CAR_Public/070605.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 5, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 110

                           Headlines      


ARIBA INC: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Cal. Securities Suit
BIOMET INC: Agrees to Settle Suits Over LVB Acquisition Merger
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mass. Securities Complaint Dismissal Appealed
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Suits in Fla., Idaho Over TAXUS Express
CANADA: Elders Sue State Over Increase in Nursing Home Fees

CAMBREX CORP: Continues to Face “Dodge” Securities Suit in N.J.
CHARLES SCHWAB: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
CV THERAPEUTICS: Calif. Court Okays $13.5M Securities Suit Deal
GUIDANT CORP: 7th Circuit Mulls Appeal on ERISA Suit Dismissal
GUIDANT CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Minn. Securities Fraud Suit

HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Penna. Suit Over RESPA Violations
INTERNET GAMING: Faces Lawsuit in Fla. Over "Gold Farming"
KENTUCKY: Daviess County Sued Over Insurance Tax Ordinance
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Still Faces Consolidated OSB Antitrust Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Settles Suit Over Firefighter Exams for $1.45M

MCDONALD'S CORP: Moves for Dismissal of French Fries Suits
MEDSTAFF INC: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Wage Suit
MEDSTAFF INC: Seeks Summary Judgment in Calif. Labor Lawsuit
NATIONAL HOME: Settles Helaba Invest Suit Over Planned Merger
NBC UNIVERSAL: Calif. Suit Alleges Gambling Laws Violations

NELLCOR PURITAN: Continues to Face Calif. Consumer Fraud Suits
TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face Calif. Wage, Hour Lawsuits
TENET HEALTHCARE: Oct. 1 Trial Scheduled for BRCHI Litigation
TENET HEALTHCARE: Still Faces Medical Malpractice Suits in La.
XL CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Conn. Securities Fraud Complaint

* Bill Lerach Mulls Resignation; Milberg’s Bershad Talks Pleas
* Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler Extends Practice to Israel


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SHUFFLE MASTER: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit in Nev.
SOURCEFIRE INC: Lerach Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
STERLING FINANCIAL: Lerach Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


ARIBA INC: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Cal. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the purported securities fraud class action, "Ariba Investors
Group et al. v. McCormick et al.," which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, plan to seek for the dismissal
of the second amended complaint in the matter.

On Oct. 31, 2005, a purported class action, alleging violations of Sections 10
(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  The company is not
named as a defendant in the suit.       

The action was brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's
stock from Jan. 28, 2004 through Jan. 31, 2005.   

It alleges that the defendants artificially inflated them company's stock
price between those dates by failing to disclose, in public statements that
the company made about its products, market position and performance, that
some of those products allegedly infringed patents belonging to a third
party.   

On Jan. 18, 2006, plaintiff Jonathan Crowell filed a motion for appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  On June 8,  
2006, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel.   

On Aug. 28, 2006, the case was transferred to the U.S. District  
Court for the Northern District of California.  Plaintiff has until Dec. 4,
2006 to file an amended complaint.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 5,
2007.  In response, plaintiff has withdrawn its complaint and will file a
second amended complaint.

The defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended
complaint on July 13, 2007, 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 "Ariba Investors Group et al. v. McCormick et al.,  
Case No. 3:06-cv-05575-MHP," filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Marilyn H.  
Patel.

Representing plaintiffs are:  

         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-371-6600
         Fax: 212-751-2540
         E-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com

              - and -

         Mark Campbell, Esq.
         Shuford Kaufman & Canoles
         1051 E Cary Street, 3 James Center, 12th Floor
         Richmond, VA 23219  
         Phone: (804) 771-5700

Representing the defendants are:

         Jonathan Richard DeFosse, Esq.
         Shearman & Sterling LLP,  
         801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20004
         Phone: (202) 508-8000
         Fax: (202) 661-7374

              - and -

         Jeffrey S. Facter, Esq.
         Shearman & Sterling LLP
         525 Market Street, Suite 1500
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-616-1100
         Fax: 415-616-1199
         E-mail: jfacter@shearman.com


BIOMET INC: Agrees to Settle Suits Over LVB Acquisition Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Biomet, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding on May 31, 2007
regarding the settlement of class actions that were filed on behalf of
Biomet’s shareholders following the announcement of the merger between
Biomet, LVB Acquisition, LLC and LVB Acquisition Merger Sub, Inc., dated as
of December 18, 2006.

On December 20, 2006, a purported class action, “Long, et al. v. Hann, et
al.,” was filed in Indiana State court in the County of Kosciusko.  The
lawsuit names as defendants each member of the Biomet board of directors at
the time, Dane Miller, Ph.D. and Blackstone Capital Partners V L.P., KKR 2006
Fund L.P., Goldman Sachs Investments Ltd. and TPG Partners V, L.P.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached, or
aided and abetted the breach of, fiduciary duties owed to Biomet shareholders
by Biomet’s directors in connection with, among other things, Biomet’s entry
into the merger agreement.  

The complaint seeks, among other relief:

     -- class certification of the lawsuit;

     -- a declaration that the merger agreement was entered into
        in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants;

     -- an injunction preventing the defendants from proceeding  
        with the merger unless and until the defendants    
        implement procedures to obtain the highest possible sale  
        price;

     -- an order directing the defendants to exercise their
        fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the  
        best interests of Biomet’s shareholders until the
        process for a sale of Biomet is completed and the
        highest price is obtained;

     -- an order directing the defendants to exercise their
        fiduciary duty to disclose all material information in
        their possession concerning the merger prior to the
        shareholder vote, including Biomet’s fiscal year 2007
        second quarter financial results;

     -- imposition of a constructive trust upon any benefits  
        improperly received by the defendants;

     -- an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses and such other
        relief as the court might find just and proper.

On March 29 and 30, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs’ complaint, and these motions are currently pending before the
court.

On January 2, 2007, a purported class action, “Gervasio v.  Biomet, Inc., et
al.,” was filed in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York
County.  A virtually identical action was filed on January 9, 2007,
captioned “Corry v. Biomet, Inc., et al.,” in the same court.

Both of these lawsuits named as defendants Biomet, each member of its board
of directors at the time, Dane Miller, Ph.D., The Blackstone Group L.P.,
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Goldman Sachs Capital Partners and Texas
Pacific Group.  The lawsuits made essentially the same claims and sought the
same relief as in the Long action described above.

On January 29, 2007, defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss Gervasio.  On
February 14, 2007, the plaintiff in Corry voluntarily discontinued his
lawsuit and informed defendants that he intended to intervene in Gervasio.  
On March 26, 2007, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Gervasio.

Each of Biomet and the other defendants denies all of the allegations in
these lawsuits, including any allegation that its current disclosures with
regard to the pending merger are false, misleading or incomplete in any way.  
Nevertheless, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Biomet and other
defendants in these cases have agreed in principle to settle them in order to
avoid the potential cost and distraction of continued litigation and to
eliminate any risk of any delay to the closing of the merger posed by these
lawsuits.

Such settlement is subject to execution and delivery of definitive
documentation, the closing of the merger and court approval.  If the
settlement becomes effective, the lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Biomet has agreed to make available
meaningful additional information, including financial information, to its
shareholders.  

In return, the plaintiffs agreed to the dismissal of the actions.  In
addition, the consortium of private equity funds that control LVB
Acquisition, LLC have agreed to cause Biomet (or its successors) to pay the
legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs’ counsel, in an amount of $600,000 in
the aggregate, subject to the approval by the court and the closing of the
merger.

This payment will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid in
the merger.  The details of the settlement will be set forth in a notice to
be sent to Biomet’s shareholders prior to a hearing before the court to
consider the settlement.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to
shareholders of Biomet in connection with the proposed merger between Biomet
and LVB Acquisition, LLC or the timing of the special meeting of shareholders
of Biomet scheduled for Friday, June 8, 2007, beginning at 10:30 a.m., local
time, in the Indiana Room, Aon Center, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago,
Illinois 60601 to vote upon a proposal to approve the merger agreement.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mass. Securities Complaint Dismissal Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint in
their securities fraud class action against Boston Scientific Corp. and
certain of its officers, 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 Sept. 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, filed a purported securities class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities during the period March 31,
2003 through Aug. 23, 2005, alleging that the company and certain of its
officers violated certain sections of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On Sept. 28, 2005, Oct. 27, 2005, Nov. 2, 2005 and Nov. 3, 2005,
Jack Yopp, Robert L. Garber, Betty C. Meyer and John Ryan, respectively, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed additional
purported securities class actions in the same Court on behalf of the same
purported class.

On Feb. 15, 2006, the court ordered that the five class actions be
consolidated and appointed the Mississippi Public Employee
Retirement System Group as lead plaintiff.  A consolidated amended complaint
was filed on April 17, 2006.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the company made material
misstatements and omissions by failing to disclose the supposed merit of the
litigation between the company and
Medinol, Ltd., the company's stent supplier, and Department of
Justice investigation relating to the 1998 NIR ON Ranger with
Sox stent recall, problems with the TAXUS drug-eluting coronary
stent systems that led to product recalls, and the company's ability to
satisfy U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations concerning medical
device quality.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on June 8, 2006, which was granted by the Court on March 30, 2007.  

On April 27, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the Court’s decision.

The suit is "Shankar v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
11934-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq.
         Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Suite 501, 651 Nicollet Mall
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-341-0400
         Fax: 612-341-0844
         E-mail: cga@zimmreed.com
    
              - and -

         Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P.
         Suite 2200, 100 Washington Avenue South
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981
         E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Miranda Hooker, Esq.
         William H. Paine, Esq.
         Monika A. Wirtz, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
         60 State Street
         Boston, MA 02115
         Phone: 617-526-6000 and 617-526-6896
         Fax: 617-526-5000 and 617-526-5000
         E-mail: monika.wirtz@wilmerhale.com
                 miranda.hooker@wilmerhale.com
                 william.paine@wilmerhale.com

              - and -    

         Timothy J. Perla, Esq.
         U.S. District Court, 1 Courthouse Way
         Boston, MA 02210
         Phone: 617-526-6696
         Fax: 617-526-6000
         E-mail: timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Suits in Fla., Idaho Over TAXUS Express
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. is a defendant in two lawsuits involving the TAXUS
Express2 paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent system, 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 Nov. 16, 2006, Michael Seaburn and Beatriz Seaburn filed a suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
themselves and a purported class of plaintiffs resident in the U.S.

On Jan. 23, 2007, Ronald E. and Tammy Coterill filed a suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of plaintiffs resident in the state of Idaho or any
contiguous state.

Both complaints seek certification of class status and also seek compensatory
damages for personal injury, restitution of the purchase price, disgorgement
of our profits associated with the sale of TAXUS stent systems, and, in the
Idaho case, injunctive relief in the form of medical monitoring.

Boston Scientific Corp. -- http://www.bostonscientific.com-- is a developer,  
manufacturer and marketer of medical devices worldwide that are used in a
range of interventional medical specialties including interventional
cardiology, cardiac rhythm management, peripheral interventions, cardiac
surgery, vascular surgery, electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention,
endoscopy, urology, gynecology and neuromodulation.  


CANADA: Elders Sue State Over Increase in Nursing Home Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
An Alberta lawyer filed an application for a class action against the
government and Alberta’s nine health authorities, Florence Loyie of Edmonton
Journal reports.

Attorney Allan Garber of Alberta, Canada, filed the complaint on behalf of
James Darwish and the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society in relation to the
extra charges the province imposed on its nursing home residents.

Mr. Darwish’s late mother, Johanna Darwish, stayed in the Lynnwood Nursing
Home, run by Capital Health.

Mr. Garber argued that while the government declared the increases would only
cover accommodation and housekeeping services, the plaintiffs believe
auxiliary and nursing home residents have been charged for health-related
costs, like laundry services, building maintenance, administration, and meal
preparation and delivery.

He added that the increase is contrary to provincial legislation, which
clearly identifies fee increases as “permissive and discretionary,” and the
Canada Health Act.

In the hearing held last week, the court said the province acted in bad faith
for declaring nursing home fees as fixed and mandatory when its own
regulations say operators “may charge” residents for accommodation and meals.

In August 2003, the accommodation fees for ordinary wards increased by 40 per
cent and 48 per cent for private wards.

In the past two years, about 13,437 were affected by the extra fees, which
amounted to CAN$128 million.

Court of Queen’s Bench Judge Sheila Greckol is hearing the certification for
class-action status.

For more information, contact the plaintiffs’ counsel:

          Allan A. Garber, Esq.
          Parlee McLaws LLP
          1500 Manulife Place, 10180-101 Street
          Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4K1
          Phone: 780-423-8544
          Fax: 780-423-2870


CAMBREX CORP: Continues to Face “Dodge” Securities Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class action, "Dodge v. Cambrex Corp., et
al., Case No. 2:03-cv-04896-WJM-RJH" remains pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

In October 2003, the Company was notified of a securities class action filed
against Cambrex and five former and current Company officers.  

Five class actions were later filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  Discovery in this matter is proceeding.

In January 2004, the Court consolidated the cases, designated the lead
plaintiff and selected counsel to represent the class. An amended complaint
was filed in March 2004.

The lawsuit has been brought as a class action in the names of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from Oct. 21, 1998 through July 25, 2003.

The complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose in a timely fashion
the January 2003 accounting restatement and subsequent SEC investigation, as
well as the loss of a significant contract at the Baltimore facility.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss in May 2004.  Thereafter, the plaintiff
filed a reply brief and in October 2005, the Court denied the Company's
Motion to Dismiss, 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 "Dodge v. Cambrex Corp., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-
04896-WJM-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey under Judge William J. Martini with referral to Judge Ronald J.
Hedges.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joseph J. Depalma, Esq.
         Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
         Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07102-5003
         Phone: (973) 623-3000
         E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com

         Barry A. Knopf, Esq.
         Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
         Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf
         Park 80 Plaza, West One,
         Saddle Brook, NJ 07662
         Phone: (201) 845 9600
         E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com

              - and -
     
         Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
         Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 545-4600
         E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Alan E. Kraus, Esq.
         Latham & Watkins, LLP
         One Newark Center, 16th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07101-3174
         Phone: (973) 639-7293 and 973-639-1234
         E-mail: alan.kraus@lw.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Schwab & Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging Labor Code
violations.

Named plaintiff Linda Young, a former Customer Service Specialist of Charles
Schwab, sues under the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.c. Section 201 et.
seq.  She claims that at no time during her employment was she exempt from
the protection of the overtime provisions of the FLSA.  

Although the plaintiff and other CSS employed by the defendant regularly
worked well in excess of 40 hours per week, they were allegedly not paid
overtime as required by the FLSA.  The failure of the defendant to pay
plaintiff and other CSS overtime was willful, according to the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay that is due her, plus liquidated
damages, for the period commencing three years prior to the complaint.  The
plaintiff also seeks to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the FLSA.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2095

The suit is “Young v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-02828-BZ,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Bernard Zimmerman.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          James F. Clapp, Esq.
          Dostart Clapp Gordon & Coveney, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: (858) 623-4200
          Fax: (858) 623-4299
          E-mail: jclapp@sdlaw.com

          - and -

          Charles A. Jones, Esq.
          McInerney & Jones
          18124 Wedge Parkway, #503
          Reno, NV 89511
          Phone: (775) 849-3811
          Fax: (775) 849-3866


CV THERAPEUTICS: Calif. Court Okays $13.5M Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California gave final
approval to an agreement to settle for $13.5 million a consolidated
securities fraud class action pending against CV Therapeutics, Inc.

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's securities, seeking unspecified damages.  

As is typical in this type of litigation, several other purported securities
class actions containing substantially similar allegations have since been
filed against the defendants, and the company expects that additional
lawsuits containing substantially similar allegations may be filed in the
future.  

The company and certain of its officers and directors were named as
defendants in a purported securities class action filed in August 2003 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
captioned, “Crossen v. CV Therapeutics, Inc., et al.”

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our
securities, seeking unspecified damages.  

In December 2003, the court consolidated all of the securities class actions
filed to date into a single action captioned, “In re CV Therapeutics, Inc.
Securities Litigation.”

In October 2006, the company reached a preliminary agreement to settle the
action.  Under the terms of the preliminary agreement, the company’s insurers
paid an aggregate of $13.5 million to settle all claims and to pay the court-
approved fees of plaintiff’s counsel and the defendants received a complete
release of all claims and expressly denied any wrongdoing.

Final court approval for the settlement was obtained in March 2007, and the
appeals period expired in April 2007, according to the company’s May 8, 2007
Form 10-Q filing for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended march 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: CV Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation,  
Case No. 03-CV-03709," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Susan Illston.  

Plaintiff firms named in the complaint were:  

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin, LLP,  
         Phone: 415.288.4545 and 619.231.1058
         Fax: 415.288.4534 and 619.231.7423
         E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP
         Phone:  415.288.4545 and 800.449.4900
         Fax: 415.288.4534
         E-mail: support@milberg.com


GUIDANT CORP: 7th Circuit Mulls Appeal on ERISA Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal
regarding the dismissal of a purported class action against Guidant Corp.,
according to the Boston’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

In July 2005, a purported class action complaint was filed on behalf of
participants in Guidant's employee pension benefit plans.  This action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against
Guidant and its directors.

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Guidant fiduciaries concealed
adverse information about Guidant's defibrillators and imprudently made
contributions to Guidant's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan in
the form of Guidant stock.

The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief,
monetary damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and costs and
attorneys' fees.

A second, similar complaint was filed and consolidated with the initial
complaint.  

A consolidated, amended complaint was filed on Feb. 8, 2006.  The defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on Sept. 15, 2006, the Court
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

In October 2006, the Plaintiffs appealed the Court's decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  A hearing was held on April 10,
2007.  

This appeal remains pending.

Guidant was acquired by Boston Scientific Corp., --
http://www.bostonscientific.com-- a developer, manufacturer and marketer of  
medical devices worldwide that are used in a range of interventional medical
specialties including interventional cardiology, cardiac rhythm management,
peripheral interventions, cardiac surgery, vascular surgery,
electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention, endoscopy, urology, gynecology
and neuromodulation.  


GUIDANT CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Minn. Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corp., an acquisition of Boston Scientific Corp., is seeking the
dismissal of a consolidated amended complaint in a securities fraud class
action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, according to the Boston’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 Nov. 3, 2005, a securities class-action complaint was filed on behalf of
purchasers of Guidant stock between Dec. 1, 2004 and Oct. 18, 2005 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, against Guidant and
several of its officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants concealed adverse information about
Guidant's defibrillators and pacemakers and sold stock in violation of
federal securities laws.

The complaint seeks a declaration that the lawsuit can be maintained as a
class action, monetary damages, and injunctive relief.

Several additional, related securities class actions were filed in November
2005 and January 2006, and were consolidated with the initial complaint filed
on Nov. 3, 2005.

The Court issued an order consolidating the complaints and appointed the Iron
Workers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan and David Fannon as lead
plaintiffs.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  In August 2006, the
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

Boston Scientific Corp. -- http://www.bostonscientific.com-- is a developer,  
manufacturer and marketer of medical devices worldwide that are used in a
range of interventional medical specialties including interventional
cardiology, cardiac rhythm management, peripheral interventions, cardiac
surgery, vascular surgery, electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention,
endoscopy, urology, gynecology and neuromodulation.  


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Penna. Suit Over RESPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed May 31
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The complaint accuses Hovnanian of taking kickbacks and unearned fees by
requiring homebuyers and sellers to use a specified title insurance company,
in violation of RESPA.

Named plaintiffs Mark W. Mellar and Margaret Ann Liguori bring this action on
behalf of residential mortgage borrowers who:

     -- purchased a home from Hovnanian Enterprises Inc.;

     -- received a mortgage loan for such home purchase that was
        originated, processed and/or brokered by K. Hovnanian
        American Mortgage, LLC; and/or

     -- brought title insurance for such home purchase from a
        title company designated by and affiliated with
        Hovnanian, wherein the borrowers were required by the
        literal terms of their real estate purchase agreement
        with Hovnanian to finance their purchase through
        Hovnanian Mortgage and obtain title insurance through a
        Hovanian-affiliated title company, or else forfeit
        various discounts off of the purchase price and/or
        closing costs for their new home.

By requiring home buyers to finance their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage
and to obtain title insurance through a Hovnanian-affiliated title company,
under the direct threat of having to otherwise pay more money for their new
home, defendants have allegedly failed to comply with the statutory
prerequisites for exemption as an affiliated business arrangement and,
consequently, have violated RESPA’s prohibition against kickbacks and
unearned fees.

Additionally, Hovnanian, as a seller of property, has allegedly violated
Section 9 of RESPA by requiring the use of a particular title insurance
company.

Defendants are accused of engaging in a uniform, systematic pattern and
practice of requiring the use of Hovnanian Mortgage for the financing of home
purchases from Hovnanian and the use of a Hovnanian-affiliated title company
for the provision of title insurance for such home purchases, in violation of
Sections 8 and 9 of RESPA.

             Plaintiffs’ Transaction with Hovnanian

On or about March 30, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Terms and Conditions
Purchase Agreement with Hovnanian, pursuant to which Plaintiffs agreed to
purchase a new home from Hovnanian, located in its “Byers Station” community,
in Chester Springs, Pennsylvania.

Subsequently, plaintiffs entered into an Amendment to Purchase Agreement,
dated April 5, 2007, which amended the purchase price to $427,366.44.  This
Amendment is valid only if K. Hovnanian Mortgage and Governor’s Abstract Co.
are used.

On or about April 7, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Price Reduction
Addendum, which purported to reduce the price of plaintiffs’ home in the
amount of $14,041.78. This price reduction was, once again, conditioned upon
Plaintiffs’ agreement to, inter alia, “use K. Hovnanian American Mortgage,
LLC, an affiliate of Seller, to obtain a mortgage loan and purchase the home
with a loan made by K. Hovnanian American Mortgage, LLC” and “use Governor’s
Abstract Co., Inc., an affiliate of the Seller, to obtain title insurance to
complete the purchase of the home.”

On or about April 7, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Decorator Selection
Credit Addendum, which purported to issue plaintiffs a “Decorator Selection
Credit” at closing in the amount of $55,958.22. This credit was, once again,
conditioned upon Plaintiffs’ agreement to use Hovnanian Mortgage and
Governor’s Abstract for the financing and title insurance of their new home.

As a direct result of the requirement placed upon them by Hovnanian to either
use Hovnanian Mortgage for financing and Governor’s Abstract for title
insurance, or pay an additional $70,000.00 in order to purchase their home,
Plaintiffs financed their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and obtained
title insurance through Governor’s Abstract. Plaintiffs closed on their
purchase on April 26, 2007.

By “requiring” the use of Hovnanian Mortgage and the affiliated title
company, under the threat of charging buyers thousands of dollars more for
their homes, Defendants, however, fail to meet the prerequisites for the
affiliated business arrangement exemption. 12 U.S.C. Section 2607(c).

This is a class action filed on behalf of all residential mortgage borrowers,
nationally, who, within one year of the filing of this Class Action Complaint:

     -- purchased a home from Hovnanian;

     -- received a mortgage loan for such purchase that was
        originated, processed and/or brokered by Hovnanian
        Mortgage; and/or

     -- bought title insurance for such home purchase that was
        provided, processed and/or brokered by a title company
        affiliated with and selected by Hovnanian, wherein the
        borrower(s) were required by the literal terms of their
        real estate purchase agreement with Hovnanian to finance
        their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and obtain
        title insurance through a title company affiliated with
        and selected by Hovnanian, or else forfeit various
        discounts off of the purchase price and/or closing costs
        for their new home.

Plaintiffs and the class respectfully request judgment against Defendants as
follows:

     -- for an Order certifying this action may be maintained as
        a class action, as defined, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
        and 23(b)(3);

     -- for an Order appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of
        the class;

     -- for an Order appointing the undersigned counsel as class
        counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

     -- for an Order directing that reasonable notice of the
        class action be provided to all members of the class at
        the appropriate time after discovery and dispositive
        motions have been resolved;

     -- for violating RESPA, an Order and Judgment finding that
        the Defendants are liable as a matter of law to each
        member of the class for treble damages;

     -- for declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by
        law or equity, including Enjoining Defendants from
        continuing the unlawful practices as set forth herein;

     -- for reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by law and
        statute;

     -- for pre-and-post judgment interest as provided by law in
        an amount according to proof at trial;

     -- for an award of costs and expenses incurred in this
        action; and

     -- for such other relief as the Court may deem just and
        proper.

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?208f

The suit is “Mellar et al. v. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. et al, Case No.
2:07-cv-02196-AB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, under Judge Anita B. Brody.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Carlson Lynch Ltd
          36 N. Jefferson Street
          P.O. Box 7635
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Phone: 724-656-1555
          Fax: 724-656-1556
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


INTERNET GAMING: Faces Lawsuit in Fla. Over "Gold Farming"
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court in Florida naming
Internet Gaming Entertainment, Ltd. and IGE US LLC as defendants, according
to Gaming Today.

The suit was filed by Antonio Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

"The case involves IGE's calculated decision to reap substantial profits by
knowingly interfering with and substantially impairing the intended use and
enjoyment associated with consumer agreements between Blizzard Entertainment
and subscribers to its virtual world called World of Warcraft."

It alleges that the company profited millions of dollars by selling World of
Warcraft virtual property or currency (commonly referred as 'gold') generated
by cheap labor in third world countries.  The process of generating virtual
assets and then selling them through eBay or other industry websites is known
as "gold farming," "real money trade" or "RMT."

ICE's gold farming activities allegedly not only substantially diminish the
enjoyment and satisfaction consumers obtain by earning, through the
expenditure of vast amounts of time and energy, virtual assets within World
of Warcraft, they also violate the express terms of agreements Subscribers
enter into to participate in World of Warcraft.  Indeed, the express terms of
Blizzard Entertainment's agreements with its Subscribers for World of
Warcraft specifically prohibit the sale of any World of Warcraft virtual
assets or property, according to the complaint.

The action was brought on behalf of all individuals in the U.S. and its
territories who, for purposes other than resale, purchased Blizzard
Entertainment's World of Warcraft software and paid subscription fees at any
time from Nov. 27, 2004 until present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule, among others, on whether defendants
engaged in unfair and deceptive practice of selling World of Warcraft gold,
violated Florida's or any other state's consumer protection statute.

Causes of Action:

Claim 1 - violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade  
          Practices Act;

Claim 2 - violation of Consumer Protection Statutes of remaining  
          49 states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico;

Claim 3 - unfair Trade Practices Act Conspiracy;

Claim 4 - breach of third-party beneficiary contract;

claim 5 - breach of third-party beneficiary conspiracy;

claim 6 - tortuous interference with business relationship;

claim 7 - tortuous interference with business relationship and
          conspiracy.

The plaintiff seeks conspiratory damages, treble damages, injunctive relief,
among others.

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?209a

Representing the plaintiff is:

          C. Richard Newsome, Esq.
          Newsome Law Firm
          20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 800
          Orlando, Florida 32801
          Phone: (407) 648-5977
          Fax: (407) 648-5282
          E-mail: newsome@productsliability.net


KENTUCKY: Daviess County Sued Over Insurance Tax Ordinance
----------------------------------------------------------
Daviess County Fiscal Court is facing a class action filed May 31 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky accusing it of enacting
an unconstitutional ordinance that lets insurance companies collect taxes on
residents of unincorporated areas of the county, but not incorporated areas.

Named plaintiff Michael Rose brings this action to redress the alleged
deprivation by Defendant of rights secured to the Plaintiff and proposed
Class by the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the U.S. of America, the Kentucky
Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The complaint alleges Defendant, in violation of the Equal Protection Rights
guaranteed to Plaintiff and Class Members –- residents of unincorporated
areas of Daviess County, Kentucky -– has permitted, approved and received
from Plaintiff and Class Members an insurance premium tax pursuant to an
Ordinance enacted June 25, 1973.  By contrast, residents of incorporated
areas of Daviess County are not required to pay the insurance premium tax.

The complaint states that the collection of the insurance premium tax from
residents of unincorporated areas of Daviess County and not from residents of
incorporated areas of the County is arbitrary, has no rational relationship
to a legitimate state purpose, has no reasonable basis, results in
discrimination against residents of the unincorporated areas of Daviess
County in the form of excessive taxation, violates the equal protection
rights and guarantees of the residents of unincorporated areas of Daviess
County and denies residents of unincorporated areas of Daviess County equal
benefit of the laws of the U.S. and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3) and
23(c)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and
all persons who reside in in incorporated areas of Daviess County, Kentucky
who have been charged and who have paid insurance premium taxes pursuant to
the Ordinance.

Plaintiffs poses the questions of:

     (a) whether the Ordinance unconstitutionally discriminates
         between residents of unincorporated areas of Daviess
         County and incorporated areas of Daviess County by
         subjecting residents of unincorporated areas of Daviess
         County to an insurance premium tax;

     (b) whether the Ordinance violates the Equal Protection
         Clause of the U.S. Constitution;

     (c) whether the Ordinance violates the Equal Protection
         Clause of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
         Kentucky;

     (d) whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to a
         declaratory judgment declaring that the Ordinance is
         unconstitutional and violates the Equal Protection
         Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the
         Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky;

     (e) whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
         injunctive relief which results in the repeal of the
         Ordinance;

     (f) whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
         restitution of insurance premium taxes they have paid
         pursuant to the Ordinance; and

     (g) whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
         compensatory damages.

Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:

     -- an order certifying the Class proposed herein and
        appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the
        Class;

     -- for restitution and/or disgorgement of insurance premium
        taxes paid by Plaintiff and Members of the Class
        pursuant to the Ordinance;

     -- a declaratory judgment declaring that the Ordinance
        violates the U.S. Constitution and the
        Commonwealth of Kentucky Constitution;

     -- injunctive relief in the form of repeal of the Ordinance
        and injunctive relief in the form of disgorgement of
        insurance premium taxed paid pursuant to the Ordinance;

     -- for actual damages;

     -- for statutory prejudgment interest;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of this
        action;

     -- for legal and equitable relief under the causes of
        action stated herein; and

     -- for such other relief at this Court may deem just and
        proper.

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

                 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1240

The suit is “Rose v. Daviess County Fiscal Court, Case No. 4:07-cv-00076-JHM-
ERG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky,
under Judge Joseph H. McKinley, with referral to Judge E. Robert Goebel.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
          The Mason Law Firm, LLP
          1120 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4019
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-362-5770
          Fax: 917-591-5227
          E-mail: abarnett@masonlawdc.com

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          The Mason Law Firm, LLP
          1225 19th Street,NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20038
          Phone: 202-429-2290
          Fax: 202-429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Geoffrey S. Proud, Esq.
          Lewis & Roberts
          1305 Navaho Drive, Suite 400
          Raleigh, NC 27609-7482
          Phone: 919-981-0191
          Fax: 919-981-0431
          E-mail: dkb@lewis-roberts.com

          - and -

          John C. Whitfield, Esq.
          Whitfield & Cox PSC
          29 E. Center Street
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Phone: 270-821-0656
          Fax: 270-825-1163
          E-mail: jcw@vci.net


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Still Faces Consolidated OSB Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class
action in relation to oriented strand board (OSB), 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.

Previously, the company was named as one of a number of defendants in
multiple class-action complaints filed on or after Feb. 26, 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

These complaints have been dismissed or consolidated into two complaints
under one caption, “In Re OSB Anti-Trust Litigation, Master File No. 06-CV-
00826 (PD).”

The first complaint is a consolidated amended class action complaint filed on
March 31, 2006 in which plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of
persons and entities who directly purchased OSB from the defendants from May
1, 2002 through the date the complaint was filed (the direct purchaser
complaint).  

The second complaint is a consolidated amended class action complaint, filed
on June 15, 2006, in which the plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting
of persons and entities who indirectly purchased OSB from the defendants from
May 1, 2002 through the date the complaint was filed (the indirect purchaser
complaint).

Plaintiffs, in both amended and consolidated complaints described above, seek
treble damages in unspecified amounts alleged to have resulted from a
conspiracy among the defendants to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
prices at which OSB is sold in the U.S., in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.  

Plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser complaint also seek similar remedies
under individual state anti-trust and competition laws as well as consumer
protection laws.  

The suit is “In Re OSB Anti-Trust Litigation, Master File No. 06-CV-00826
(PD),” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond.

Representing the plaintiff is:  

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

Representing the defendant is:

         Teresa T. Bonder
         Alston & Bird LLP
         1201 West Peachtree Street
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-881-7369


MASSACHUSETTS: Settles Suit Over Firefighter Exams for $1.45M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts has agreed to settle a class action brought by black
firefighter applicants who took the civil service exams that a judge later
found out were discriminatory, Shelley Murphy of Boston Globe reports.

The settlement, which is still subject for a federal judge’s approval
Wednesday, stipulates that 18 cities, including Boston and Brookline, hire 66
minority applicants who scored high on police or fire exams from 2002 to 2005.

Aside from that, the state also agrees to pay about $1.45 million in payout.

It names candidates who would have been hired had the tests not been
discriminatory.  They may be entitled for up to $18,750 each in back pay.

It also states that some 41 minority applicants later hired as police and
firefighters would have had the job sooner if it were not for the said
exams.  They may be able to recover $13,415 each.

The agreement also requires Boston to hire 19 black officers in the next
three years.  However, they won’t be eligible for back pay.

Based on the report, the state also agrees to pay $310,000 in legal fees to
the plaintiffs’ lawyers; a separate fee of $350,000 for the firm's out-of-
pocket expenses, including fees to experts; and $40,000 in legal fees and
costs to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which intervened
in the case on behalf of the NAACP and the Boston Society of Vulcans.

Two of the plaintiffs are Jared Thomas and Jacob Bradley, scored 92 and 94
respectively.

Last summer, a federal judge said the state’s 2002 and 2004 firefighter exams
discriminated against black and Hispanics.  In fact, a trial was almost held
to consider additional claims resulting from arguments that the 2003 and 2005
police exams were also unfair to members of minority groups.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Attorney Harold L. Lichten, said they agreed to
settle because the state came up with a “state of the art” exam a year ago,
which appears to be fair to minorities.

The statement from the attorney general’s office stated: "Rather than engage
in an extensive appeal process, we felt it was in the best interests of the
Commonwealth and all parties involved adopting the new exam and the new
scoring mechanism, which is expected to eliminate any claim of disparate
impact and to increase minority hiring."

U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris found out in August 2006 that the past
exams had many questions that were not related to firefighting and none about
strength, life experience and personality.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
          18 Tremont Street, Suite 500
          Boston, Massachusetts 02108
          Phone: 617-367-7200
          Fax: 617-367-4820

State’s counsel is:

          Martha Coakley, Attorney General
          McCormack Building
          One Ashburton Place
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-727-2200
          TTY: 617-727-4765


MCDONALD'S CORP: Moves for Dismissal of French Fries Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Corp. recently filed a motion to dismiss class actions filed
against it alleging fraudulent use of gluten in its french fries, Legal News
Line reports.

After McDonald's disclosed, on Feb. 13, 2006, that its french fries contain
wheat and dairy products, several lawsuits were filed against it (Class
Action, Reporter, Feb. 21, 2006).

Mark and Theresa Chimiak of Jupiter Florida sued the fast food chain,
claiming their 5-year old daughter has intolerance to gluten.  On Feb. 15,
Nadia Sugich of Los Angeles, who claims she is a vegan, sued McDonald's,
saying she would not have eaten the fries if she had known they contained
dairy products.  Debra Moffatt of Lombard, Illinois filed a suit Feb. 17 in
Cook County Circuit Court, accusing the company of misleading the public.  
She seeks unspecified damages.

The suit was consolidated “In Re McDonald's French Fries Litigation (MDL-
1784),” in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and
now sits before Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.

The original complaint, filed by the firm of Zebersky & Payne, LLP in
Florida, alleged that the company misrepresented the contents of its fries as
gluten-free "through longstanding fraudulent conduct."

The class action was brought on behalf of the named plaintiffs and "all U.S.
citizens adhering to a gluten free diet who purchased McDonald's french fries
from the first date the Defendant advertised their french fries were gluten
free yet placed french fries containing gluten into the stream of commerce…"

As a result of the failure to disclose gluten levels of its fries, McDonald's
allegedly caused severe detrimental health risks to individuals with
sensitivities to gluten.

The complaint alleged that "(McDonalds') failure to disclose the fact that
their french fries contained gluten constitutes deceptive, unfair,
unconscionable, misleading and fraudulent trade practices. Defendant has
unfairly and unjustly profited from their conduct."

Plaintiffs allege that McDonald's "achieved massive financial success through
the deceit and the deception of the members of the Plaintiff Class."

In its dismissal motion, McDonald's attacks the allegations by pointing out
that most of the plaintiffs' legal causes of action are barred as a matter of
law.  McDonald's argues that the plaintiffs have pled themselves out of court
by asserting facts demonstrating that they have no claim.

For instance, the breach of express warranty claims are defeated by
plaintiffs' admissions that they bought fries from franchisees, not the
corporation itself, Jesse Ammerman of the
LegalNewsline.com reports.

Further, since the only individuals harmed were those who were "abnormally
sensitive" to gluten, no implied warranty of merchantability existed,
according to the company's brief.  Additionally, McDonald's argues, the
plaintiffs' fraud allegations are baseless because they were not pled with
the specificity required under the federal rules.

McDonald's points out that the plaintiffs argue fraud and misrepresentation
without stating how, when, or where any of the alleged misrepresentations
take place.  Federal Rule 9(b) of Civil Procedure requires that all averments
of fraud be stated with particularity; otherwise, they face dismissal.

McDonald's further argues that the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief
cannot stand because there is no threat of future wrongful conduct on the
franchise's part.

The company revised its web site in 2006 to reflect that its fries and hash
browns contain gluten, and public awareness brought on by the suit arguably
eliminates the need for injunctive relief against the corporation.

Finally, the company asserts that since the unjust enrichment claim is
contingent by law upon the existence of other claims, it must fail along with
the other allegations made by the plaintiffs.

Judge Bucklo is expected to rule on the defendant's motion to dismiss in the
next few weeks.


MEDSTAFF INC: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California in Riverside County granted a motion seeking
for class-action status in the lawsuit against Medstaff, Inc., a subsidiary
of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.

Filed on Feb. 18, 2005, the lawsuit, "Maureen Petray and Carina  
Higareda v. MedStaff, Inc.," relates to MedStaff corporate employees.  It
alleges, violations of certain sections of the California Labor Code, the
California Business and Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid wages and
penalties.   

MedStaff currently has less than 50 corporate employees in  
California.  Plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda purport to sue on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege that MedStaff:

      -- failed, under California law, to provide meal period  
         and rest breaks and pay for those missed meal periods  
         and rest breaks;  

      -- failed to compensate the employees for all hours  
         worked;  

      -- failed to compensate the employees for working  
         overtime; and  

      -- failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of  
         time worked

Plaintiffs seek:  

      -- an order enjoining MedStaff from engaging in the  
         practices challenged in the complaint;  

      -- for an order for full restitution of all monies  
         MedStaff allegedly failed to pay plaintiffs and their  
         purported class;  

      -- for interest;  

      -- for certain penalties provided for by the California  
         Labor Code; and  

      -- for attorneys' fees and costs.  

The court ordered plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by
Sept. 5, 2006.  On July 21, 2006, the company filed a motion seeking a stay
of all proceedings until the conditionally certified collective action
in "Henry v. MedStaff,  
Inc., et al.," has been either decertified or granted final certification.  

On Aug. 25, 2006, the court granted in part the company's motion and
prohibited plaintiffs from filing a motion for class certification prior to
Oct. 16, 2006.   

A joint stipulation was subsequently filed prohibiting plaintiffs' from
moving for class certification prior to Oct. 25, 2006 in order to allow for
the completion of pre-certification discovery and to allow for the completion
of the opt-in period in "Henry v. MedStaff, Inc., et al."   

On Oct. 27, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class Certification.  On Feb.
5, 2007, the court granted class certification, according to the company’s
May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended march 31, 2007.

Boca Raton, Florida-based Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. --
http://www.crosscountry.com/ccinc/-- is a provider of healthcare staffing  
services in the U.S.  Its healthcare staffing business segment is comprised
of travel and per diem nurse staffing, allied health staffing, as well as
clinical research trials staffing.  Cross Country's brands include Cross
Country TravCorps and MedStaff.


MEDSTAFF INC: Seeks Summary Judgment in Calif. Labor Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
MedStaff, Inc., a subsidiary of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment in the purported class action pending against it
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The lawsuit relates only to corporate employees purportedly employed by the
company and/or MedStaff, but based on its allegations appears to be limited
to MedStaff corporate employees.   

It alleges, among other things, violations of certain sections of the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor  
Code, the California Business and Professions Code, as well as claims for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and the recovery of unpaid wages and
penalties.  

Plaintiff Darrelyn Renee Henry, who purports to sue on behalf of herself, and
all other similarly situated employees, purport to encompass a nationwide
(rather than a California only) putative class of employees.   

Ms. Henry alleges that the Company and/or MedStaff failed, under both federal
and California law, to timely and properly compensate employees for all hours
worked (including overtime) and to provide at least the minimum amount of
compensation required for those hours.   

She also alleges that the Company and/or MedStaff failed, under  
California law only, to provide meal periods and to pay for those missed meal
periods, suffered employees to work in excess of 16 hours per day, and
breached employment contracts as to the terms of compensation for all hours
worked and the provision of compensated meal and rest periods.  

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order enjoining the company and
MedStaff from engaging in the practices challenged in the complaint, an order
for full restitution of all monies the Company and/or MedStaff allegedly
failed to pay plaintiffs and their purported class, interest, liquidated
damages as provided for by the Fair Labor Standards Act, penalties as
provided for by the California Labor Code, an equitable accounting and
attorneys' fees and costs.  

On Feb. 27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central  
District of California filed an order denying plaintiff's certification of a
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) (Fair Labor Standards
Act claims) without prejudice and holding on submission plaintiff's Rule 23
motion or certification of a class action solely with respect to California
employees based on California law.   

On April 24, 2006, the U.S. District Court of California filed an order to
preliminarily certify a collective action based on the Fair Labor Standards
Acts claims, subject to Defendants ability to move for decertification at a
later stage in the proceedings.  

The court, however, limited the scope of the preliminarily certified
collective action to encompass claims occurring within a 2-year statute of
limitations and limited to 90 days the period of time within which putative
members of the preliminarily certified collective action group may opt-into
the action.  

It denied certification of a class action pursuant to Fed. R.  
Civ. P. 23 for claims made under California state law, but indicated that it
will exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to the California law claims of
those individuals who opt into the  
Fair Labor Standards Act claims.

On June 9, 2006, stipulated notices and consent to join forms were sent by a
mutually agreed upon third party administrator to the putative members of the
collective action group, thus triggering the start of the 90 day opt-in
period.  

Additional notices were sent out to certain putative members of the
collective action group on August 31, 2006, which provided a potential
extension of the opt-in period.

The opt-in period has ended for all putative members of the collective action
group.  A total of only fifteen (15) individuals (including Plaintiff) have
opted-into the conditionally certified collective action and have timely
filed consent to join forms.

On or about March 26, 2007, MedStaff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment,
according to the company’s May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing for the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended march 31,
2007.

The suit is "Darrelyn Henry, et al. v. Med-Staff, et al., Case  
No. 8:05-cv-00603-DOC-AN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge David O. Carter.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Henry Hwang, Esq.
         Gregory G. Petersen, Esq.
         Castle Petersen & Krause
         4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 1250
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Phone: 949-417-5600
         E-mail: atty@cpk-law.com

Representing the company are:
         
         Enzo Der Boghossian, Esq.
         Kathleen Frances Paterno, Esq.
         Arthur F. Silbergeld, Esq.
         Michael H. Weiss, Esq.
         Proskauer Rose, 2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
         Phone: 310-557-2900
         E-mail: asilbergeld@proskauer.com
                 mweiss@proskauer.com


NATIONAL HOME: Settles Helaba Invest Suit Over Planned Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Home Health Care Corp. (NASDAQ National Market: NHHC), a provider of
home health care and staffing services in the Northeast, reported that NHHC
and affiliates of Angelo Gordon & Co. have entered into an amendment to the
previously announced Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
as of May 9, 2007.

NHHC further reported that an agreement in principle to settle the previously
announced Delaware class action brought by Helaba Invest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH had been reached in connection with the
amendment to the merger agreement.

Among other things, the amendment to the merger agreement provides:

     -- for merger consideration of $12.75 per share in cash
        (other than a portion of the payment to Frederick H.  
        Fialkow which will be by a previously agreed upon
        subordinated note);

     -- an outside termination date of September 10, 2007 (which  
        date has been moved forward from October 15, 2007) for
        the transaction;

     -- the termination of Frederick H. Fialkow's consulting
        agreement; and

     -- certain changes in each of Steven Fialkow and Robert
        Heller's employment agreements resulting, in each case,
        in less total compensation payable to each.

Additionally, Angelo Gordon has consented to an additional payment of $0.10
per share in cash to all NHHC shareholders other than the directors and
officers of NHHC and their families as settlement of the class action suit,
such consent conditioned upon Angelo Gordon's approval of the form of
stipulation of settlement to be signed in connection therewith.

The plaintiff in the class action has agreed in principle to this settlement,
subject to taking additional discovery.  It is anticipated that it will take
approximately 90 days for the appropriate notification procedures to occur to
obtain class certification.

No assurance can be made that the stipulation of settlement will be approved
by the plaintiffs or by Angelo Gordon, or that the certification of the class
will occur or that the court will approve the settlement.

The special committee of NHHC's board of directors met on June 1, 2007 and
after receiving legal and financial advice recommended unanimously to the
board that the terms of the amendment were at least as favorable to NHHC's
shareholders as the terms of the prior proposal from Premier Home Health Care
Services, Inc. and that Premier's proposal therefore no longer constituted
a "Superior Proposal" under the meaning of the above mentioned Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger.  The board of directors unanimously
accepted the recommendation of its special committee.

The previously scheduled special meeting of NHHC's stockholders has been
adjourned and will be held on June 15, 2007.


NBC UNIVERSAL: Calif. Suit Alleges Gambling Laws Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
NBC Universal, Inc. is facing a class action filed May 31 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, accusing it of
violating gambling laws in its promotion of its “Deal Or No Deal” show, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Also named defendants in the complaint are:

     -- Endemol USA,
     -- Verisign, Inc.,
     -- M-Qube, Inc., and
     -- Don Jagoda Associates, Inc.

Named plaintiffs -- Karen Herbert, Judy Schenker, Jodi Eberhart and Cheryl
Bentley -- claim the Internet promotion, known as the “Lucky Case Game,”
which costs 99 cents per text message, is a game of chance that offers a
winner a shot at "Deal or no Deal" Program, which offers a $1 million grand
prize.

At a predetermined time during each broadcast, six gold briefcases (different
from the in-studio contestants' cases) are displayed on-air and an announcer
invites home viewers to participate in the Promotion by submitting the number
one through six that they believe corresponds to the winning gold briefcase.  
The game ends when one briefcase is opened on-air to reveal that
night's "Lucy Case."

It involves the three elements of illegal gambling: consideration, chance and
prize.  Viewers of the program enter the promotion via text message for which
they incur a premium text message fee, or via the internet.  Potential
winners among eligible entrants are chosen at random, and have the
opportunity to win cash and other prizes.

The alleged illegal gambling game is broadcast during the show, plaintiffs
say.

Plaintiffs further claim the show, broadcast nationwide from California,
violates California and Massachusetts laws against gambling.

Defendants operate the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, as follows:

     (a) Endemol produces the "Deal or No Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (b) Don Jagoda designe the "Lucky Case Game," including its
         rules and conditions;

     (c) NBC broadcasts the "Deal or NO Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (d) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" during the broadcasr of "Deal or No Deal";

     (e) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" in advertisements for "Deal or No Deal" and the              
         "Lucky Case Game";

     (f) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda solicit thext message
         entries to the "Lucky Case Game";

     (g) NBC levies charges for premium text messages sent by
         entrants in the promotion;

     (h) VeriSign and M-Qube act as the billing agent for the
         promotion;

     (i) VeriSign and M-Qube aggregate all entrie, and randomly
         select and contact the potential prize winner amongst
         the entries correctly identifying the "Lucky Case";
  
     (j) VeriSign and M-Qube award and distribute prizes to
         winning entrants; and

     (k) Endemol, NBC, VeriSign and M-Qube sponsor the "Lucky
         Case Game."

Plaintiffs bring this nationwide class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of themselves and as a
representative of a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. who paid or
incurred premium text message charges in connection with entrance into
the "Lucky Case Game," and who did not win a prize.

They bring this action in their individual capacities, and for the First and
Second Causes of Action, as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities who have paid or
incurred premium text message charges in connection with entering the "Lucky
Case Game" Promotion, and who have not won any prize.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     1. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constitutes illegal
         gambling;

     2. the extent of each defendants' participation in
         conducting the promotion;

     3. whether defendants' conduct violated California
         Business and Professions Section 17200;

     4. whether defendants' violations directly and proximately
         caused injury to plaintiffs and the class;

     5. the extent to which the injuries suffered by plaintiffs
         and the class are entitled to damages, restitution,
         disgorgement, or other monetary remedies;

     6. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constituted a gaming or
         related activity covered by Massachusetts General Laws
         ch. 137, Section 1:

     7. whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         recover the amount of premium text messages paid to
         enter the "Lucky Case Game" in contract; and

     8. whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing
         the "Lucky Case Game."

Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment against defendants as follows:

     -- order certifying the class;

     -- judgment for plaintiffs and the class for restitution;

     -- judgment for plaintiffs and the class for damages;

     -- judgment for plaintiffs for treble damages;

     -- preliminary and permanent injunction against conducting
        the "Lucy Case Game" Promotion;

     -- declaration that the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion
        constitutes an illegal lottery and illegal gambling;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the
        class as may be just and proper; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2092

The suit is "Karen Herbert et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case No. CV 07
3537FMC," filed in the U.s. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: (310) 854-4444
          Fax: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

          William A. Pannell, Esq.
          William A. Pannell, P.C.
          3460 Kingsboro Road, N.E., Suite TH5
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: (404) 353-2283
          E-mail: billpannell@mindspring.com

          - and -

          Kevin T. Moore, Esq.
          Kevin T. MOore, P.C.
          6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, N.E.
          Building C, Suite 201
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: (770) 396-3622
          E-mail: kaw30328@aol.com


NELLCOR PURITAN: Continues to Face Calif. Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nellcor Puritan Bennett, Inc., a subsidiary of Tyco International Ltd., still
faces 12 consumer class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The suits are:

     -- "Natchitoches Parish Hospital Service District v. Tyco
        International, Ltd." filed in Aug. 29, 2005;

     -- "Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare
        Group, LP, and Mallinckrodt, Inc.," filed on Aug. 29,
        2005;

     -- "Scott Valley Respiratory Home Care v. Tyco Healthcare
        Group LP and Mallinckrodt, Inc.," filed on Oct. 27,
        2005;

     -- "Brooks Memorial Hospital et al. v. Tyco Healthcare
        Group LP," filed on Oct. 18, 2005;

     -- "All Star Oxygen Services, Inc. et al. v. Tyco
        Healthcare Group, et al.," filed on Oct. 25, 2005;

     -- "Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center, et al. v. Tyco
        Healthcare Group LP," filed on Oct. 28, 2005;
       
     -- "Nicholas H. Noyes Memorial Hospital v. Tyco Healthcare
        and Mallinckrodt," filed on Nov. 4, 2005;

     -- "North Bay Hospital, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, et
        al.," filed on Nov. 15, 2005;

     -- "Stephen Skoronski v. Tyco International Ltd, et al.,"
        filed on Nov. 21, 2005;

     -- "Abington Memorial Hospital v. Tyco Int'l. Ltd., Tyco
        Int'l (U.S.) Inc.; Mallinckrodt, Inc., Tyco Healthcare
        Group LP," filed on Nov. 22, 2005;

     -- "South Jersey Hospital, Inc. v. Tyco International,
        Ltd., et al.," filed on Jan. 24, 2006; and

     -- "Deborah Heart and Lung Center v. Tyco International,
        Ltd., et al.," filed on Jan. 27, 2006.

In all complaints, the putative class representatives, on behalf of
themselves and others, seek to recover overcharges they allege they paid for
pulse oximetry products as a result of anticompetitive conduct by Nellcor in
violation of the federal antitrust laws.

In all twelve complaints the putative class representatives, on behalf of
themselves and others, seek to recover overcharges they allege they paid for
pulse oximetry products as a result of anticompetitive conduct by Nellcor in
violation of the federal antitrust laws.  

Tyco reported no development on this matter in its May 8, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchawnge
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006.

Tyco International Ltd. -- http://www.tyco.com/-- is a diversified  
manufacturing and service company.  It operates in four business segments:
Electronics, which designs, manufactures and distributes electrical and
electronic components; Fire and Security, which designs, manufactures,
installs, monitors and services electronic security and fire protection
systems; Healthcare, which designs, manufactures and distributes medical
devices and supplies, imaging agents, pharmaceuticals, and adult incontinence
and infant care products, and Engineered Products and Services, which
designs, manufactures, distributes and services engineered products,
including industrial valves and controls, as well as steel tubular goods, and
provides consulting, engineering and construction management and operating
services.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face Calif. Wage, Hour Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corp. still faces class actions alleging that Tenet
hospitals violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and
applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, according to
the company’s May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing for the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended march 31, 2007.

The alleged violations were with respect to:

     -- meal breaks;

     -- rest periods;

     -- the payment of compensation for meal breaks and rest
        periods not taken;

     -- the payment of compensation and appropriate premiums for
        overtime, including the California Differential
        payments;

     -- "rounding off" practices for time entries on timekeeping
        records; and

     -- the information shown on pay stubs.

Plaintiffs are seeking back pay, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees, and
seek to certify this action on behalf of virtually all non-exempt employees
of the company's California subsidiaries.

Two other proposed class actions pending in Southern California involve
allegations regarding unpaid overtime.  The lawsuits allege that our pay
practices since 2000 for California-based 12-hour shift employees violate
California and, in one of the cases, federal overtime laws by virtue of the
alleged failure to include certain payments known as Flexible (or California)
Differential payments in the regular rate of pay that is used to calculate
overtime pay.

Plaintiffs in both cases are seeking back pay, statutory penalties and
attorneys' fees.

Tenet reported no development on this matter in its May 8, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchawnge
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006.

Tenet Healthcare Corp. -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is engaged in the  
provision of healthcare services, primarily through the operation of general
hospitals.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Oct. 1 Trial Scheduled for BRCHI Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 1, 2007 trial has been scheduled for the purported class action
against Tenet Healthcare Corp., which was filed in March 2005 by Boca Raton
Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCHI).

The suit is principally alleging that Tenet’s past pricing policies and
receipt of Medicare outlier payments violated the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, causing harm to plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts of damages (including treble damages
under RICO), restitution, disgorgement and punitive damages.

In December 2006, the district court denied plaintiff’s motion for class
certification.  Plaintiff subsequently petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit seeking permission to appeal the district court’s
decision, which we opposed.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit denied plaintiff’s petition for leave
to appeal the district court’s decision.

The company has filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims, which is
pending before the district court.  

A trial has been scheduled to commence on Oct. 1, 2007, according to the
company’s May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing for the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended march 31, 2007.

The suit is "Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. v. Tenet   
Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 05-80183-CIV," filed in the   
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under   
Judge Patricia A. Seitz.  

Representing the plaintiff are:  

         Greenberg Traurig, P.A
         1221 Brickell Avenue
         Miami, Florida 33131
         Phone: 305-579-0500
         Fax: 305-579-0717
         Web site: http://www.gtlaw.com

             -and -

         Melvyn I. Weiss, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         Tower One, 5200 Town Center Road, Suite 600
         Boca Raton, Florida 33486
         Phone: 561-361-5000
         Telecopier: 561-367-8400
         Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendant are:   

         Kenny Nachwalter, Esq.
         Seymour Arnold Critchlow & Spector, P.A.
         1100 Miami Center, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard,   
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: (305) 373-1000
         Fax: (305) 372-1861

              -and –

         Holland & Knight, LLP
         701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
         Miami, Florida 33131
         P.O. Box 015441, Florida, 33101
         Phone: 305-374-8500
         Fax: 305-789-7799
         Web site: http://www.hklaw.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Still Faces Medical Malpractice Suits in La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corp. hospitals remain defendants in three medical
malpractice cases filed as purported class actions by former patients of
Memorial Medical Center and Lindy Boggs Medical Center in New Orleans,
according to the company’s May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing for the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended march 31,
2007.

In each case, family members allege, on behalf of themselves and a purported
class of other patients and their family members, damages as a result of
injuries sustained during Hurricane
Katrina.

Tenet Healthcare Corp. -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is engaged in the  
provision of healthcare services, primarily through the operation of general
hospitals.
  

XL CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Conn. Securities Fraud Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
XL Capital Ltd. filed a renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
the securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, 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 June 21, 2004, a consolidated and amended class action complaint was
served on the company and certain of its present and former directors and
officers as defendants in a putative class action, "Malin et al. v. XL
Capital Ltd. et al.," filed in U.S. District Court for District of
Connecticut.

The Malin Action purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock between Nov. 1, 2001 and Oct. 16, 2003, and alleges claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated the securities
laws by, among other things, failing to disclose in various public and
shareholder and investor reports and other communications the alleged
inadequacy of the company's loss reserves for its NAC Re subsidiary (now
known as XL Reinsurance America, Inc.), and that, as a consequence, the
company's earnings and assets were materially overstated.

On Aug. 26, 2005, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint owing to its
failure adequately to allege “loss causation,” but provided leave for the
plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint.

The plaintiffs thereafter filed a second amended complaint, which is similar
to the Amended Complaint in its substantive allegations.

On Dec. 31, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

In addition, the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike certain documents and
exhibits that the XL defendants had proffered in support of the motion to
dismiss.

By Order dated Dec.15, 2006, the Judge granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs’ motion to strike and allowed limited discovery through March 2,
2007.

The Judge denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to its
renewal at the conclusion of such discovery.  

On March 22, 2007, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs are required to serve their opposition to the motion
by May 9, 2007.

The suit is "Malin et al. v. XL Capital Ltd. et al., Case no.
3:03-cv-02001-PCD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, under Judge Peter C. Dorsey.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         401 B Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: ramzia@mwbhl.com

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

              - and -

         Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
         Sheperd Finkelman Miller & Shah
         65 Main St.
         Chester, CT 06412
         Phone: 860-526-1100
         Fax: 860-526-1120
         E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Leonard A. Spivak, Esq.
         Cahill, Gordon & Reindel
         80 Pine St.
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: 212-701-3000
         Fax: 212-269-5420
         E-mail: lspivak@cahill.com


* Bill Lerach Mulls Resignation; Milberg’s Bershad Talks Pleas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reports say William S. Lerach is considering leaving Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins.  The information was announced at a meeting in San
Diego, according to an unidentified Lerach Coughlin lawyer.  

A heightening criminal investigation into allegations of kickbacks paid to
class-action plaintiffs is linked to his possible departure.  It is also
observed that the move comes just as the firm is trying to have the U.S.
Supreme Court review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked a suit
against Wall Street banks that acted as advisers of Enron Corp. before the
energy company’s collapse.  Lerach Coughlin is trying to persuade the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission to file a friend of the court brief in the
case.

Federal prosecutors continue to examine some of the tactics in the profitable
corporate malfeasance practice.  That investigation led to the indictment of
Milberg Weiss & Bershad and two partners, David J. Bershad and Steven G.
Schulman last year.

Lawyers for Mr. Schulman recently filed a motion to dismiss all charges filed
against him.  Mr. Bershad, meanwhile, is in plea negotiations to settle the
criminal case against him.  Prosecutors and former partners have said that he
handled and kept track of the payments to clients.  

According to StarNewsOnline.com, concern that Mr. Bershad may try to provide
information to prosecutors that could strengthen their case against Milberg
Weiss prompted at least two of its partners to meet with prosecutors in Los
Angeles in an attempt to reach a deal that does not require the firm to
acknowledge any wrongdoing.

Founder Melvyn I. Weiss was not indicted.  His lawyer announced in a
statement Mr. Weiss fully intends to continue practicing law.


* Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler Extends Practice to Israel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (SBTK), a U.S. law firm specializing
in securities class actions, has initiated a formal cooperation with the
Israeli law firm, Man-Barak Advocates & Solicitors, located outside Tel Aviv,
Israel.

SBTK, with its headquarters located just outside of Philadelphia, PA (USA),
currently employs over 60 attorneys and 100 staff dedicated to serving its
institutional clients from around the globe and recently announced a historic
$3 billion settlement with Tyco International, Ltd.

In addition, SBTK recently represented a group of European institutional
investors in a precedent setting settlement with Royal Dutch Shell with
regard to the company's oil reserve fraud.  SBTK's "Securities Tracker"
service provides continuous monitoring of the portfolios of institutional
investors to identify potential claims for damages as a result of corporate
malfeasance.

The law firm is currently serving as lead counsel on behalf of institutional
investors in lawsuits against companies such as Delphi Corp., Sprint Corp.,
and Tenet Healthcare Corp.  In recent years, SBTK has successfully claimed
several billion U.S. dollars in compensation for their clients.

"We believe that this cooperation with Man-Barak will allow us to serve the
growing institutional investor community in Israel both with claims they may
have in the US and in Israel as well," said Darren Check, Partner and
Director of Institutional Relations at Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler.

Elad Man, a founding partner of Man-Barak Advocates & Solicitors, which
specializes in representation of individuals and institutions in the fields
of commercial, financial & consumer law, calls the collaboration with SBTK an
excellent opportunity for his firm and for the Israeli investor community as
a whole.

"With class actions becoming a more common tool for investors in Israel, many
are beginning to explore what rights they have with respect to investments in
other regions. Working alongside SBTK, Man-Barak can now provide full service
consultation and representation to investors with respect to their legal
rights when they may have been a victim of fraud."

Check and Man emphasized that their goal is to help Israeli institutional
investors successfully seek compensation for the fraudulent misuse of their
investments in the US and Israel and will be seeking to discuss those rights
and how the monitoring program will benefit pension funds, mutual fund
managers, hedge funds and other similar investors.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


SHUFFLE MASTER: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit in Nev.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court, District of Nevada, against Shuffle Master
Inc. and certain officers, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the
Company during the period from December 22, 2006 through March 12, 2007,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under.

The Complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants inflated
reported profits, by among other things, booking an inter-company transfer of
inventory that took place on the last day of the fiscal year ended October
31, 2006, as if it were a sale to a third party.

In particular, defendants:

     (1) through the October 31, 2006 transaction, along with
         several other transactions for which the company
         improperly accounted, inflated Shuffle Master's
         quarterly earnings per share by 50% and year-end
         earnings per share by 35%; and

     (2) the fraudulent booking of inter-company transactions
         arose out of Shuffle Master's tax avoidance scheme,
         whereby the Company transferred profits that were
         otherwise taxable in the U.S., to foreign countries
         where profits would be taxed at a much lower rate, if
         at all.

On March 12, 2007, Shuffle Master admitted that it had improperly booked the
October 31, 2006 transaction, and that it would have to restate reported
results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year end 2006. The company further
admitted that its internal controls were defective. In response, Shuffle
Master's stock fell 8%.

Shuffle Master is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in Nevada. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the development, manufacture,
sale and marketing of technology and entertainment-based products for the
gaming industry.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 3, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact

          Teresa L. Webb
          Carolyn S. Moskowitz
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: 888.476.6529 or 888.4-POMLAW (toll free)
          E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com or csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com
          Website: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com


SOURCEFIRE INC: Lerach Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that a
class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors of Sourcefire, Inc. who purchased
the common stock of Sourcefire pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus for its initial public offering on
March 9, 2007, (the IPO), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act
of 1933.

The complaint charges Sourcefire and certain of its officers, directors and
underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Sourcefire
provides real-time network defense solutions for information technology (IT)
infrastructures of commercial enterprise, healthcare, manufacturing,
technology, educational, and federal and state organizations.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the
common stock of Sourcefire pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus for its IPO on March 9, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued
in connection with the IPO were negligently prepared and, as a result:

     -- contained untrue statements of material facts;
  
     -- omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
        statements made therein not misleading; and

     -- were not prepared in accordance with the rules and
        regulations governing their preparation.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus included representations that the
Company would achieve its goal in becoming the leading provider of
intelligence driven, open source network security solutions for its
customers.

According to the Complaint, the Registration Statement and Prospectus failed
to disclose that Sourcefire was then experiencing a dramatic sales slowdown
from its Federal government clients, which was caused by a slowdown in
government spending.

On April 9, 2007, Sourcefire issued a press release announcing its
preliminary financial results for the first quarter of 2007, the period
ending March 31, 2007. The Company reported that its first quarter financial
results were down due to seasonal factors. The Company attributed the
downward trend to a "smaller than expected initial order from a substantial
and strategic new account and an unusual number of transactions delayed or
deferred very late in the quarter. This was particularly dramatic in the
Federal sector where we saw a number of delays in the processing of awarded
procurement transactions." In response to this announcement, the price of
Sourcefire stock declined precipitously falling from $17.35 per share on
April 5, 2007, to close at $12.28 per share on April 9, 2007, the next
trading day, on volume of approximately 1.6 million shares.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 13, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com


STERLING FINANCIAL: Lerach Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of Sterling Financial Corp. common stock purchasers between April
27, 2004 and May 25, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act).

The complaint charges Sterling Financial and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Exchange Act.  Throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed quarterly reports
with the SEC which described the Company's increasing financial performance.

These statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (i) that Sterling Financial was materially overstating its
         financial results by artificially inflating revenues in
         its Commercial Finance division, which represented
         approximately 41% of Sterling Financial's net income.
         As detailed herein, Sterling Financial now expects to
         incur a charge of at least $145 million to $165 million
         and will be restating its financial statements for 2004
         to 2006 and possibly for earlier periods;

    (ii) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

   (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's net income and earnings were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

On April 30, 2007, the Company announced that it expected to be restating its
financial statements for the years 2004 through 2006 as a result
of "irregularities in certain financing contracts" at Equipment Finance LLC
("Equipment Finance"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of Lancaster County
and the sole affiliate within the Company's Commercial Finance segment.

Moreover, the Company announced that two senior executives of Equipment
Finance have been placed on leave. Upon this announcement, shares of the
Company's stock fell $4.07 per share or almost 20% to close at $16.65 per
share, on heavy trading volume.

Then, on May 24, 2007, Sterling Financial announced that the "previously
reported irregularities" at Equipment Finance were a "direct result of
collusion" by certain Equipment Finance employees. As a result, the Company
expects to record a cumulative after-tax charge to its December 31, 2006
financial statements of at least $145 million to $165 million.

Moreover, five Equipment Finance employees were terminated, including the
Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President. In response to this
announcement, on the next trading day, shares of the Company's stock fell
$6.19 per share, or almost 40%, to close at $9.97 share, on extremely heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the
common stock of Sterling Financial between April 27, 2004 and May 25, 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 24, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

Sterling Financial describes itself as a "diversified financial services
company based in Lancaster, Pa." The Company operates in four segments:
Community Banking and Related Services, Leasing, Commercial Finance, and
Trust and Investment Services.

For more information, contact

          William Lerach, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com
          Website: http://www.lerachlaw.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  * * *