's approval of the merger, and the purported plaintiffs
seek: a declaration that the merger agreement is unenforceable;
an injunction to enjoin the merger from going forward; and the
imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the purported
plaintiffs upon any benefits improperly received by the
defendants.

Although Lone Star and its directors believe this lawsuit is
without merit, Lone Star nevertheless entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding with the plaintiff on May 15, 2007, in order to
settle the litigation, facilitate timely completion of the
proposed merger, and avoid the expense, risk, and distraction of
continued litigation, all of which Lone Star believes to be in
the best interest of its shareholders.  

In accordance with the MOU, Lone Star will make certain
additional disclosures to its shareholders in connection with
the proposed merger, which will be included in the definitive
proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on approximately May 16, 2007.  

The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a
settlement agreement, which will be subject to court approval
following notice to and certification of a class of Lone Star
shareholders defined in the MOU, and a release of claims by such
class in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, the
merger, and the disclosures in the definitive proxy statement.  

The MOU further contemplates that plaintiff's counsel will
petition the court for an award of specified attorneys' fees and
expenses, which Lone Star has agreed not to oppose, but the
settlement is not contingent upon a specific award of fees and
expenses.  The settlement will not affect the Agreement and Plan
of Merger or the merger consideration.


MISTER PLUMBER: Ex-Employee Files FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mister Plumber, Inc. is facing a class action filed on May 14 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Lyall Huntoon brings this action for unpaid overtime
compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Plaintiff claims that in the course of his employment, he was
not paid time and one-half of his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 during a work week.  He asserts
that he is entitled to his overtime premium for each hour worked
in excess of 40 per work week.

The complaint claims that as a result of defendant's willful and
unlawful acts in refusing to pay plaintiffs time and one-half
their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40
per work week on one or more weeks, plaintiffs have suffered
damages plus incurring reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Thus, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendant for the
payment of all overtime hours at one and one-half the regular
rate of pay for the hours worked for which they were not
properly compensated, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs incurred, declaratory relief and any and all
further relief that the court determines to just and
appropriate.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f80

The suit is "Huntoon v. Mister Plumber, Inc., Case No. 0:07-cv-
60682-JIC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge James I. Cohn with referral to
Judge Lurana S. Snow.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kelly Allyssha Amritt, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Phone: 954-318-0268
          Fax: 954-333-3515
          E-mail: kamritt@forthepeople.com


NBTY INC: Recalls Shark Capsules Due to Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. of Bohemia, N.Y. is recalling 3 lots of Shark
Cartilage Capsules manufactured in 2004 because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism that
can cause serious and sometimes, fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain.  In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The Shark Cartilage Capsules were distributed to consumers
through mail orders, Internet orders, and retail stores
throughout the U.S.

The Shark Cartilage Capsules were packaged for various NBTY
divisions and sold under the following labels, lots, and codes:

     (1) Puritan's Pride brand Shark Cartilage Capsules, Product
         No. 6580, 100 Capsule Size - UPC 74312 16580 1, Lot
         Nos. 64950 (expiration date 8/08), 64951 (expiration  
         date 9/08), and 66293 (expiration date 1/09);

    (2) Good and Natural brand Shark Cartilage Capsules, Product
        No. 6580, 100 Capsules, UPC 74312 46580 2, Lot No. 64951
        (expiration date 9/08);

    (3) Nature's Bounty brand Shark Cartilage Capsules, Product
        No. 6581, 30 Capsules + 30 Free Size - UPC 74312 06581
        1, Lot Nos. 64950 (expiration date 8/08), 64951
        (expiration date 9/08) and 66293 (expiration date 1/09);

    (4) Natural Wealth brand Shark Cartilage Capsules, Product
        No. 6581, 30- UPC 74312 86581 1, Lot No. 64950
        (expiration date 8/08);

    (5) Physiologics brand Shark Cartilage Capsules, Product No.
        55131, 100 Capsules - UPC 16963 55131 1, Lot No. 64951,
        expiration date 9/08;

    (6) Rexall Sundown brand Shark Cartilage Capsules, Product
        No. 6635, 50- UPC 30768 06635 2, Lot Nos. 64951
        (expiration date 9/08) and 66293 (expiration date 1/09);       
        and

    (7) Vitamin World brand Shark Cartilage Capsules, Product
        No. 6580, 100 Capsule Size - UPC 74312 76580 3, Product
        No. 6582, 200 Capsule Size - UPC 74312 76582 7, Product
        No. 6585, 400 Capsule Size - UPC 74312 76585 8, Lot Nos.
        64950 (expiration date 8/08), 64951 (expiration date  
        9/08), and 66293 (expiration date 1/09)

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This issue was discovered during routine testing of the product.  
Testing on additional batches of Shark Cartilage did not show
any evidence of contamination.

Customers may return product back to the place of purchase for a
full refund.  Customers may also contact the company with
questions and to obtain information on how to return the product
at 1-800-217-7668.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Fla. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has
dismissed a consolidated securities class action filed against
Paincare Holdings, Inc.

On March 21, 2006, Roy Thomas Mould filed a complaint under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the company, as well as the company's chief
executive officer and chief financial officer.  

The complaint is "Mould v. PainCare Holdings, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-CV-00362-JA-DAB."  Mr. Mould alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the
company's financial statements, which appear to relate
principally to the Paincare Holdings' previously announced
intention to restate certain past financial statements.

Ten additional complaints were filed shortly afterward before
the same court, which recite similar allegations.  

Lead counsel was selected, a consolidated complaint was filed,
the company moved to dismiss, and oral argument on the motion
was held on Jan. 17, 2007 before the Magistrate Judge.

In the consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages and purports to represent a class of
shareholders who purchased the company's common stock from March
24, 2003 and March 15, 2006.

On March 26, 2007, the Federal Magistrate recommended that the
District Court dismiss all outstanding claims with leave to
amend related to the pending shareholder class action law suit
filed against PainCare.  The District Court signed the order
which adopted the Magistrate's report and recommendations and
dismissed the securities case with leave to amend on April 25,
2007.

The suit is "Mould v. Paincare Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
6:06-cv-00362-JA-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge John Antoon II with
referral to Judge David A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale, LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561/392-4750, ext. 107
          Fax: 561/392-4775
          E-mail: e-file@vianalelaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Bruce J. Berman, Esq.
          McDermott, Will & Emery
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33131-4336
          Phone: 305/358-3500
          Fax: 305/347-6500
          E-mail: bberman@mwe.com


PEDERNALES ELECTRIC: Faces Suit for Overpaying Co-op Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas customer filed a class action against the officers of
Pedernales Electric Co-operative, Rob Luke of Legal News Line
reports.

The lawsuit filed May 17 in the 200th Texas District Court of
Travis County alleges "flagrant breaches of fiduciary duty that
have gone uninterrupted for decades" amongst the Pedernales
Electric's leadership.

It further alleges that the co-operative overpays its managers
in breach of fiduciary duty to its members and that Pedernales
Electric's officers are too secretive in their financial
dealings.

Jan Soifer, the plaintiffs' attorney, filed the class action on
behalf of Lee Beck Lawrence, a co-operative member since 1994,
and others in similar situation.  The suit named 19 officers and
directors of the co-operative.  

The plaintiffs seek damages of all "excessive compensation and
benefits and all improper expenditures" and "exemplary damages
based on malice and/or malfeasance."

Based on the report, Ms. Soifer filed a formal complaint against
PEC with the attorney general's office March 9.  But Texas
Attorney General Greg Abbott said he would not address Ms.
Lawrence's complaints.

The electric co-operative has about 213,000 members and had
estimated assets in 2006 in excess of $1 billion.  It reportedly
had revenues of about $413 million and paid executive
compensation of $829,000 in 2005.

For more information about the case, contact:

          Jan Soifer, Esq.
          Lawrence Soifer Satija LLP
          701 Brazos Street, Suite 650
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 330-0073


PET FOOD MANUFACTURERS: Face Lawsuit by Missouri Resident
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Schwinger of Barry County, Missouri, commenced a lawsuit
seeking class-action status before the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri against pet food manufacturers
that supplied contaminated pet food, KCTV5 News reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

          -- Menu Foods  
          -- Menu Foods Income Fund  
          -- Menu Foods Gen Par Limited  
          -- Menu Foods Limited Partnership  
          -- Menu Foods Operating Partnership  
          -- Menu Foods Midwest Corp  
          -- Menu Foods South Dakota  
          -- Menu Foods, Inc.  
          -- Menu Foods Holdings. Inc.  
          -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc.  
          -- Del Monte Foods, Inc.

Mr. Schwinger blames the contaminated pet food for his dog's
deathly illness.  He alleges that his two-year-old "Sandy's"
health began declining in late February or early March.  Soon
his veterinarian said the dog was suffering so much that it
should be put to sleep.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to prevent the
distribution of tainted pet foods after the discovery of
contaminated wheat gluten in their ingredients.

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.

The suit is "Schwinger v. Menu Foods et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
05041-SWH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, under Judge Sarah W. Hays.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          David A. Payne, Esq.
          Tom W. Cardin, P.C.
          607 Main St.
          Cassville, MO 65625
          Phone: (417) 847-4559


QWEST COMMS: Colo. Court Approves $33M ERISA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado approved a
proposed $33,000,000 settlement in a consolidated class action
filed against Qwest Communications International, Inc. on behalf
of all participants and beneficiaries of the Qwest Savings and
Investment Plan and predecessor plans.

Seven putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of
all participants and beneficiaries of the Qwest Savings and
Investment Plan and predecessor plans from Mar. 7, 1999 until
Jan. 12, 2004 were later consolidated into a single action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  

Other defendants in this action include current and former
directors of Qwest, former officers and employees of Qwest and
Deutsche Bank.  These suits also purport to seek relief on
behalf of the Plan.  

The first of these actions was filed in March 2002.  Plaintiffs
assert breach of fiduciary duty claims against the company and
others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of  
1974, as amended, alleging, among other things, various
improprieties in managing holdings of the company's stock in the  
Plan.  

Plaintiffs sought damages, equitable and declaratory relief,
along with attorneys' fees and costs and restitution.   
Counsel for plaintiffs indicated that the putative class would
seek billions of dollars of damages.  
  
On April 26, 2006, the company, the other defendants, and the
putative class representatives entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement that, when implemented, will settle the consolidated
ERISA action against the company and all defendants.  No parties
admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

The company deposited $33 million in cash into a settlement fund
in connection with it.  Pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement, the company also agreed to pay, subject to certain
contingencies, the amount (if any) by which the Plan's recovery
from the settlement of the consolidated securities action is
less than $20 million.

Deutsche Bank deposited $4.5 million in cash into a settlement
fund to settle the claims against it in connection with the
settlement.

The company received certain insurance proceeds as a
contribution by individual defendants to this settlement, which
offset $10 million of our $33 million payment.

In January 2007, the district court issued an order approving
the settlement and certifying a settlement class on behalf of
participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan who owned, bought,
sold or held shares or units of the Qwest Shares Fund, U.S. WEST
Shares Fund or Qwest common stock in their Plan accounts from
March 7, 1999 until Jan. 12, 2004.

The suit is "Stuhr v. Qwest Comm Int'l. Inc., et al., Case No.  
1:02-cv-02120-REB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Robert E. Blackburn.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Josiah Oakes Hatch, III, Esq.
         Ducker, Montgomery, Aronstein & Bess, P.C.
         1560 Broadway #1400
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-861-2828
         Fax: 303-861-4017
         E-mail: jhatch@duckerlaw.com


QWEST COMMS: Continues to Face Colo. Suit Over U.S. WEST Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. remains a defendant in
a purported class action filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock between Jun. 28, 2000 and June 27, 2002 and
owners of U.S. WEST stock on June 28, 2000.  The suit is pending
in the District Court for the County of Boulder, Colorado.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
issued false and misleading statements and engaged in improper
accounting practices in order to accomplish the U.S. WEST/Qwest
merger, to make the company appear successful and to inflate the
value of its stock.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, disgorgement of illegal gains and other relief.

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

Denver, Colorado-based Qwest Communications International, Inc.
-- http://www.qwest.com/-- is a provider of voice, data and  
video services.  The Company operates most of its business
within its local service area, which consists of the 14-state
region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming. The Company operates through three
segments: wireline services, wireless services and other
services.


QWEST COMMS: Continues to Face Multiple Rights-of-Way Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. continues to face
several putative class actions in state and federal courts in
relation to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain
rights-of-way.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
the company on behalf of landowners on various dates and in
various courts in California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon,
South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.  For the most part, the
complaints challenge the company's right to install our fiber
optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.

Complaints in Colorado, Illinois and Texas, also challenge the
company's right to install fiber optic cable in utility and
pipeline rights-of-way.

The complaints allege that the railroads, utilities and pipeline
companies own the right-of-way as an easement that did not
include the right to permit the company to install its fiber
optic cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent.

Most actions (California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas,
Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and
Texas) purport to be brought on behalf of statewide classes in
the named plaintiffs' respective states.  

The Massachusetts action purports to be on behalf of statewide
classes in all states (other than Indiana, Louisiana and
Tennessee) in which Qwest has fiber optic cable in railroad
rights-of-way, and also on behalf of two classes of landowners
whose properties adjoin railroad rights-of-way originally
derived from federal land grants.  

Several actions purport to be brought on behalf of multi-state
classes.  

The Illinois state court action purports to be on behalf of
landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin.  

The Illinois federal court action purports to be on behalf of
landowners in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana and Oregon.

The Indiana action purports to be on behalf of a national class
of landowners adjacent to railroad rights-of-way over which the
company's network passes.

The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust
enrichment, as well as punitive damages.

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

Denver, Colorado-based Qwest Communications International, Inc.
-- http://www.qwest.com/-- is a provider of voice, data and  
video services.  The Company operates most of its business
within its local service area, which consists of the 14-state
region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming. The Company operates through three
segments: wireline services, wireless services and other
services.


QWEST COMMS: N.Y. Court Approves KPNQwest Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has approved a settlement in a purported class action against
Qwest Communications International, Inc. over its failed
European joint venture KPNQwest N.V., which filed for bankruptcy
in May 2002.

Initially, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company, certain of its former executives who were also on the
supervisory board of KPNQwest, N.V., of which the company was a
major shareholder, and others.  This suit was filed on Oct. 4,
2002.

The current complaint alleges, on behalf of certain purchasers
of KPNQwest securities, that, among other things, defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme and deceptive course of business
in order to inflate KPNQwest's revenue and the value of KPNQwest
securities.  

Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and/or rescission as
appropriate against defendants, as well as an award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On Feb. 3, 2006, the company, certain other defendants and the
putative class representative in this action executed an
agreement to settle the case.

Under the settlement agreement, the company will pay $5.5
million in cash to the settlement fund no later than 30 days
following preliminary court approval, and no later than 30 days
following final approval by the court, the company will issue
shares of the company's stock to the settlement fund then valued
at $5.5 million as additional consideration for the settlement.

The settlement agreement would settle the individual claims of
the putative class representative and the claims of the class
that the plaintiff purports to represent against the company and
all defendants except Koninklijke KPN N.V. a/k/a Royal KPN N.V.,
Willem Ackermans, Eelco Blok, Joop Drechsel, Martin Pieters, and
Rhett Williams.  Those defendants are parties to a separate
settlement agreement with the putative class representative.

In January 2007, the federal district court for the Southern
District of New York issued an order approving the settlements
and certifying a settlement class on behalf of purchasers of
KPNQwest's publicly traded securities from November 9, 1999
through May 31, 2002, according to its May 1, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Taft v. Ackermans, Case No. 1:02cv7951," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Peter K. Leisure with referral to Frank Maas.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ira M. Press Esq.
         Mark Booker, Esq.
         Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP
         830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 317-2300

         Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: (610) 667-7706

              - and -  

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

Representing the company is:

         Barry Howard Goldstein, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         Seven Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-326-2000
         Fax: 212-326-2061
         E-mail: Bgoldstein@omm.com


QWEST COMMS: Retirees File Lawsuit Over Life Insurance Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. is a defendant in a
purported class action, "Kerber et al v. Qwest Group Life
Insurance Plan et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00644-WDM-CBS."

The putative class action was purportedly filed on behalf of
certain of the company retirees in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado in connection with the company's
decision to reduce life insurance benefits for these retirees to
a flat $10,000 benefit.

The action was filed on March 30, 2007.  The plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that the company and other defendants were
obligated to continue their life insurance benefits at the
levels in place before the company decided to reduce them.

Plaintiffs seek restoration of life insurance benefits to
previous levels and certain equitable relief, according to its
May 1, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

The suit is "Kerber et al. v. Qwest Group Life Insurance Plan et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00644-WDM-CBS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Walker D. Miller
with referral to Judge Craig B. Shaffer.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Curtis L. Kennedy, Esq.
         Curtis L. Kennedy Law Office
         8405 East Princeton Avenue
         Denver, CO 80237-1741
         Phone: 303-770-0440
         Fax: 303-834-0360
         E-mail: CurtisLKennedy@aol.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael Brian Carroll, Esq.
         Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.
         633 Seventeenth Street #3000
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-299-8474
         Fax: 303-298-0940
         E-mail: mcarroll@sah.com


SEMCO ENERGY: Settles Suit by Advantage Investors in Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------
SEMCO Energy, Inc. settled a purported shareholder class action,
"Advantage Investors v. John T. Ferris et al., Case No.
K07000935," filed on April 16, 2007 in Michigan Circuit Court of
the County of St. Clair against it, each of its directors and
Cap Rock Holding Corp.

On May 15, 2007, SEMCO Energy and the other parties to the
lawsuit entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, effective as
of May 11, 2007, which provides for settlement of the lawsuit.  
Among other things, the terms of the settlement set forth in the
MOU remain subject to court approval.

In exchange for dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice, SEMCO
Energy agreed under the terms of the MOU to make certain
additional disclosures to its shareholders.

Those additional disclosures are contained in the definitive
proxy statement filed by SEMCO Energy with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007 and distributed to
shareholders in connection with the special meeting of
shareholders to be held on June 7, 2007.


SOUTHERN CO: Seeks Dismissal of Energy Claims in Mirant Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Co. is seeking the dismissal of California energy
claims alleged in the case, "In Re Mirant Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-01467-RWS."

Originally, several Mirant Corp. shareholders filed the class
action in May 2002 against Mirant and certain Mirant officers.

In November 2002, Southern Company, certain former and current
senior officers of Southern Company, and 12 underwriters of
Mirant's initial public offering were added as defendants.

On March 24, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration requesting that the court vacate that portion of
its July 14, 2003 order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims based
upon Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and marketing
activities involving the California energy market.

On March 6, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration, reinstated the California energy market claims,
and granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to
compel certain class certification discovery.

On March 21, 2007, defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss
the California energy claims on grounds originally set forth in
their 2003 motions to dismiss, but which were not addressed by
the court.  

The suit is "In Re Mirant Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:02-cv-01467-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Richard W. Story.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert Abrams, Esq.
         Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
         Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4600
         E-mail: isquith@whafh.com

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

         Kirk Quillian, Esq.
         Thomas Edward Reilly, Esq.
         Jaime L. Theriort, Esq.
         Christi A. Cannon, Esq.
         Troutman Sanders
         Bank of America Plaza, 600 Peachtree St, N.E. Ste. 5200
         Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
         Phone: 404-885-3000
         E-mail: kirk.quillian@troutmansanders.com
                 thomas.reilly@troutmansanders.com  
                 jaime.theriot@troutmansanders.com


SPRINT NEXTEL: Settles Age Discrimination Suit in Kans. for $57M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. will pay $57 million to settle the class
action "Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, David Twiddy of
Forbes reports.

The settlement covers 1,697 former employees who were laid off
between Oct. 1, 2001, and March 31, 2003.
  
Under the agreement, 11 people who have served as lead
plaintiffs in the case would receive an average of $155,000
each.

The plaintiff's attorneys would receive $19.4 million in fees,
plus an additional $1.65 million to cover the process of
confirming the settlement.  The remaining 1,686 plaintiffs would
split the leftover $34.3 million, or an average of $20,332
apiece.

In 2003, about 2,300 former Sprint Corp. employees filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
against Sprint over age discrimination (Class Action Reporter,
October 19, 2004).

The suit alleged Sprint engaged in a "pattern and practice of
age discrimination" by lowering performance evaluations of over-
40 workers or moving them into positions slated for elimination.

It also contended that Sprint wrongly used age information in
making performance rankings and job assignments in advance of
impending mass layoffs.

The case was scheduled to go to trial in January 2007, however
Dennis Egan -- a lawyer at The Popham Law Firm, PC, who
represents plaintiffs -- said that it has been delayed to allow
more time for discovery (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 2, 2006).

Sprint Nextel agreed to the settlement "without admission or
finding of liability or wrongdoing."

"We elected to settle this case so that we can continue to focus
on the business," said company spokesman Matt Sullivan.

U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum still must decide if the
agreement is reasonable.  If so, notices of the proposed
settlement would go to plaintiffs and a final hearing would be
scheduled to hear concerns from plaintiffs and potentially
approve the agreement.

The suit is "Williams v. Sprint/United Management Company, Case
No. 2:03-cv-02200-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum with referral
to Judge David J. Waxse.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Matthew C. Billips, Esq.
          Miller, Billips & Ates, PC
          730 Peachtree St. - Ste. 750
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: 404-969-4101
          Fax: 404-969-4141
          E-mail: mbillips@mbalawfirm.com

          - and -

          Dennis Egan, Esq.
          The Popham Law Firm, P.C.
          323 West 8th St.-Ste. 200
          Kansas City, MO 64105-1679
          Phone: 816-221-2288 x219
          Fax: 816-221-3999
          E-mail: cmolteni@pophamlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas A. McCarthy, Esq.
          Christine F. Miller, Esq.
          James F. Monafo, Esq.
          Tamara M. Spicer, Esq.
          Harry B. Wilson, Jr.
          Husch & Eppenberger, LLC- St Louis
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105-3441
          Phone: 314-480-1500
          Fax: 314-480-1505
          E-mail: thomas.mccarthy@husch.com or
                  chris.miller@husch.com or jim.monafo@husch.com  
                  or tamara.spicer@husch.com or
                  harry.wilson@husch.com

          - and -

          David A. Schatz, Esq.
          John J. Yates, Esq.
          Husch & Eppenberger, LLC - Kansas City
          1200 Main Street, Suite 2300
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-421-4800
          Fax: 816-421-0596
          E-mail: david.schatz@husch.com or
                  jack.yates@husch.com


STEWART TITLE: Property Owners Sue Over "High" Insurance Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Title Guaranty Co. is facing a class action filed by
property owners seeking more than $5 million in punitive damages
for alleged excessive title insurance fees, Kentucky.com
reports.

The lawsuit was filed by David Knight of Covington and Jackie
Chandler of Butler in U.S. District Court in Covington on behalf
of more than 100,000 property owners.  It is seeking class-
action status.

Plaintiffs allege Stewart Title "systematically cheated Kentucky
consumers" who bought title insurance for financing their
mortgages by charging them at least $50 more than what is
approved by the state Department of Insurance.

The suit is "Knight et al. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00087-DLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge David L. Bunning.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
          The Mason Law Firm - NY
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          46th Floor, Suite 4632
          New York, NY 10019
          U.S.
          Phone: 212-362-5770
          Fax: 917-591-5227
          E-mail: abarnett@masonlawdc.com

          - and -

          Alexander F. Edmondson, Esq.
          Edmondson & Associates
          28 W. Fifth Street
          Covington, KY 41011
          Phone: 859-491-5551
          Fax: 859-491-0187
          E-mail: alexedmondson@fuse.net


UNITED STATES: GAO Snubs Document Subpoena in Bias Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the agency's
Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) refused to submit deposition
transcripts in a class action alleging employee discrimination,
Kelly McCormack of The Hill reports.

The GAO refused to comply with a subpoena for the documents
saying it did not want to spend money to produce documents for a
case that may be dismissed; and the material had to do with an
unrelated case, which does not involve discrimination.  That
case is the one filed by GAO analyst, James Moses, in October
2006, claiming that the agency discriminated against older
employees.

Plaintiffs' lawyer, Walter Charlton, had requested for an
emergency hearing because the agency's "obstruction and delays"
and a motion to dismiss have brought the proceedings to a
standstill.  In its refusal to submit transcripts of deposition
in the Moses suit, GAO said there is no need for an emergency
hearing regarding the subpoenas because there is no emergency.

Mr. Charlton believes "The information contained in the six
depositions of GAO executives and support staff led to the
settlement of the claims of 12 persons who had exactly the same
factual claims as those of Moses, and the same filing schedules,
albeit in a different form."

In April, 12 GAO employees received promotions and back pay with
interest as part of a settlement.  

If the class action is successful, it would give more than 300
employees promotions and retroactive pay.

The suit is before the District Court for the District of
Columbia.


US INSTALLATION: Fla. Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Installation Group, Inc. and owner Bruce Deluca are facing
a class action filed on May 11 at the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff and former U.S. Installation employee, Vahid Rahraven,
brings this action to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
commission, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of Title 29 U.S.C. Section
201 et. seq. and specifically under the provisions of Title 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).

This suit is brought on behalf of all former and current weekly
paid and/or salaried employees of U.S. Installation who were and
who are subject to the payroll practices and procedures and who
were not paid time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for
all overtime hours worked beginning on or after May 2004.

Plaintiff claims that in the course of his employment, he was
not paid time and one-half of his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 during a work week.  He asserts
that he is entitled to his overtime premium for each hour worked
in excess of 40 per work week.

Mr. Rahraven demands judgment against defendants for the wages
and overtime payments due him and other class members for the
hours worked for which they have not been properly compensated,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs of
suit, and for all proper relief including prejudgment interest.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f7d

The suit is "Rahraven v. U.S. Installation Group, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 0:07-cv-60679-AJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Adalberto Jordan.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Charles Harold Bechert, III, Esq.
          750 E Sample Road
          Pompano Beach, FL 33064
          Phone: 954-941-8363
          Fax: 941-8337
          E-mail: Tripchb@aol.com


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *