CAR_Public/070529.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 29, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 105

                            Headlines

ABBOTT'S ROSS: Recalls Infant Formulas Due To Low-Iron Content
ABX AIR: Prepares Answer to RICO Violations Complaint in Ohio
ADVANCED MICRO: Faces Suits by Graphics Processing Unit Buyers
AEROFLEX INC: N.Y. Court Stays Discovery in Shareholders’ Suit
BAYVIEW CREMATORY: Appeals Certification of Negligence Lawsuit

BAUSCH & LOMB: Another Investor Sues Over Warburg Pincus Deal
BOULDER GROWTH: CO Suit Alleges Investment Company Act Violation
CANYON RANCH: Workers File Suit in Mass. Over Withheld Tips
CASCADE SPECIALTY: Ore. Suit Aims to Claim Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHATTEM INC: Sued Over “Fraudulent” Sale of Dietary Supplement

COAST FINANCIAL: Investors Suit in Fla. Up for Consolidation
COMPASS PARTNERS: USA Capital Investors File Fraud Suit in Nev.
DENDREON CORP: Wash. Suit Alleges Material Misrepresentations
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: County Allows BCNEPA to Pursue Overbilling Suit
HEXION SPECIALTY: Judge OKs Settlement of Pollution Suit in Ky.

IMAGITAS INC: Fla. DPPA Violation Suit Consolidated in Florida
INTERVOICE-BRITE: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in "Barrie"
L-1 IDENTITY: Mass. Court Nixes Complaints in Securities Suit
LEAR CORP: Mich. Court Considers Parties’ Motions in ERISA Suit
LEAR CORP: Mich. Court Considers Parties’ Motions in "Qualey"

LEAR CORP: Mich. Court Nixes AREP Lawsuits, Faces Others in Del.
MCKESSON CORP: June 5 Hearing Set for "Dutton" Suit Settlement
MCKESSON CORP: No Trial Date Scheduled for AWP Lawsuit in Mass.
NEW ZEALAND: Study Shows Operation Grapple Caused Health Damage
NSPIRED NATURAL: Recalls Tahini Due To Salmonella Contamination

PFIZER INC: Deadline to Appeal Antitrust Suit’s Nixing Expires
PFIZER INC: Faces Purported Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
PHILIPPINES: Press to Pursue Lawsuit Against First Gentleman
PPG INDUSTRIES: Former Employees Sue Over Age Discrimination
R.A.B. FOOD: Recalls Bottled Juices that Could Rupture, Break

RED ROBIN: Agrees to Settle "Andropolis," "Wilster" for $1.5M
STRATEGIC ENERGY: Still Faces Suit in Pa. Over Power Supply Deal
SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: N.Y. Judge Allows Workers’ Collective Action
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Moves to Dismiss Ga. Price-Fixing Lawsuit
TOWN SPORTS: Overtime Lawsuit in N.Y. Under Mediation

TV AZTECA: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Charges for $1.2M
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Appeals Order in Tuition Fee Hike Suit
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Discovery Continues in Tenn. Securities Suit
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in 401(k) Case
UNUM LIFE: Tenn. Court Yet to Rule in Policyholders Lawsuit

USANA HEALTH: Faces Three Securities Fraud Suits in Utah Court


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


STERLING FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit





                            *********


ABBOTT'S ROSS: Recalls Infant Formulas Due To Low-Iron Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott's Ross Products Division, in cooperation with the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, announced a voluntary nationwide recall of three lots
of two-ounce bottles of Similac Special Care 24 Cal / fl. oz.
Ready-to-Feed (RTF) Premature Infant Formula with Iron, a highly
specialized liquid ready-to-feed formula used only for premature infants
after discharge from the hospital.

This product is sold in eight unit cartons of two-ounce plastic bottles in
the United States, and is primarily sold through pharmacies at the
direction of a health care professional.  It is not commonly available on
retail store shelves.

Abbott is voluntarily recalling these three lots because they do not
contain as much iron as indicated on the label.  No serious medical
complaints have been reported.

Premature infants fed this formula for more than a month after discharge
could have an increased risk of developing anemia due to insufficient iron
intake.  If parents have any concerns about their baby's health, they
should contact their baby's doctor or health care professional.

The recall is limited to stock code number 59582 with lot numbers 46815D5,
47847D5 or 52023D5 printed on the outside carton and case and the lot
numbers 44427X8, 4427X81 or 50005X8 printed on the bottom of the bottles.
No other liquid or powdered Similac infant formulas are affected.

The three lots of infant formula were distributed in the United States
between November 2006 and May 2007.  Consumers who purchased Similac
Special Care 24 Cal / fl. oz. RTF Premature Infant Formula with Iron from
any of the specific lots mentioned above should contact Abbott's Ross
Products Division at 1-888-899-9182.  Ross will replace product from these
lots free of charge.

Similac Special Care 24 Cal / fl. oz. RTF Premature Infant Formula is a
highly specialized formula used by premature infants for a limited amount
of time after discharge from the hospital.  The impacted product is not
used in hospitals.


ABX AIR: Prepares Answer to RICO Violations Complaint in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABX Air, Inc., a subsidiary of DHL Express, is currently preparing to file
an answer to the complaint in a purported class action filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

The suit, filed on April 13, 2007, named as defendants the following
(Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2007):

     -- ABX Air, Inc.;
     -- DHL Holdings (USA), Inc.;
     -- Joe C. Hete, president and chief executive of ABX;
     -- Gene Rhodes, vice-president for human resources of ABX;
     -- Douglas Steele, human resources manager for ABX;
     -- Garcia Labor Co. of Ohio Inc., temporary labor provider;
     -- Garcia Labor Co. Inc. of Tenn., temporary labor
        provider;
     -- Maximino Garcia, president and owner of Garcia Labor;
     -- Gina Luciano, director of human resources of Garcia
        Labor;
     -- Dominga McCarroll, vice-president of Garcia Labor;

The complaint alleges ABX conspired to employ more than 1,000 undocumented
immigrants in a scheme.  This scheme was executed between approximately
December 1999 and January 2005 and has directly and proximately caused the
wages paid to named plaintiff and the class to be substantially depressed,
i.e., below the level of wages ABX and DHL would have paid its lawful
workers if they had not engaged in the scheme to hire unauthorized aliens.

Lead plaintiff ABX employee, Ronnie Hager claims ABX conspired with
co-defendant Garcia Labor Co., of Morristown, Tenn., to recruit illegal
workers and depress U.S. citizens’ wages.

Plaintiff files the suit as a purported class action, on behalf of himself
and all hourly employees of ABX and DHL at their Wilmington, Ohio
facility, authorized for employment in the U.S. from December 1999 to the
present, to recover damages and other appropriate relief from the
defendants for violations of the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961 et al.

The class claims top officers of all the corporations knowingly hired
illegal workers to sort freight at Wilmington.  They claim the conspiracy
lasted from December 1999 until January 2005, and that Garcia provided
rental housing in Wilmington for the illegal workers it provided.

Further, they claim ABX kept hundreds of illegal workers on staff after
the Social Security Administration told it twice that the workers were
using fraudulent documents.

Several corporate officers have been sentenced to prison after the
Transportation Security Agency found that virtually all the 400 workers
provided by Garcia were illegal, the complaint states.

Questions of law that the purported class raise, include:

     (a) whether ABX has engaged in an illegal immigrant hiring
         scheme;

     (b) whether DHL has engaged in an illegal immigrant hiring
         scheme;

     (c) whether Garcia Labor Co. of Ohio, Inc. and Garcia Labor
         Co., Inc., have engaged in an illegal immigration
         hiring scheme;

     (d) whether the individual defendants have conspired to
         perpetuate the illegal immigrant hiring scheme;

     (e) whether ABX and the individual defendants have engaged
         in this scheme to depress the lawful employees' wages;

     (f) whether DHL and the individual defendants have engaged
         in this scheme to depress the lawful employees' wages;

     (g) whether Garcia Labor and the individual defendants have
         engaged in this scheme to depress the lawful employees'
         wages;

     (h) whether the illegal hiring scheme has caused the class
         members' wages to be depressed;

     (i) whether the illegal immigrant hiring scheme violates
         RICO and the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
         Section 1324; and

     (j) whether ABX, DHL and Garcia Labor should be enjoined
         from conducting further racketeering activity and
         whether the individual defendants should be bared from
         further association with ABX and DHL.

Plaintiff prays that the court enter a judgment:

     -- awarding damages in an amount equal to three times the
        damage caused the putative class by defendants'
        racketeering activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1964(c);

     -- awarding pre- and post-trial interest;

     -- awarding reasonable attorney fees and court costs
        incurred in the prosecution of this action, including
        all expert witness fees and other litigation expenses;

     -- declaring this action to be a class action properly
        maintained pursuant to Civ. R. 23 and certifying the
        named plaintiff as class representative and his counsel
        as class counsel; and

     -- awarding any other relief to which plaintiff may be
        entitled in law or equity that the court considers to be
        appropriate under the circumstances.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d49

ABX is currently preparing to file an answer to the complaint, according
to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Hager v. ABX Air, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-00317-JDH-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio under Judge John D. Holschuh with referral to Judge Mark
R. Abel.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Douglas Carter Knisley, Esq.
         Knisely Wilhelm & Knisely
         1395 Dublin Road
         Columbus, OH 43215-1046
         Phone: 614-486-9503
         E-mail: doug@knisleylaw.com

              - and –

         John T. Murray, Esq.
         Murray & Murray
         111 E. Shoreline Drive
         P.O. Box 19
         Sandusky, OH 44871-0019
         Phone: 419-624-3000
         Fax: 419 624 0707
         E-mail: jotm@murrayandmurray.com


ADVANCED MICRO: Faces Suits by Graphics Processing Unit Buyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. was named as one of the defendants in
approximately 51 related antitrust actions with regards to its pricing of
graphics processing units (GPU) and cards, according to the company’s May
9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The company, its recent acquisition ATI Technologies, Inc., and Nvidia
Corp., were named as defendants in such suits, which were filed in the
Northern District of California, the Central District of California, the
District of Massachusetts, the Western District of Wisconsin, the District
of South Carolina, the District of Kansas and the District of Vermont.

According to the complaints, plaintiffs filed each of the actions after
reading press reports that the company and Nvidia had received subpoenas
from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division in connection with
the DOJ’s investigation into potential antitrust violations related to
graphics processing units and cards.

All of the actions appear to allege that the defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of graphics processing units and
cards in violation of federal antitrust law and/or state antitrust law.

Further, each of the complaints is styled as a putative class action and
alleges a class of plaintiffs (either indirect or direct purchasers) who
purportedly suffered injury as a result of the defendants’ alleged
conduct.

The majority of the complaints propose a class period from November or
December 2002 to the present.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. -- http://www.amd.com/-- is a global
semiconductor company with facilities worldwide.  It provides processing
solutions for the computing, graphics and consumer electronics markets.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company offered primarily x86
microprocessors, for the commercial and consumer markets, which are used
for control and computing tasks, and embedded microprocessors for
commercial, commercial client and consumer markets.  On Oct. 25, 2006, the
Company acquired ATI Technologies Inc.  As a result of the acquisition,
the Company began to supply three-dimensional graphics, video and
multimedia products, and chipsets for personal computers, including
desktop and notebook PCs, professional workstations and servers, and
products for consumer electronic devices, such as mobile phones, digital
television and game consoles.  It operates through four segments:
Computation Products, Embedded Products, Graphics and Chipsets, and
Consumer Electronics.


AEROFLEX INC: N.Y. Court Stays Discovery in Shareholders’ Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court in the State of New York, County of Nassau has stayed
discovery in the consolidated class action, "In re: Aeroflex, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation (Index No. 003943/2007)."

In March 2007, four separate plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in the Supreme Court, State of New York, County of Nassau
concerning the proposed acquisition of the Company by entities directly
and indirectly owned by an investment group consisting of investment
entities affiliated with General Atlantic LLC and Francisco Partners II,
L.P. pursuant to a merger agreement dated March 2, 2007.

Plaintiffs have since moved to consolidate the four putative class
actions.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order of the court
that would prevent the consummation of the merger and direct defendants to
obtain a transaction in the best interest of the shareholders.

On April 23, 2007, plaintiff Jack Trugman filed an amended putative class
action complaint, generally alleging that the Company’s directors breached
their fiduciary duties by approving a transaction that benefits
themselves, to the detriment of the Company’s stockholders, and that the
Company, General Atlantic LLC and Francisco Partners II, L.P. aided and
abetted the directors’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

On the same day, defendants:

      -- moved to dismiss Mr. Trugman’s amended complaint for
         failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
         granted, and

      -- filed their opposition to Mr. Trugman’s application for
         expedited discovery.

On May 3, 2007, the Court denied Mr. Trugman’s application for expedited
discovery.  A hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss has been set for
May 10, 2007.

By order entered May 10, 2007, the Court consolidated the four shareholder
actions pending in Nassau County under the case name, "In re: Aeroflex
Shareholders Litigation (Index No. 003943/2007)."

On that same day, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint in the consolidated case and requested a conference with the
Court to schedule a hearing for a prospective motion to enjoin the special
meeting of stockholders of the Company to be held on May 30, 2007.

On May 11, 2007, the Court set a hearing date of May 24, 2007.
The Court also stayed discovery by plaintiffs until further order of the
Court, according to the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 8-K Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Aeroflex, Inc. -- http://www.aeroflex.com/-- is engaged in the design,
engineering, manufacturing, production and sales of microelectronic and
test solutions to the broadband communications, aerospace and defense
markets.  The company also designs and manufactures motion control systems
that are used for aerospace and defense applications.


BAYVIEW CREMATORY: Appeals Certification of Negligence Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Andrew R. Schulman of Bedford, representing Bayview Crematory
LLC, is appealing to the state Supreme court a decision to certify the
case as class action, Susan Morse of Seacoastonline.  Mr. Schulman will
present arguments on June 14 in Concord.

Dozens of families believe the crematorium in Seabrook, New Hampshire is
as the site where the remains of their loved ones' were mistreated.

In 2005, police discovered that remains at the crematorium were
mishandled, mislabeled and mistreated.  Investigators later discovered a
body decomposing in an unrefrigerated unit, unlabeled urns of ashes, and
more than one body was being burned at a time.  The discovery led to the
closure of the business.

Several suits followed.  In October 2006, the Rockingham County Superior
Court in New Hampshire granted class-action status to the case filed by
attorney David Charlip of Hollywood, Fla., on behalf of an estimated 160
families in New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 23, 2006).

The lawsuit alleges negligence in the handling of bodies, consumer
protection violations and misrepresentation against operators Derek
Wallace and Linda Stokes, as well as Simplicity Burial and Cremation
Services Inc. of Massachusetts.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for all forms of damage, including
emotional distress and presumed damages for the alleged mishandling of
bodies at the crematorium (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 10, 2006).

"The defendants ... said it was improper to certify the case as class
action," Mr. Charlip said.  "They're saying they did nothing wrong."

Bayview is also claiming damages would be different for every individual
and should not be grouped as a class action.

The civil suit is being held up as criminal cases against Bayview's owner
move through Rockingham County Superior Court.

For more details, contact plaintiffs' lawyer:

          David H. Charlip, Esq.
          The Charlip Law Group, LC
          1930 Harrison St., Suit 208
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Phone: 954- 921-2131
          Fax: 954-921-2191

Representing Bayview is:

          Andrew R. Schulman, Esq.
          Three Executive Park Drive
          Bedford, NH 03110
          Phone: 603-634-4300
          Fax: 603-626-3647
          E-mail: ASchulman@getmanstacey.com


BAUSCH & LOMB: Another Investor Sues Over Warburg Pincus Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Chamberlain D’Amanda Oppenheimer & Greenfield, on behalf of
another Bausch & Lomb Inc. shareholder Feivel Gottlieb, filed a lawsuit in
state Supreme Court in Rochester (New York), against B&L in an attempt to
block a proposed purchase by Warburg Pincus LLC, The Rochester Democrat
and Chronicle reports.

Mr. Gottlieb accuses the B&L board of directors of acting unfairly to the
public shareholders in the deal.

Warburg Pincus, a private equity firm, announced recently that it would
take over Bausch & Lomb in a $4.5 billion deal.

"The consideration to be paid to the BOL’s public shareholders is grossly
unfair, inadequate, and substantially below the fair or inherent value of
the company," according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit says the acquisition will deny Mr. Gottlieb and other public
shareholders a chance to share in the future success of the company. It
also criticizes the 50-day "go-shop"
provision of the deal, stating that the period "is mere window dressing."
That provision has attracted a competitor, Advanced Medical Optics Inc of
Santa Ana, Calif., which said Thursday that it was exploring a bid to
acquire the Rochester rival, the report said.

Mr. Gottlieb’s lawsuit is also seeking class-action status for the case on
behalf of public shareholders.

Earlier, Philadelphia-based First Derivative Traders L.P. accused B&L's
board of settling for too little in accepting Warburg's $65 per share
offer (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2007).

Plaintiffs' counsel:

          Chamberlain D’Amanda Oppenheimer & Greenfield
          1600 Crossroads Office Building
          Rochester, New York 14614
          Phone: 716/232-3730


BOULDER GROWTH: CO Suit Alleges Investment Company Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Growth & Income Fund, Inc. announced that a purported class action
was filed on May 18, 2007 in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against the Fund and its directors, investment
advisers and portfolio manager over alleged violations of the Investment
Company Act of 1940.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants failed to
make adequate disclosures in the Fund's recent proxy and registration
statements.

Stephen Miller, the Fund's president, said, "We believe the claims are
without merit and will defend against them vigorously. We have turned the
matter over to our attorneys and will continue to focus on our more
important business of investing."

The suit is "Paskowitz v. Looney et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01053-WYD,"
filed in the U.S. District court for the District of Colorado, under Judge
Wiley Y. Daniel.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gerald L. Bader, Jr., Esq.
          Bader & Associates, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue, #200
          Denver, CO 80014-1160
          Phone: 303-534-1700
          Fax: 303-534-1701
          E-mail: gbader@bader-associates.com


CANYON RANCH: Workers File Suit in Mass. Over Withheld Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boston attorneys Paul Holtzman and Hugh Dun, on behalf of several former
employees of Canyon Ranch Inc., filed a $100,000 class-action suit in
Berkshire Superior Court (Massachusetts), alleging the Lenox resort's
management wrongly deprived them of tips from their spa-related services,
The Berkshire Eagle reports.

The suit names as defendants:

     -- Jerrold Cohen, chief executive officer;
     -- Melvin Zuckerman, the founder and chairman of Canyon
        Ranch Inc. and former CEO;
     -- Reginald Cooper, the resort's general manager;
     -- Canyon Ranch Inc. of Arizona;
     -- Canyon Ranch-Bellefontaine Associates of Delaware;
     -- JCBF Inc., a Delaware corporation; and
     -- ZC Management LLC of Arizona and its president, Kevin M.
        Kelly.

Plaintiffs allege that Canyon Ranch charges its patrons an 18-percent
gratuity tax and other fees under the pretense that it passes along the
tips to its employees.

"Defendants' long-standing violations were undertaken willfully and
deliberately with the outrageous and evil motive of maximizing their own
profits by misappropriating tips and services charges owed to their
employees," the suit claims.

The resort's management strongly discourages patrons from tipping
employees for such services. Patrons are falsely told that employee tips
are covered by an 18-percent gratuity charge, and that employees also
receive a portion of the service fees, the suit alleges.

Employees also are discouraged from receiving tips, according to the suit.
They must first refuse the tip, state that gratuities are included, and
may then accept further compensation only if the patron is persistent, the
suit states.

According to the complaint, employees allegedly met with hostility when
they confronted Canyon Ranch management. Employees were allegedly informed
that "where the 18-percent charge goes is none of their business," and
many feared that they would lose their jobs if they pressed for payment of
the tips and fees owed them.

Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on behalf of "all current and former
employees."

Canyon Ranch Inc. and its affiliates also operate four other resorts: in
Tucson, Ariz.; Las Vegas; Kissimmee, Fla.; and onboard the Queen Mary II
ocean liner. The company was founded at its Tucson location by Zuckerman
in 1979.

Plaintiffs counsel:

          Paul V. Holtzman, Esq.
          Krokidas & Bluestein LLP
          600 Atlantic Avenue
          Boston, Massachusetts 02210
          Phone: 617-482-7211
          Fax: 617-482-7212
          Web Site: http://www.kb-law.com


CASCADE SPECIALTY: Ore. Suit Aims to Claim Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cascade Specialty Woodworking, LLC is facing a class-action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon alleging Labor Code
violations.

Named plaintiff Jonnathan Stahly brings this action to recover unpaid
overtime compensation from Cascade Specialty and its operators and owners
-- Craig and Eugene French -- plus additional equal amounts as liquidated
damages, plus costs, disbursement and attorneys fees, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq.

Plaintiff -- who was employed by defendants to manufacture architectural
fixtures -- brings this suit as a collective action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), on behalf of all other current and former employees to
whom defendants failed to pay wages equal to at least one an one-half
times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 per work week.

Plaintiffs claim defendants improperly classified and treated plaintiffs
as independent contractors rather than as employees, and on that premise
paid plaintiffs only the same pre-determined hourly wage rates for their
hours worked in excess of 40 per work week as for the first 40 hours.

Defendants have willfully violated and continue to willfully violate the
overtime compensation requirements of 29 U.S.C. Section 207 by failing to
pay plaintiffs wage rates that are at least one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week,
the suit claims.

As a result, plaintiffs are due appropriate overtime compensation from
defendants, plus additional equal amounts as liquidated damages, plus
costs, disbursement and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C
Section 216(b).

Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

     -- that this matter proceed as a collective action pursuant
        to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b);

     -- for a jury trial to determine the factual allegations;

     -- for an award of damages against defendants in the amount
        of all unpaid wages and liquidated damages shown to be
        due them at trial;

     -- for injunctive relief as requested above;

     -- for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs and
        disbursements;

     -- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all
        amounts due to plaintiffs as a result of this action;
        and

     -- for any other relief which the court may determine to be
        just and proper.

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?204e

The suit is "Stahly v. Cascade Specialty Woodworking, LLC et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00772-ST," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, under Judge Janice M. Stewart.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Giles H Gibson, Esq.
          Jordan S. Hantman, Esq.
          Carney, Buckley, Hays, Marsh & Gibson
          Crown Plaza
          1500 SW First Avenue, Suite 1015
          Portland, OR 97201
          Phone: (503) 221-0611
          Fax: (503) 221-1675
          E-mail: ghgibsonlaw@comcast.net or
                  jordanhantman@hotmail.com

CHATTEM INC: Sued Over “Fraudulent” Sale of Dietary Supplement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed on May 24 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California accusing it of
defrauding customers by selling them the dietary supplement Garlique.

Named plaintiff Robert O. Wilkinson alleges that Chattem manufactures,
markets, distributes and promotes the product known as Garlique, a diet
supplement sold as an enteric-coated tablet containing garlic that Chattem
contends is "America's #1 selling garlic supplement!"

The product is promoted, marketed, advertised and distributed directly by
Chattem and through ditributors.  Chattem's website --
http://www.chattem.com-- features the product prominently and makes a
number of claims regarding the product.

The complaint claims Chattem has actively promoted the product as an aid
to cardiovascular health, using celebrities such as television talk show
host Larry King. The labeling and packaging of the product states that it
is "Cholesterol's Natural Enemy" and that it "Supports Cardiovascular
Health."

In support of its claims, Chattem has referenced a 2001 analysis of data
pooled from 37 studies that indicated that garlic slightly lowered high
blood cholesterol levels when taken for three months.  However, further
analysis by those same researchers showed that garlic had no effect on
cholesterol levels when taken for six months or more.  Furthermore, when a
panel of national experts reviewed the two studies, they determined that
the effect of garlic on cholesterol was unclear.

Plaintiff claims he had purchased, used and ingested the product for its
intended and foreseeable purpose as marketed, promoted, advertised and
labeled by Chattem as forth in the complaint.  He relied on these
representations by Chattem in purchasing and using the product.

However, as he has now learned, the product does not provide the benefits
of cholesterol reduction as claimed by Chattem.  As a result, he contends
that he has been misled by Chattem's false claims into purchasing and
paying for a product that did not perform as promised when he used it for
its intended and foreseeable purpose as marketed, promoted, advertised and
labeled by Chattem, and that he has as a direct result been deprived of
the benefit of his bargain and has spent money on a
product that did not have any value, a product he would not have purchased
and used had he known the true facts about it.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
himself and all other consumers who purchased, used and ingested the
product.  The complaint questions whether:

     (a) defendant's practices in connection with the
         marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
         the product were deceptive or unfair in any respect,
         thereby violating California's Unfair Competition Law,
         Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et. seq.;

     (b) defendant's practices in connection with the
         marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
         the product were deceptive or false in any respect,
         thereby violating California's False Advertising Law,
         Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et. seq.;

     (c) defendant breached implied warranties in its sale of
         the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and
         class members;

     (d) defendant breached express warranties in its sale of
         the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and
         class members;

     (e) defendant's practices in connection with the
         marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
         the product unjustly enriched defendant at the expense
         of, and to the detriment of, plaintiff and class
         members;

     (f) defendant fraudulently marketed, promoted,
         advertised, labeled and sold the product;

     (g) defendant breached California's Consumer Legal
         Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750 et. seq., in its
         sale of the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff
         and class members; and

     (h) defendant's conduct as set forth injured consumers
         and if so,. the extent of the injury.

Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

     -- for an order certifying that the action may be
        maintained as a class action;

     -- for an award of equitable relief as follows:

        (i) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in the
            unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices
            and deceptive marketing, promotion labeling and
            advertising described in the complaint;

       (ii) requiring defendant to make full restitution of all
            monies wrongfully obtained as a result of the
            conduct described;

      (iii) requiring defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains
            flowing from the conduct described;

       (iv) requiring defendant to provide public notice of the
            true nature of the product.

     -- for actual and punitive damages under the CLRA in an
        amount to be proven at trial, including any damages as
        may be provided for by statute upon the filing of a
        First Amended Complaint should the demanded corrections
        not take place within the 30-day notice period;

     -- for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia,
        Section 1780(d) of the CLRA and Code of Civil Procedure
        section 1021.5;

     -- for actual damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- for an award of costs and any other relief the court
        might deem appropriate; and

     -- for pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
        awarded.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2052

The suit is "Wilkinson v. Chattem, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00952-W-AJB,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
under Judge Thomas J. Whelan, with referral to Judge Anthony J. Battaglia.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Harold M. Hewell, Esq.
          Hewell Law Firm
          402 West Broadway, Fourth Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 235-6854
          Fax: (619) 235-9122
          E-mail: hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com


COAST FINANCIAL: Investors Suit in Fla. Up for Consolidation
------------------------------------------------------------
A status hearing was held on May 25 before Judge Richard A. Lazzara
regarding class actions filed by investors against Coast Financial
Holdings Inc., parent company of Bradenton-based Coast Bank.

Judge Lazzara told plaintiffs that he would consolidate the three cases
filed by investors into one and will determine a lead plaintiff after
attorneys file motions by June 8, according to Brian Neill of the
Bradenton Herald.

Coast Financial and certain of its present and former officers were named
as defendants in three purported class action complaints filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suits are:

     * "Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania v. Brian P. Peters, et al.,
        Case No. 8:07-cv-00479-RAL-EAJ," filed with the Court on
        March 20, 2007;

     * "Troy Ratcliff v. Coast Financial Holdings, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 8:07-cv-00504-RAL-MAP," filed on March 26,
        2007; and

     * "Daniel Altenburg v. Coast Financial Holdings, Inc., et
        al., Case No. 8:07-cv-642-T-17TGW," filed on April 13,
        2007.

The three are vying to become lead plaintiff in a consolidated suit.

Each complaint is brought by purchasers of the Company’s common stock on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
the Company’s common stock during a class period defined in each
complaint.  The class period in the Grand Lodge complaint is October 28,
2005 through January 19, 2007; the class period in the Ratcliff complaint
is October 5, 2005 through January 25, 2007; and the class period in the
Altenburg complaint is January 21, 2005 through January 19, 2007.


COMPASS PARTNERS: USA Capital Investors File Fraud Suit in Nev.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Compass Partners, LLC, a New York-based private equity firm faces a
purported federal class action that was filed by investors in the now
bankrupt USA Capital who seek to regain control of their investments and
recover damages, Zack Hall of The Reno Gazette-Journal reports.

In an effort to remove the firm from control of USA Capital assets, more
than 50 Nevada limited liability corporations, which represent individual
investors in USA Commercial Mortgage Co., (USACM), filed the lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Compass was the high bidder at a bankruptcy court auction in December and
paid $67 million to USA Capital.   USA Capital raises money from
individual investors for short-term loans to developers, called trust-deed
loans, for the right to service most of the outstanding loans.

In their complaint, plaintiffs allege, "Compass is attempting to further
the scheme started by USACM: to profit with no risk, while astronomical
risk inures to plaintiffs and other direct lenders."

Kevin A. Darby, the legal representatives for the investors, told The Reno
Gazette-Journal that investors cite a lack of communication with Compass
and allege that Compass was receiving undisclosed payments from borrowers
while investors were not getting all that was owed to them.

For more details, contact:

         Kevin A. Darby
         Downey Brand LLP
         427 West Plumb Lane
         Reno, NV 89509
         Phone: 775-329-590
         Fax: 775-786-5443
         E-mail: reno@downeybrand.com


DENDREON CORP: Wash. Suit Alleges Material Misrepresentations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dendreon Corp. is facing a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington over allegations it made a series of
material misrepresentations to the market, The Seattle Times reports.

The lawsuit alleges the company misrepresented its clinical trial results
and didn't provide clear information about when the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) would rule on its prostate cancer drug.

The suit claims shareholders "suffered substantial losses" when the FDA on
May 8 decided to delay consideration of the drug, Provenge, until further
studies are completed.  Dendreon "failed to disclose" that the FDA could
make a ruling on Provenge before May 15, according to the suit, which
seeks class-action status.

The suit also claims that Dendreon misrepresented its late-stage clinical
studies of Provenge, specifically regarding their statistical significance
and whether they proved the drug's effectiveness.

In addition, the suit alleges that Dendreon CEO Mitchell Gold's sale of
202,000 shares on April 2 shows that he was aware the FDA might not
approve Provenge. The sale netted Mr. Gold about $2.7 million.

It was his first sale of Dendreon stock during his six years at the
company, and represented about 20 percent of his stock and option
holdings, a spokeswoman said at the time.

According to the report, a Dendreon spokeswoman declined comment Friday on
the suit, which was filed by Oklahoma-based law firm Federman & Sherwood.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Email: wfederman@aol.com
          Website: http://www.federmanlaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: County Allows BCNEPA to Pursue Overbilling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioners of Carbon County, Pennsylvania authorized Blue Cross of
Northeastern Pennsylvania (BCNEPA) to seek reimbursement for prescription
drug overbilling on behalf of the county health plan in a class action
settlement against GlaxoSmithKline, Amy Zubek of The Times News reports.

In a 2-0 vote, county commissioners allowed BCNEPA to pursue a lawsuit
against GSK for reimbursement of funds that occurred after GSK overcharged
the county for 13 prescription drugs that it sold wholesale.  A specific
amount that the county will seek in this matter has not been released.

The alleged overbilling period took place between Jan. 1, 1999 and Dec.
31, 2003.

According to the GSK Settlement Web site, "The lawsuit claims that certain
drug companies reported false and inflated average wholesale prices (AWPs)
for certain types of outpatient drugs. The reported AWPs are often used to
set prescription drug prices that are paid by Medicare, consumers and
insurers.  The lawsuits ask the court to award money damages to some
Third-Party Payors who made AWP-based reimbursements for the above-listed
GSK Covered Drugs."

Drugs that were named in the suit include Kytril and Zofran injections and
tablets, both used to prevent and treat nausea and vomiting that can be a
side effect of cancer chemotherapy, radiation or anesthesia.

The lawsuit also names Alkeran, Myleran, and Navelbine, medications that
are used in different treatments of some forms of cancer; Imitrex, a
medication used to treat migraines; Lanoxin, which helps to regulate
irregular heartbeats; Retrovir, which is used as a treatment for HIV
infections, Ventolin, a drug for breathing problems; Zovirax, treatment
for chicken pox, shingles and herpes; and Zantac, a popular medication
that treats stomach ulcers.

It asks the court to award money to some people who paid or made
co-payments for the drugs.

For more details, visit: http://www.gsksettlement.com.


HEXION SPECIALTY: Judge OKs Settlement of Pollution Suit in Ky.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Heyburn of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky approved a class-action settlement filed against Hexion Specialty
Chemicals, Inc. by residents of a southwestern Louisville neighborhood,
The Associated Press reports.

Under the settlement, Hexion Specialty Chemicals will spend about $4
million to upgrade its operations near the Rubbertown neighborhood and pay
out about $2,500 to local residents.

In May 2006, the company - formerly Borden Chemicals -- was named as a
defendant in a purported class action that relates to odors and air
emissions from the company's Louisville plant (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 27, 2006).

About 80 residents sued Hexion, along with E.On, the parent company of
Louisville Gas and Electric, last year, alleging that pollution from the
plants affected their health and lowered their property values. The plant
makes adhesives, resins and formaldehyde.

Under the recent settlement, Hexion agreed to update its wastewater
treatment system and build a berm along its property line as part of the
agreement.

"Money-wise, we didn't get a whole lot," said Terri Humphrey, whose home
borders the chemical plant's property.  But Ms. Humphrey added the goal of
the lawsuit wasn't to get money, but to improve the living environment
around the plant.

Four other lawsuits against companies in the area are still in the court
system.

The suit is "Humphrey et al. v. Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc., Case No.
3:06-cv-00276-JGH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky under Judge John G. Heyburn, II.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark K. Gray, Esq.
          Gray & White
          500 W. Jefferson Street
          Suite 1200, PNC Plaza
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: 502-585-2060
          Fax: 502-581-1933
          E-mail: mkgrayatty@aol.com

                       - and -

          Steven D. Liddle
          Macuga & Liddle, PC,
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 28307
          Phone: 313-392-0015

Representing the defendants is:

          David J. Kellerman, Esq.
          Middleton Reutlinger
          2500 Brown & Williamson Tower
          Louisville, KY 40202-3410
          Phone: 502-584-1135
          Fax: 502-561-0442
          E-mail: dkellerman@middreut.com


IMAGITAS INC: Fla. DPPA Violation Suit Consolidated in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of federal judges decided to centralize before U.S. District Judge
Timothy Corrigan in Jacksonville lawsuits accusing Imagitas Inc. of
violating the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, Paul Pinkham of the
Times-Union reports.

The first to file a case against the company's DriverSource program is
attorney Woody Wilner.  Under the program, Imagitas designs and mails the
states' auto registration renewal for free and underwrites the cost by
including advertisements from private companies.  In the first quarter of
2007, additional purported national class actions were filed in Florida,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York and Ohio.

The plaintiffs say the ads violate their right to privacy and the federal
Drivers Protection Privacy Act, which forbids use of personal information
in motor vehicle records for any nongovernmental purpose.

Imagitas reasoned the program saves states money and actually enhances
privacy by replacing postcards that contained motor vehicle information.
It denies disclosing personal information to advertisers.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status and damages of $2,500 per person
whose information was improperly provided.  Judge Corrigan has scheduled
an initial hearing June 26.

Imagitas spokesman Alfie Charles hopes for a quick dismissal of the suit
and added the company will contest the class certification.

That suit is "Kendron et al. v. Imagitas, Inc., 3:07-cv-00389-TJC-TEM,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida before
Judge Timothy J. Corrigan with referral to Judge Thomas E. Morris.

Hearing is scheduled June 26.

Plaintiffs' lawyer contact information:

          Norwood S. "Woody" Wilner, Esq.
          Spohrer Wilner P.A.
          701 West Adams Street Suite 2
          Jacksonville, FL 32204
          Phone: (904) 354-8310
          E-mail: nwilner@swmmlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.spohrerwilner.com

Representing Imagitas Inc. is:

          Stephen L. Coco, Esq.
          Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.
          800 Boylston St. 25th Floor
          Boston, MA 02199
          Phone: 617/267-2300
          Fax: 617/267-8288


INTERVOICE-BRITE: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in "Barrie"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied a motion
to stay discovery in "David Barrie, et al. v. InterVoice-Brite, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3-01CV1071-D," pending a decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on an appeal against the certification of
the purported class action.

Initially, several related class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of common
stock of InterVoice, Inc. during the period from Oct. 12, 1999 through
June 6, 2000.

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

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

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

The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ complaint because it lacked
the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading
standards applicable to federal securities litigation.

The Plaintiffs’ appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 5th Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in
part.  The 5th Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further
proceedings in the District Court.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion to
certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice stock during the Class
Period between October 12, 1999 and June 6, 2000.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted the company’s petition to
appeal the District Court’s decision to grant Plaintiffs’ motion to
certify a class.

The briefing on the merits of company’s appeal is now complete, and the
company is currently waiting for the Fifth Circuit to either schedule oral
argument or issue a ruling on the merits.

The company filed a motion to stay further discovery pending the Fifth
Circuit’s decision on the merits of its appeal, but the District Court
denied that motion, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Feb. 28, 2007.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

         - and -

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

Representing the defendants is:

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


L-1 IDENTITY: Mass. Court Nixes Complaints in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed most
claims in a consolidated securities fraud class action against L-1
Identity Solutions, Inc. (formerly known as Viisage Technology, Inc.),
according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2007.

Between March and April 2005, eight putative class actions were filed
against L-1, Mr. Bernard C. Bailey, Mr. William K. Aulet (the company's
former Chief Financial Officer) and Mr. Denis K. Berube and other members
of the Board of Directors of Viisage
Technology, Inc.

These lawsuits have been consolidated into one action under, "In Re
Viisage Technology Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
05-10438-MLW.

The so-called Turnberry Group has been designated as lead plaintiff and
its counsel has been designated as lead counsel.

The amended consolidated complaint, which was filed in February
2006 alleges violations of the federal securities laws by Viisage (now
named L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc.) and certain officers and directors
arising out of purported misstatements and omissions in Viisage's SEC
filings related to certain litigation involving the Georgia drivers'
license contract and related to the Viisage's reported material weaknesses
in internal controls over financial reporting, which allegedly
artificially inflated the price of the company's stock during the period
May 12, 2004 through March 2, 2005.

In April 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In
February 2007, the judge dismissed all claims related to the Georgia
drivers' license contract and permitted the case to proceed on claims
associated with purported internal control weaknesses over financial
reporting.

The suit is "In re: Viisage Technology Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 05-10438-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134
         E-mail: ted@shulaw.com

         Alan L. Kovacs, Esq.
         Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs
         2001 Beacon Street, Suite 106
         Boston, MA 02135
         Phone: 617-964-1177
         Fax: 617-332-1223
         E-mail: alankovacs@yahoo.com

              - and -

         Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
         Leslie R. Stern, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-542-8300
         Fax: 617-542-1194 and 617-542-1154
         E-mail: jblock@bermanesq.com
                 lstern@bermanesq.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Mitchell H. Kaplan, Esq.
         Choate, Hall & Stewart
         Two International Place
         100-150 Oliver Street
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-248-5000
         Fax: 617-248-4000
         E-mail: mkaplan@choate.com


LEAR CORP: Mich. Court Considers Parties’ Motions in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has yet to
issue any ruling on the parties’ respective motions in a consolidated
class action against Lear Corp., which alleges violations of the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act.

In April 2006, a former employee of the Company filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan against the company, members of its Board of Directors, members
of its Employee Benefits Committee (EBC) and certain members of its human
resources personnel alleging violations of ERISA with respect to the
Company’s retirement savings plans for salaried and hourly employees.

In the second quarter of 2006, the Company was served with three
additional purported class action ERISA lawsuits, each of which contained
similar allegations against the Company, members of its Board of
Directors, members of its EBC and certain members of its senior management
and its human resources personnel.

At the end of the second quarter of 2006, the court entered an order
consolidating these four lawsuits as "In re: Lear Corp. ERISA Litigation."

During the third quarter of 2006, plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint, which alleges breaches of fiduciary duties substantially
similar to those alleged in the four individually filed lawsuits.

The consolidated complaint continues to name certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors and the EBC and certain members of
senior management and adds certain other current and former members of the
EBC.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to plan participants in connection with the
administration of the Company’s retirement savings plans for salaried and
hourly employees.

The fiduciary duty claims are largely based on allegations of breaches of
the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty and of over-concentration of
plan assets in the Company’s common stock.

The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of the plans and
all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the plans from
Oct. 21, 2004, to the present and seek to recover losses allegedly
suffered by the plans.  The complaints do not specify the amount of
damages sought.

During the fourth quarter of 2006, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all defendants and all counts in the consolidated complaint.  The
filings related to the motion to dismiss have been made, but the Court has
not yet ruled on the motion.  No determination has been made that a class
action can be maintained, and there have been no decisions on the merits
of the cases, according to the company’s May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Malloy v. Lear Corp., et al., Case No.
5:06-cv-11735-JCO-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge John Corbett O'Meara with referral to
Judge Virginia M. Morgan.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Stephen F. Wasinger, Esq.
         Stephen F. Wasinger, PLC,
         32121 Woodward Avenue
         300 Balmoral Centre
         Royal Oak, MI 48073-0999
         Phone: 248-554-6306
         E-mail: sfw@sfwlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Thomas G. McNeill, Esq.
         Dickinson Wright
         500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000
         Detroit, MI 48226-3425
         Phone: 313-223-3500
         E-mail: TMcNeill@dickinsonwright.com


LEAR CORP: Mich. Court Considers Parties’ Motions in "Qualey"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has yet to
schedule any hearing on the parties’ respective motions in the purported
class action, "Qualey v. Jackson et al. Case No. 2:07-cv-10910-GER-RSW,"
which named Lear Corp. as a defendant.

On March 1, 2007, a purported class action -– alleging violations of the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act -- was filed on behalf of
participants in the company’s 401(k) plans.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan and alleges that the company, members of its Board of
Directors, and members of the Employee Benefits Committee (Lear
Defendants) breached their fiduciary duties to the participants in the
401(k) plans by approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger
Agreement) with AREP Car Holdings Corp. and AREP Car Acquisition Corp.
(AREP Entities), which are both affiliates of Carl C. Icahn.

On March 8, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for expedited discovery to
support a potential motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the Merger
Agreement.

The Lear Defendants filed an opposition to the motion for expedited
discovery on March 22, 2007.  Plaintiff filed a reply on April 11, 2007.
On April 18, 2007, the Judge denied plaintiff’s motion for expedited
discovery.

On March 15, 2007, the plaintiff requested that the case be reassigned to
the judge overseeing, "In re: Lear Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No.
5:06-cv-11735-JCO-VMM."  The Lear Defendants have opposed the
reassignment.

On March 22, 2007, the Lear Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
counts of the complaint against them.  Plaintiff then filed a motion for
preliminary injunction and expedited briefing schedule on April 10, 2007.
The Lear Defendants’ opposition brief is due May 10, 2007.

The Court has not set a hearing date on either of these motions, according
to the company’s May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Qualey v. Jackson et al. Case No. 2:07-cv-10910-GER-RSW,"
filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under
Judge Gerald E. Rosen with referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Barry D. Adler, Esq.
         Adler and Assoc.
         30300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 304
         Farmington Hills, MI 48334
         Phone: 248-855-5090
         E-mail: badler@adlerfirm.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Maya S. Hamie, Esq.
         Bodman
         1901 St. Antoine Street, 6th Floor
         Detroit, MI 48226
         Phone: 313-259-7777
         E-mail: mhamie@bodmanllp.com

              - and –

         Joseph Aviv, Esq.
         Honigman, Miller
         38500 N. Woodward Avenue, Suite 100
         Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5048
         Phone: 248-566-8400
         Fax: 248-566-8507
         E-mail: javiv@honigman.com



LEAR CORP: Mich. Court Nixes AREP Lawsuits, Faces Others in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Circuit Court dismissed class actions that sought to block
Lear Corp.’s acquisition by billionaire investor Carl Icahn.  Lear,
though, still faces a consolidated class action in Delaware over the
acquisition, 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.

Previously, the company agreed to a $2.31 billion buyout offer from
Icahn-controlled American Real Estate Partners LP.  The transaction
involves Mr. Icahn paying $36 per share for the shares he does not already
own.

Between Feb. 9, 2007 and Feb. 21, 2007, certain stockholders filed six
purported class action lawsuits against the Company, certain members of
the Company’s Board of Directors and American Real Estate Partners, L.P.
and certain of its affiliates (collectively AREP).

Three of the lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and
have since been consolidated into a single action. Three of the lawsuits
were filed in Michigan Circuit Court; those too have since been
consolidated into a single action.

The class-action complaints, which are substantially similar, generally
allege that the merger agreement unfairly limits the process of selling
the Company and that certain members of the Company’s Board of Directors
have breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger
agreement and have acted with conflicts of interest in approving the
merger agreement.

The lawsuits seek to enjoin the merger, to invalidate the merger agreement
and to enjoin the operation of certain provisions of the merger agreement,
a declaration that certain members of the Company’s Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement and an
award of unspecified damages or rescission in the event that the proposed
merger with AREP is completed.

On Feb. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action filed
a consolidated amended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings and a
motion to preliminarily enjoin the transactions contemplated by the merger
agreement.

On March 27, 2007, the plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action
filed a consolidated second amended complaint.

On May 9, 2007, the court overseeing the consolidated Michigan action will
hear the Company’s motion to dismiss that action.

A hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction in the
consolidated Delaware action is scheduled for June 6, 2007, and a trial is
scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2007.

Recently, a judge has dismissed the three lawsuits in Michigan that had
been brought on behalf of all Lear Corp. shareholders related to the
merger with AREP on the grounds that there was a prior lawsuit filed in
Delaware.

Lear Corp. -- http://www.lear.com-- is a worldwide supplier of automotive
interior systems based on net sales.  It supplies automotive manufacturers
with complete automotive seat systems, electrical distribution systems and
various electronic products.  Lear also supplies automotive interior
components and systems, including instrument panels and cockpit systems,
headliners and overhead systems, door panels and flooring and acoustic
systems.  It conducts business in three product-operating segments:
seating, interior, and electronic and electrical.  The seating segment
includes seat systems and the components thereof.  The interior segment
includes instrument panels and cockpit systems, headliners and overhead
systems, door panels, flooring and acoustic systems and other interior
products.  The electronic and electrical segment includes electronic
products and electrical distribution systems, primarily wire harnesses and
junction boxes; interior control and entertainment systems, and wireless
systems.


MCKESSON CORP: June 5 Hearing Set for "Dutton" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A June 5, 2007 fairness hearing is slated for the proposed settlement in
the purported class action, "Gary Dutton v. D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc.
et al., Case No. 4-04-CV-00147-SNL," which was filed against a subsidiary
of McKesson Corp., according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

On Feb. 5, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against McKesson Corp.’s
after-acquired subsidiary, D&K Health Care Resources, Inc. and D&K’s
former Chief Executive, Operating and Financial Officers, alleging breach
of fiduciary duties and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

The Commercial Workers Union, Local 655, AFL-CIO, Food Employees Joint
Pension Plan (Lead Plaintiff) in that action sought to represent a class
consisting of purchasers of D&K’s publicly traded common stock during the
period from Aug. 10, 2000 to Sept. 16, 2002 and sought compensatory
damages, costs, fees and expenses of suit.

The action generally alleges that D&K failed to timely disclose that its
sales of branded drugs during most of the class period were heavily
dependent on its ability to purchase drugs from vendor Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. (BMS) at discounted prices and in volume, and that defendants
knew, but did not disclose, that the effect of losing its attractive
purchase terms from BMS would be a material reduction in sales volume and
profit.

On Feb. 23, 2007, the McKesson Corp. entered into a settlement agreement,
which resolves all claims by the D&K shareholders against all defendants.

McKesson Corp. is obligated under the terms of the agreement to pay $19
million, but anticipate recouping $5 million of that amount from D&K’s
insurer.

The settlement has received the preliminary approval of the trial court,
but remains subject to various conditions, including final approval by the
trial court, presently scheduled to be argued on June 5, 2007.

The suit is "Dutton v. D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:04-cv-00147-SNL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of the Eastern District of Missouri under Judge Stephen N.
Limbaugh.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         William S. Lerach, Esq.
         Lerach & Coughlin, LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: billl@lcsr.com

              - and -

         Guri Ademi, Esq.
         Ademi and O'reilly, LLP
         3620 E. Layton Avenue
         Cudahy, WI 53110
         Phone: 414-482-8000
         Fax: 414-482-8001

Representing the defendants are:

         Jessica R. Buturla, Esq.
         Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
         Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP
         825 Eighth Avenue, Worldwide Plaza
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-474-1000
         Fax: 212-474-3700
         E-mail: jbuturla@cravath.com
                 echesler@cravath.com

              - and –

         Glenn E. Davis, Esq.
         Armstrong Teasdale, LLP
         One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600
         St. Louis, MO 63102-2740
         Phone: 314-621-5070
         Fax: 314-612-2241
         E-mail: gdavis@armstrongteasdale.com


MCKESSON CORP: No Trial Date Scheduled for AWP Lawsuit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has yet to be scheduled for the civil class action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts as "New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al. v. First DataBank, Inc. and
McKesson Corp.," which will continue against McKesson Corp.

The suit alleges that commencing in late 2001 and early 2002 and
continuing to the present day, the company and co-defendant First DataBank
(DFB) have effectuated increases in the "Average Wholesale Price" (AWP) of
certain branded drugs, which alleged conduct resulted in higher drug
reimbursement payments by plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

The complaint purports to state claims based on the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, violations of the California
Business and Professions Code and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
and for negligent misrepresentation.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive
damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs and co-defendant FDB announced a proposed
settlement, as to FDB only, which calls for downward adjustments to
certain FDB published AWPs, a prohibition against all future changes to
such AWPs and a prescribed timetable for the cessation of all publication
of AWPs by FDB.

In November 2006, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, although with certain restrictions as to the type of class
that could be utilized to effect the settlement.

The court has not yet approved a form of class notice, set a schedule for
objections to the settlement or set a date for hearing on final approval.

On May 22, 2007, the court is scheduled to hear plaintiffs’ petition for
class certification and the company’s objections to certification.  The
company has answered the complaint, and the matter is in discovery.

No trial date has been set, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. First
Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Patti B.
Saris.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         George E. Barrett, Esq.
         Barret Johnston & Parsley
         217 Second Avenue N.
         Nashville, TN 37201-1601
         Phone: 615-244-2202
         E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com

         Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq.
         The Wexler Firm, LLC,
         2000 One LaSalle Street
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-346-2222
         Fax: 312-346-0022
         E-mail: jfc@wtwlaw.us

         Barbara Mahoney, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-623-7292
         Fax: 206-623-0594
         E-mail: barbaram@hbsslaw.com

              - and -

         Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300
         Fax: 215-496-6611
         E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com
         Web site: http://www.srk-law.com


NEW ZEALAND: Study Shows Operation Grapple Caused Health Damage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Paine, a lawyer representing New Zealand sailors who were exposed
to hydrogen bomb tests in the Pacific in the 1950s and have filed a suit
against the British government, said new scientific findings could support
their case, New Zealand Herald reports.

Since the bomb tests in 1957 and 1958, many have died and many have
contracted cancers and other illnesses.  The New Zealand Nuclear Test
Veterans Association claims their illnesses and deaths were a result of
the radiation exposure.

Researchers from Massey University in New Zealand released a study this
month confirming what the sailors have already suspected.  The study shows
that the exposure to the hydrogen bomb tests at the Malden and Christmas
Islands have caused them and their children adverse health effects, which
include genetic damage.

Dr. Al Rowland, who led the study, said the results of his research were
indicative of the veterans having incurred "long term genetic damage as a
consequence of performing their duties relating to Operation Grapple".

"Whether the report will impact on the case will be up to the experts,"
Mr. Paine said.

Mr. Paine said the New Zealanders had joined with other former members of
the British and Fijian armed forces who had been at the tests.  He also
added that he aims to include every New Zealander sailor present at the
bomb tests.

The total number of people taking part in the suit is still to be determined.


NSPIRED NATURAL: Recalls Tahini Due To Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
nSpired Natural Foods of San Leandro, California is voluntarily recalling
all MaraNatha Sesame Tahini in 16-oz sizes with a Use By Date of 04/11/08
and earlier, and 15-lb and 32-lb sizes with an expiration date of 01/05/08
(lot 07130) and earlier.

This product has 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
circumstance, 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.

MaraNatha Sesame Tahini was distributed nationally through distributors,
retail stores, and mail order.

MaraNatha Sesame Tahini comes in a 16-oz glass jar, and 15-lb and 32-lb
pails.  Products affected are Organic Raw Sesame Tahini, Organic Roasted
Sesame Tahini, Natural Raw Sesame Tahini and Natural Roasted Sesame
Tahini.

There have been no confirmed cases of illness to date.

Potential salmonella contamination was discovered during routine, random
sample testing by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.  As a result, the
company is recalling this product as a precautionary measure and has put
additional safety measures in place.  No other products produced by the
company, which include Almond Butter, Peanut Butter, Cashew Butter and
Macadamia Nut Butter, are affected by this action.

Consumers who have purchased MaraNatha Sesame Tahini are urged to return
it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 1-800-883-8312.


PFIZER INC: Deadline to Appeal Antitrust Suit’s Nixing Expires
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc. reports that the deadline to appeal the dismissal of the
class action, "In re Canadian Import Antitrust Litigation," has already
expired.

In 2004, a number of purported class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that Pfizer and
several other pharmaceutical manufacturers violated federal and state
civil antitrust laws by conspiring to prevent the importation of
brand-name prescription drugs from Canada.

These suits were consolidated into a single action in the District of
Minnesota, captioned, "In re Canadian Import Antitrust Litigation."

In August 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss this
action, and the plaintiffs appealed the decision.

In November 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
affirmed the District Court's decision.

The period within which the plaintiffs had the right to seek an appeal to
the U.S. Supreme Court has expired, 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 April 1, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Canadian Import Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
0:04-cv-02724-JNE-JGL," filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts
under Judge Joan N. Ericksen.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
         Gustafson Gluek, PLLC
         608 2nd Ave., S. Ste. 650
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-333-8844
         Fax: 612-339-6622
         E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

              - and –

         William R. Kane, Esq.
         Miller Faucher & Cafferty, LLP,
         18th & Cherry St., Ste. 1700
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-864-2800
         E-mail: wkane@millerfaucher.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Daniel R. Shulman, Esq.
         Gray Plant Mooty Mooty & Bennett, PA
         80 S. 8th St., Ste. 500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-632-3000
         Fax: 612-632-4444
         E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com

              - and –

         J. Cunyon Gordon, Esq.
         Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg, LLP
         224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1100
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-660-7616
         E-mail: cgordon@eimerstahl.com


PFIZER INC: Faces Purported Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc., and certain key officers and/or directors were named as
defendants in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on December 2006, alleging
defendants violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety
and efficacy of Torcetrapib and the progress of the development program
for Torcetrapib, a product candidate whose development program was
terminated on Dec. 2, 2006.

In April 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other
things, expanded the purported class period. Pursuant to the amended
complaint, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all
persons who purchased Pfizer securities between Jan. 19, 2005 and Dec. 2,
2006 and were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of Pfizer's
stock, allegedly attributable to the misrepresentations that followed the
announcement of the termination of the Torcetrapib development program.

The action seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, 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 April 1, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Pfizer, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:06-cv-14199-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Ashley H. Kim, Esq.
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: 212-964-0046
         Fax: 212-687-8137
         E-mail: ashley@spornlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Martin L. Seidel, Esq.
         Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
         One World Financial Center
         New York, NY 10281
         Phone: 212.504.5643
         Fax: 212.504.6387
         E-mail: martin.seidel@cwt.com


PHILIPPINES: Press to Pursue Lawsuit Against First Gentleman
------------------------------------------------------------
The Makati City Regional Trial Court in the Philippines has ordered
journalists who filed a class action suit against First Gentleman Jose
Miguel Arroyo to signify their intention to pursue the case, Manila
Standard Today reports.

Judge Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles ordered the plaintiffs to manifest in
writing their intent to pursue the case after Mr. Arroyo's withdrawal of
the libel suits he filed against 41 reporters in different courts in
Manila.  It was in connection with reports of election fraud and
corruption.

The journalists contest Mr. Arroyo's claim that he has been maligned as a
private citizen by their reports.  They claim Mr. Arroyo tried to stifle
freedom of the press and abused his power.  Mr. Arroyo sought at least
$2,872,275.41 (PHP141 million) in supposed damages.

Judge Laguilles also asked Mr. Arroyo's legal team to submit a copy of the
petition for certiorari they filed in the Court of Appeals.

In April, the court accepted amendments to the suit, which included the
omission of the word "each" from the sum of damages being sought, saying
it was just a clerical error.  It would have required them to pay higher
docket fees.  They also corrected the names and addresses of the
complainants.

Attorney Harry Roque, former University of the Philippines professor,
represents the plaintiffs.  He said they will pursue their case despite
Mr. Arroyo's withdrawal of his.  He said the damage has been done and the
media were already intimidated.

The suit is asking $305,561.21 (PHP15 million) in damages for the anxiety,
loss of income, and other inconveniences Mr.
Arroyo's libel suits have allegedly caused.

Based on the report, out of 41 journalists and three news organizations,
Daily Tribune, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility and the
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, 36 filed suit, which they
claimed as a "social experiment" on behalf of the Philippine press.

For more information, contact the plaintiffs' lawyer:

          Harry Roque, Esq.
          1904 Antel Corporate Center
          121 Valero Street Salcedo Village
          Makati City Philippines 1227
          Phone:  +632 8873894
          Fax: +632 8873893

Mr. Arroyo's lead counsel is:

          Ruy Alberto Rondain, Esq.
          Rondain Mendiola & Pio De Roda Law Office
          405 OMM-CITRA Bldg., 39 San Miguel Ave., Pasig City
          Phone: 633-2421 to 22


PPG INDUSTRIES: Former Employees Sue Over Age Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Five former employees of PPG Industries Inc. filed a class-action
complaint alleging the company pressured them and other workers to retire
or resign because of their age, Joyce Gannon of the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette reports.

The same five plaintiffs who are in their 50s and early 60s also charged
the company of age discrimination last year with the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, Penn. alleges:

     * PPG didn't give them salary, bonuses, vacation time, and
       insurance as well as pension benefits because they were
       forced to leave before their retirement age;

     * during the past 10 years the company has put in place
       aggressive workforce reductions that targeted older
       employees who had higher salaries and were close to
       retirement;

     * senior management of PPG instilled a corporate-wide
       mentality that the older employees were 'not pulling
       their weight';

     * older employees often were dismissed without notice and
       without explanation;

     * in some cases, PPG fabricated poor performance reviews of
       older employees they wanted to terminate; and

     * the pattern of discrimination began when Raymond LeBoeuf
       assumed the positions as chairman and chief executive
       officer and retired in 2005.

Linda Austin and Arthur Rupert, two of the plaintiffs, used to work at the
Springdale facility.

For more information about the suit, contact the plaintiffs' counsel:

          Bruce C. Fox, Esq.
          Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP
          One Mellon Center, Suite 5240, 500 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
          Phone: 412-288-2462
          Cell Phone: 412-352-6216
          Fax: 412-566-1508
          Web Site: http://www.obermayer.com


R.A.B. FOOD: Recalls Bottled Juices that Could Rupture, Break
-------------------------------------------------------------
R.A.B. Food Group, LLC is recalling these products:

     * Manischewitz Sparkling Concord Grape Juice (UPC# 72700-
       05361) All Lot Codes; and

     * Manischewitz Sparkling Niagara Grape Juice (UPC# 72700-
       05362) All Lot Codes

Several bottles have been found to be fermenting which will cause
additional pressure in the bottle.  This may lead to the popping of the
cap or rupturing of the bottle.

There have been several incidents of rupturing bottles, which could pose a
hazard from broken glass.  Immediate disposal of the product is warranted
and should be done in a careful manner.

There is no health risk posed from consuming the product and no consumer
who has ingested the product is at any risk of illness or bad effects.

The recalled product has been distributed to retail stores throughout the
United States and Canada.

Consumers that purchased any of the above products may contact R.A.B. Food
Group, LLC for a full refund with proof of purchase.  Consumers with
questions about the recall or seeking a refund should call 1-201-453-5200.


RED ROBIN: Agrees to Settle "Andropolis," "Wilster" for $1.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
After mediation, the parties to the purported class actions, "Andropolis
v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, et al. (consolidated with "Baird v. Red
Robin Gourmet Burgers, et al."), and "Wilster v. Snyder et al.," have
signed memoranda of understanding providing for settlements to resolve the
litigations, each settlement subject to approval by the court.

While the Company and the individual defendants continue to believe that
the actions were properly dismissed by the district court, a decision was
made to enter into these memoranda of understanding to avoid the burden,
risk and expense that would result from the continued pursuit by
plaintiffs of the appeals and underlying claims in these lawsuits.

The proposed Andropolis settlement involves a $1.5 million payment,
covered by insurance, to the putative class and its counsel.  The proposed
Wilster settlement involves the payment of $250,000 to plaintiff’s
counsel, also covered by insurance, and an agreement to adopt certain
corporate governance measures.  The Company expects that the proposed
Andropolis settlement will be filed with the court prior to the end of
May, and that the proposed Wilster settlement will be filed in late May or
early June.


STRATEGIC ENERGY: Still Faces Suit in Pa. Over Power Supply Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Energy, L.L.C., a business segment of Great Plains Energy, Inc.,
remains a defendant in a purported class action over its Power Supply
Coordination Service Agreements.

In 2005, a class action complaint for breach of contract was filed against
the company in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs purportedly represent the interests of certain customers in
Pennsylvania who entered into the agreement or a certain product in
Pennsylvania.

The complaint seeks monetary damages, attorney fees and costs and a
declaration that the customers may terminate their agreement with the
company.

In response to Strategic Energy’s preliminary objections, plaintiffs have
filed an amended complaint that management is evaluating.

Plaintiffs have granted Strategic Energy an indefinite extension of time
to answer the complaint.

The company provided no new development in the matter in its May 9, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Great Plains Energy, Inc. -- http://www.greatplainsenergy.com/-- is a
public utility holding company and does not own or operate any significant
assets other than the stock of its subsidiaries.  Great Plains Energy has
four direct subsidiaries with operations: Kansas City Power & Light Co.,
KLT Inc., Innovative Energy Consultants, Inc., and Great Plains Energy
Services, Inc.  KCP&L's sole reportable business segment is KCP&L.
Strategic Energy, L.L.C. is the subsidiary of KLT Energy Services.  Great
Plains Energy, through its direct and indirect subsidiaries, has two
business segments: KCP&L and Strategic Energy.


SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: N.Y. Judge Allows Workers’ Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. District judge ruled on May 11 that a case over back wages for
current and former employees of Sutherland Global Services in Rochester,
Syracuse, Virginia Beach, Va., and San Diego, Calif. could be considered
as a collective action, Diana Louise Carter of Democratandchronicle.com
reports.

The federal portion of the suit indicates it could affect about 18,000
workers while labor statutes could affect nearly 30,000 employees,
allowing inclusion of more former employees.

The federal suit alleges that the company:

     - encourages employees to start working early, but
       discourages them from claiming those hours;

     - automatically deducts a lunch hour whether employees
       worked through them or not; and

     - does not account the commissions and bonuses in
       calculating overtime pay.

The Pittsford-based company has denied these claims.  The company believes
they have calculated and paid their employees' overtime accurately and
that these claims are without merit.

The suit seeks overtime pay dating back to Oct. 11, 2002.

About ten days after the judge's decision, Sutherland, in an unrelated
case, agreed to pay approximately 300 employees $144,418 in back wages in
Rochester, New York.

The suit is "Sherrill et al. v. Sutherland Global Services, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 6:05-cv-06537-DGL-MWP," filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York under Judge David G. Larimer with
referral to Judge Marian W. Payson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stanley J. Matusz, Esq.
          161 Rutgers St.
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Phone: 585-271-5460
          Fax: 585-426-4653
          E-mail: smatusz@rochester.rr.com

Representing the Defendant/s is:

          Linda T. Prestegaard, Esq.
          Phillips Lytle, LLP,
          1400 First Federal Plaza
          Rochester, NY 14614
          Phone: 585-238-2029
          Fax: 585-232-3141
          E-mail: lprestegaard@phillipslytle.com


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Moves to Dismiss Ga. Price-Fixing Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss two of three
counts of a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia that accuses it of restraining trade and
fixing prices of mattresses.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and, under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), as representatives of a
class made up of all persons and entities who purchased Tempur-Pedic brand
mattresses for delivery in the United States, at any time from Jan. 5,
2003 to the present, directly from TPX or from an authorized distributor
and/or their selling agents.

The class seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust
laws.

The purported class raises the question of:

      -- whether distributors agreed with TPX on minimum resale
         prices for Tempur-Pedic brand mattresses;

      -- whether distributors agreed with TPX to fix the price
         at which the distributors and TPX would sell Tempur-
         Pedic brand mattresses to consumers;

      -- the identities of the parties to the agreements;

      -- the duration, extent, and success of the agreements to
         set minimum resale prices for Tempur-Pedic brand
         mattresses;

      -- the duration, extent, and success of the agreements to
         fix the price a which TPX and its distributors would
         sell Tempur-Pedic brand mattresses to consumers;

      -- whether the agreements violated the federal antitrust
         laws;

      -- whether an injunction should issue to prohibit TPX and
         its distributors from engaging in conduct in violation
         of the antitrust laws;

      -- whether and to what extent the conduct of TPX and its
         distributors caused injury to the class members; and

      -- the appropriate measure of damages to the class
         members.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment against
defendants as follows:

     -- that the court certify this action as a class action
        pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules
        of Civil Procedure, and designate plaintiffs as the
        representatives of the class and counsel for plaintiffs
        as counsel for the class;

     -- that the court adjudge and decree that TPX has engaged
        in unlawful conduct in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- that the court order TPX to pay the class and plaintiffs
        actual damages as result of the unlawful overcharges
        identified, trebled as required under Section 4 of the
        Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15;

     -- that the court enjoin TPX from continuing or resuming
        its unlawful anticompetitive conduct as permitted under
        Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 26;

     -- that the court order TPX to pay the costs of this
        action, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, as
        permitted under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 15; and

     -- that the court grant all other relief as may be deemed
        equitable, appropriate and just.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1889


The Company filed a motion to dismiss two of the three counts of the
Jacobs action on February 23, 2007.

The suit is "Jacobs et al v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
Case No. 4:07-cv-00002-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge Harold L.
Murphy.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq.
          Craig Gordon Harley, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street
          NE, Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476
          E-mail: mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com
                  CHarley@chitwoodlaw.com
                  jmw@classlaw.com;

         - and -
          Robert Kirtley Finnell, Esq.
          The Finnell Firm
          Suite 200, P.O. Box 63
          One West Fourth Avenue, Rome, GA 30162-0063
          Phone: 706-235-7272
          E-mail: bob@finnelllawfirm.com


TOWN SPORTS: Overtime Lawsuit in N.Y. Under Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International, Inc., the parent of New York Sports
Club chains, has agreed to enter into mediation to resolve a class action
alleging violations of various overtime provisions of the New York State
Labor Law by the company.

The suit, "Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town Sports International, Inc.," was
filed on March 1, 2005 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County.  The plaintiffs are Sarah Cruz of Union City, New Jersey, and
Mathew Dockswell of Forest Hills, New York.

Plaintiffs contend that they and many other employees routinely worked
more than 40 hours in a week but didn't earn overtime because the company
deliberately misclassified them as managers.

According to court documents, the lawyers are seeking class-action status
for the lawsuit, which they say could involve hundreds of personal
trainers and assistant fitness managers at 65 New York Sports Clubs in the
state, including in New York City and on Long Island.

The suit covers the past six years.  It states that Ms. Cruz, 30, who has
worked for the chain since 1999, often has worked 13-hour days, five days
a week, or about 65 hours, and Mr. Dockswell, who has worked for New York
Sports Club since 2002, has regularly worked more than 40 hours a week.

On or about Nov. 2, 2005, the lawsuit was stayed upon agreement of the
parties pending mediation.  On or about Nov. 28, 2006, the plaintiffs gave
notice that they wished to lift the stay.

On or about Feb. 7, the plaintiffs made a motion requesting leave to file
a second amended complaint, which seeks to add to the purported class all
New York hourly employees and alleged additional violations of the
provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of
wages.

Town Sports has agreed to enter into mediation with respect to such
employees, as well as trainers and assistant fitness managers, according
to the company's March 12 regulatory filing.

The company reported no development at its May 27 form 10-q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2007.

Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.mysportsclubs.com.


TV AZTECA: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Charges for $1.2M
----------------------------------------------------------
TV Azteca, S.A. de C.V. settled the securities class action "In Re: TV
Ateca S.A. De C.V., Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-546
(JES)," filed against it and certain of its directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The settlement is on behalf of investors who purchased the American
Depository Receipt Shares of TV Azteca S.A. de C.A. during the period from
June 17, 2003 through and including January 9, 2004.

Lead Plaintiff’s Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint filed with
the Court on November 3, 2004 alleged violations of Sections 10b, Rule
10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint
asserted that defendants:

     -- TV Azteca,
     -- Chairman Ricardo Benjamin Salinas Pliego (Salinas),
     -- President Moises Saba Masri (Saba),
     -- Chief Executive Officer Pedro Padilla Longoria
        (Padilla),
     -- Chief Financial Officer Carlos Hesles Flores (Hesles),
        and
     -- Codisco Investments LLC (Codisco)

disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted to
disclose material adverse facts in press releases and financial statements
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concerning, among
other things, TV Azteca’s financial and business operations.

More specifically, the Complaint asserted that Defendants:

     -- employed a fraudulent scheme;

     -- made material misrepresentations and concealed material
        facts regarding Codisco’s purchase of an unpaid debt of
        Unefon, S.A. de C.V. (Unefon) - a mobile phone company
        and subsidiary of TV Azteca – to Nortel Networks Corp.
        for $107 million (representing a substantial discount to
        its face value); and

     -- subsequently causing Unefon to use the proceeds from an
        unrelated business deal to repay the entire amount of
        the debt - $325 million to Codisco in cash. Defendants’
        alleged fraudulent scheme allowed Salinas and Saba to
        reap profits of approximately $218 million.

In addition the Complaint alleged that Defendants’ unlawful scheme and
course of conduct artificially inflated the price of TV Azteca ADRs,
injuring those persons and entities who purchased or acquired their TV
Azteca ADRs during the Class Period. Defendants deny that they did
anything wrong.

Earlier, Defendants have agreed to create a $1.2 million cash Securities
Litigation Settlement Fund. The balance of this fund, after payment of
court-approved attorneys’ fees and expenses and the costs of claims
administration, including the costs of printing and mailing this Notice
and the cost of publishing notice (the Net Settlement Fund), will be
divided among all Class Members who submit timely and valid claim forms.

In addition to the Net Settlement Fund, the Class may receive an
additional, approximately $8.7 million in cash from the SEC Fair Fund,
should the District Court for the District of Columbia agree that those
monies may be distributed in conjunction with the Net Settlement Fund. The
failure of such approval for distribution of the SEC Fair Fund in
conjunction with the Net Settlement Fund will not effect the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund as prescribed in the Notice.

The United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, will hold a fairness hearing on July 19, 2007, 3:00
p.m. in the courtroom of the Honorable John E. Sprizzo.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is July 5, 2007.  Deadline to
file claims is Sept. 12, 2007.

A copy of the Settlement Notice is available free of charge at:

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2042

TV Azteca S.A. de C.V. Securities Litigation on the net:

             http://www.tvaztecasecuritiessettlement.com

The suit is "In Re TV Azteca S.A. De C.V. Securities Litigation," Case No.
1:04-cv-00546-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge John E. Sprizzo.

Lead Counsel:

          Kay E. Sickles, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Schriffin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087

Defendant's Counsel:

          Joseph De Simone, Esq.
          Mauricio A. España, Esq.
          Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
          1675 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019-5820


UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Appeals Order in Tuition Fee Hike Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for four individuals who were University of Arizona students in
2003 argued before the state Supreme Court to convince the court to allow
a suit challenging the institution's tuition fee increase, the Associated
Press reports.

Paul Gattone is representing the students in a suit seeking certification
of a class who paid a 39.1% tuition increase in 2003.  He is accusing the
Arizona Board of Regents, which is overseeing the university, of having an
arbitrary policy.

In November, an appeals court sided with the students, saying the students
could hold the board accountable for what it called "excessive or other
than reasonable" tuition and fees.

The regents appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court.

The court is expected to issue a decision on the case soon although the
justices gave no exact timetable, according to the report.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Discovery Continues in Tenn. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in "In re UnumProvident Corp. Securities
Litigation" pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee

On Feb. 12, 2003, the first of six virtually identical putative securities
class actions was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee.

In two orders dated May 21, 2003, and Jan. 22, 2004, the court
consolidated these actions as "In re UnumProvident Corp. Securities
Litigation."

On Jan. 9, 2004, the Lead Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of UnumProvident
stock between March 30, 2000 and April 24, 2003.

The amended complaint alleges that:

     -- the company issued misleading financial statements,

     -- improperly accounted for certain impaired investments,

     -- failed to properly estimate the company's disability
        claim reserves, and

     -- pursued certain improper claims handling practices.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  On March 19, 2004, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On Sept. 12, 2005, the court issued a memorandum and order denying in
part, and granting in part, the motion to dismiss.
The court granted the motion with respect to lead plaintiff's claims
concerning our investments and denied the motion challenging the other
alleged misstatements.

Discovery, which had been stayed in this action pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, has now begun, according to the
company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: UnumProvident Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 03-CV-00049" filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis
L. Collier.

Plaintiff firms named in the complaint are:

       (1) Barrett, Johnston & Parsley, 217 Second Avenue, N,
           Nashville, TN, 37201, Phone: 615.244.2202;

       (2) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
           One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109, Phone:
           617.542.8300;

       (3) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York,
           NY), 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New
           York, NY, 10019, Phone: 212.554.1400, Fax:
           212.554.1444, E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com;

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

     (5) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com; and

     (6) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in 401(k) Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in lawsuit against UnumProvident Corp., which was filed on behalf
of participants and beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) Retirement Plan
in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, have reached
agreement in principle for the resolution of the matter.

On April 29, 2003, the first of two identical putative class actions, "Gee
v. UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed on behalf of participants
and beneficiaries of UnumProvident's 401(k) Retirement Plan (Plan), and
the actions were later consolidated.

On Jan. 9, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against
the company, several of the company's officers and directors, and several
alleged Plan fiduciaries on behalf of a putative class of individuals that
held UnumProvident stock in their 401(k) retirement accounts subsequent to
Nov. 17, 1999.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by making misrepresentations and omissions regarding
investment in UnumProvident stock and by acting imprudently in failing to
take action to protect participants from losses sustained from investments
in the Plan's UnumProvident Stock Fund.

On Feb. 26, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss contending that
the complaint failed to state a valid claim under ERISA.

On Jan. 13, 2005, the court denied that motion.  The defendants filed an
answer to the complaint denying all material allegations on Feb. 28, 2005.

On March 10, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.
The defendants filed an opposition on June 10, 2005, and the matter is
under submission with the court.

On Nov. 30, 2005, the court entered a schedule providing for the
completion of pretrial discovery by Oct. 17, 2006.  No trial date has been
set for the action.

During the first quarter of 2007, the company executed a settlement
agreement resolving the plan beneficiary class action.  The settlement
agreement, the net cost of which is immaterial, is subject to review by an
independent fiduciary, notice to the proposed settlement class, and Court
approval following a fairness hearing.

The suit is "Gee v. Unumprovident Corp., et al., Case No. 1:03-
cv-00147," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis L. Collier with
referral to Judge C. Clifford Shirley.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Tony R. Dalton, Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen &
         Carpenter, P.O. Box 900, Knoxville, TN 37901-0900,
         Phone: 865-215-1000, Fax: 865-215-1001, E-mail:
         daltont@wmbac.com;

     (2) Andrew L. Berke and Ronald J. Berke of Berke, Berke &
         Berke, P.O. Box 4747, Chattanooga, TN 37405-4747,
         Phone: 423-266-5171, Email: andrew@berkeattys.com and
         ronnie@berkeattys.com; and

     (3) Edward W. Ciolko, Joseph H. Meltzer and Katherine
         Bornstein of Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Three Bala Plaza
         East Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Email:
         eciolko@sbclasslaw.com, jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com, and
         kbornstein@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the Company is John P. Konvalinka, Grant,
Konvalinka & Harrison, PC, 633 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 One
Republic Centre, Chattanooga, TN 37450, Phone: 423-756-8400,
Fax: 423-756-6518, Email: jkonvalinka@gkhpc.com.


UNUM LIFE: Tenn. Court Yet to Rule in Policyholders Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has not yet
ruled on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act Benefit
Denial Actions filed against Unum Life Insurance Company of
America.

On July 15, 2002, "Rombeiro v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America, et
al.," was filed in the Superior Court of California and subsequently was
removed to federal court, alleging that the plaintiff was wrongfully
denied disability benefits under a group long-term disability plan.

On January 21, 2003, an Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of individuals that were denied or terminated from benefits
under group long-term disability plans, seeking injunctive and declaratory
relief and payment of benefits.  On April 30, 2003, the court granted in
part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
On May 14, 2003, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint seeking
similar relief.

Between November 2002 and November 2003, six additional similar putative
class actions were filed in (or later removed to) federal district courts
in Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.  The
complaints alleged that the putative class members’ claims were evaluated
improperly and allege that the Company and its insurance subsidiaries
breached certain fiduciary duties owed to the class members under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act, and/or various state laws.  The complaints sought
various forms of equitable relief and money damages, including punitive
damages.

These actions all were transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee
multidistrict litigation.  On December 22, 2003, the Tennessee Federal
District Court entered an order consolidating all of the above actions for
all pretrial purposes under the caption, "In re UnumProvident Corp. ERISA
Benefit Denial Actions" and appointed a lead plaintiff.  A consolidated
amended complaint was filed on February 20, 2004.  Several motions remain
pending before the court in this matter.

                "Taylor v. UnumProvident Corp."

On April 30, 2003, a separate putative class action, Taylor v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al., was filed in the Tennessee Circuit
Court and subsequently removed to federal court.  The complaint alleges
claims against UnumProvident and certain subsidiaries on behalf of a
putative class of long-term disability insurance policyholders who did not
obtain their coverage through employer sponsored plans and who had a claim
denied, terminated, or suspended by a UnumProvident subsidiary after
January 1, 1995, seeking equitable and monetary relief. Plaintiff alleges
that the defendants violated various state laws by engaging in unfair
claim practices and improperly denying claims.

The court subsequently granted in part our motion for summary judgment in
Taylor, dismissing plaintiff’s request for equitable relief on her breach
of contract claim and dismissing any claim plaintiff may make for punitive
damages under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  The former claim is
the principal claim upon which class certification is sought.  The court
reserved ruling on the remainder of the pending motion for summary
judgment pending further mediation of the Taylor and ERISA Benefit
actions.

The company reported no development in the case at its May 7, 2007 form
10-Q filing for the quarter ended March 31, 2007.

Meanwhile, court ordered mediation has concluded with the settlement of
all individual claims brought by seven of the 15 named plaintiffs in the
ERISA Benefit Denial Actions.  An eighth plaintiff has subsequently
resolved her claims through the process established under the regulatory
settlement agreements.


USANA HEALTH: Faces Three Securities Fraud Suits in Utah Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Usana Health Sciences, Inc. is facing three lawsuits filed on behalf of
those who purchased the company’s common stock on the open market during
the period of July 18, 2006 through March 14, 2007.

During and subsequent to the first quarter, three class actions were filed
in the United States District Court, District of Utah, Central Division,
against the Company; Myron W. Wentz, chief executive officer; David A.
Wentz, president; and Gilbert A. Fuller, chief financial officer.

The suits are:

     -- "Ashok Kapur, et al., v. Usana Health Sciences, Inc. et.
         al.,"

     -- "Guerin Senter, et al., v. Usana Health Sciences, Inc.,
         et. al.,"

     -- "Edward Shaw, et al., v. Usana Health Sciences, Inc.,
         et. al."

The plaintiffs allege in each case that they were persons who purchased
shares of our common stock on the open market during the period of July
18, 2006 through March 14, 2007, and each complaint seeks certification as
a class action on behalf of other purchasers of our stock during that time
period.

Plaintiffs claim, among other things, that we violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
knowingly or recklessly failing to make certain statements that the
Plaintiff alleges should have been made, including statements regarding
the multi-level marketing industry and anti-pyramid laws, sustainability
of our marketing plan, Associate sales to end-user customers, and
Associate turnover, income, and profitability.

Plaintiffs assert that because of such alleged omissions, our statements
about our future business prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis and
that our reported results and financial statements were misstated.  The
complaints seek damages, pre-judgment interest, costs, attorney’s fees and
other further relief deemed appropriate by the court.  These lawsuits are
at any early stage, and class certification has not yet been granted.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


STERLING FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action on behalf purchasers of
Sterling Financial Corporation common stock from April 27, 2004 through
May 24, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges that certain present and former officers, employees,
and directors of Sterling's wholly owned subsidiaries Equipment Finance
LLC and Bank of Lancaster County, N.A. violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by engaging in a scheme to defraud
the investing public and to artificially inflate the stock price of
Sterling.

The complaint alleges that certain officers and employees of EFI engaged
in a sophisticated loan scheme to cause Sterling to issue materially false
and misleading financial information to the investing public in order to
artificially inflate Sterling's stock price in violation of federal
securities laws.

The complaint asserts that on April 30, 2007 Sterling announced that it
expected to restate its previously issued financial statements for FY 2004
through and including FY 2006 in connection with certain accounting
irregularities at its EFI wholly owned subsidiary.

The company announced that EFI's CEO and president had voluntarily
relinquished his positions.  This adverse announcement caused to company's
stock to fall nearly 19%.

After market-close on May 24, 2007, Sterling announced preliminary results
from its ongoing investigation.  According to the complaint, the
investigation revealed evidence of a sophisticated loan scheme,
orchestrated deliberately by certain EFI officers and employees over an
extended period of time to conceal credit delinquencies, falsify financing
contracts and related documents, and subvert established internal controls
established by Sterling.

As a result, the company announced it terminated 5 employees at EFI and
expected to take a cumulative after-tax charge of $145 million to $160
million to the Company's FY 2006 results.  Further announcements on May
24, 2007 revealed the company was halting its dividend.  This announcement
caused the company's stock to fall nearly 40% on May 25, 2007.

Interested parties must move the court no later than 60 days from May 25
or no later than Aug. 23, 2007.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York as case no. 07-CV-4108.  You can obtain a copy of the
complaint from the clerk of court or you may contact counsel for
plaintiffs:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Phone: 212 686-1060
          Weekends Phone: 917 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com  or pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web Site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *