CAR_Public/080501.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 1, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 86

                            Headlines

ACCREDITED HOME: Agrees to Class Certification in "Viera" Case
ACCREDITED HOME: May 5 Hearing Set for Dismissal Bid in "Taylor"
ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces NAACP Litigation Over Prime Loans
ACCREDITED HOME: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Ala. Litigation Alleging TILA Violations

ACCREDITED HOME: Served with Suit by Former Aames Loan Officer
ACCREDITED HOME: Md. Court Considers Motions in "Cabrejas" Case
ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces Home Equity Loans Lawsuit in Texas
ACCREDITED HOME: Calif. Court Mulls Approval of FCRA Settlement
ACCREDITED HOME: Illinois Suit Settlement Hearing is on June 6

ARIZONA: Judge Orders Aravaipa Gate to Remain Unlocked
AU QUARANTINE & INSPECTION: Horse Owners to Launch E.I. Lawsuit
BRENTS-RIORDAN: Hoodies Recalled Due to Strangulation Hazard
CABOT STAINS: Recalls Deck Cleaner for Inhalation and Fire Risk
CADENCE DESIGN: Settles Tech Workers' Overtime Lawsuit in Calif.

CALIFORNIA: Moor Field Opens as Part of Title IX Case Settlement
DAVIDSON COS: Negligence Lawsuit Withdrawn
DE BEERS: May 19 Claims Deadline Set for $259M Suit Settlement
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Mulls Motions in Securities Suit
FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS: Recording Artists Sue Over Work Dues

FUNERAL HOMES Anapol Schwartz Files Donor Family Class Lawsuit
GECKO ALLIANCE: Recalls Electronic Spa Controls Due to Fire Risk
GEORGIA: Dougherty County Tax Lawsuit Sent to Appeals Court
HED ARTZI: Israel Consumer Council Seeks to Join Kiddie Ads Suit
J.P. MORGAN: Faces Securities Litigation in New York State Court

KILGORE CO: Carpal Tunnel Exams Spur Lawsuit in Tennessee Court
LOUISIANA: Parish President Still Faces Lawsuits Over Katrina
MASTER LOCK: Recalls Leash Locks for Lead Paint Standard Breach
MATTEL INC: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Product Liability Suit
MF GLOBAL: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set for May 6

NEW CENTURY: Faces Multiple Securities Litigation in California
QUALCOMM INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over State Antitrust Law Breach
RETAIL VENTURES: Still Faces Suit Over Credit Card Data Thefts
ROHM & HAAS: Faces Air & Groundwater Contamination Suit in Pa.
ROHM & HAAS: Supreme Court Denies Petition in Pension Plan Case

TYSON FOODS: Faces Suit in Arkansas Over "Drug-Free" Chickens
WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ACCREDITED HOME: Agrees to Class Certification in "Viera" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., stipulated to the certification
of a class in the purported class action suit filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against
the company, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

In August 2007, AHL was served with a class action complaint,
"Viera et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Inc.," brought
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The complaint alleges that AHL violated the WARN Act by failing
to provide 60 days' notice to the plaintiffs who were terminated
through no fault of their own as part of or as the reasonable
consequence of a mass layoff and plant closing effectuated by
AHL on Aug. 10 and 22, 2007.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated former employees, the alleged wages for
the work days in the 60 calendar days prior to their respective
terminations along with benefits, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs of suit.

AHL has stipulated to a certification of the class in the
absence of viable grounds for opposing certification, according
to Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Viera et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding
Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-00719-SS," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge Sam Sparks
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Hubert Bell, Jr., Esq. (bellhjr@aol.com)
          Law Office of Hubert Bell, Jr.
          1907 N. Lamar Blvd., Suite 300
          Austin, TX 78705
          Phone: (512) 469-9006
          Fax: 512/469-9008

          J. Cecil Gardner, Esq.
          The Gardner Firm
          1119 Government Street, Post Office Drawer 3103
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Phone: (251) 433-8100
          Fax: (251) 433-8181

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          Lankenau & Miller, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 423
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: (212) 581-5005
          Fax: (212) 581-2122

Representing the defendant is:

          Fazila Issa, Esq. (fissa@littler.com)
          Littler & Mendelson, P.C.
          1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Phone: (713) 652-4707


ACCREDITED HOME: May 5 Hearing Set for Dismissal Bid in "Taylor"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A May 5, 2008 hearing is set for a purported class action suit
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California against Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. and
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., alleging violations of the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act.

In August 2007, AHLHC and AHL were served with a class action
complaint, "Taylor v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. and
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," brought with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.

The complaint alleges that AHLHC and AHL violated the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act by charging, through
the use of a discretionary pricing policy, a higher Annual
Percentage Rate to African-American borrowers than the APR
charged to similarly situated Caucasian borrowers.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated African-American borrowers, compensatory and
punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and
recovery of attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

On Nov. 5, 2007, AHLHC and AHL filed a motion to dismiss the
suit, a hearing on which is set for May 5, 2008, according to
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Taylor v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-01732-JAH-JMA," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, Judge John A.
Houston, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori Erin Andrus, Esq. (lori@libertylaw.com)
          Andrus Liberty and Anderson
          1438 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Phone: (415) 956-1000
          Fax: (415) 956-1008


ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces NAACP Litigation Over Prime Loans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. continues to face a
purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, captioned, "National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) v.
Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al."

The suit was filed in July 2007 on behalf of itself and its
African-American members, alleging that the company and 12 other
lenders violated the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity
Act, and Civil Rights Act by steering African-American
applicants who would otherwise qualify for prime loans into non-
prime loans and charging African-American borrowers higher
interest rates and fees than similarly situated Caucasians.

The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated, declaratory and injunctive relief and recovery of
attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

The company's response to the complaint was due April 14, 2008.  
A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed.

Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1 reported no further
development in the matter in its March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-
00794-AG-AN," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Judge Andrew J. Guilford, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Angela Ciccolo, Esq.
         NAACP
         4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
         Baltimore, MD 21215
         Phone: 410-580-5792

         Vic Feazell, Esq.
         Feazell & Tighe LLP
         6300 Bridgepoint Parkway,Suite 220
         Austin, TX 78730
         Phone: 512-372-8100

              - and -

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com)
         Kabateck Brown Kellner
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-217-5000


ACCREDITED HOME: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust and certain directors of
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. continue to face a
consolidated securities fraud class action suit filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

In March 2007, AHLHC was served with a class action, "Atlas v.
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.," brought with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws by
AHLHC and certain members of senior management.  

AHLHC is aware that five similar securities class action
lawsuits were also filed with the same court.  They are:

      1. "Joory v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
         al.,"

      2. "Pourshafie v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
         al.,"
  
      3. "Theda v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
         al.,"

      4. "City of Brockton Retirement System v. Accredited Home
         Lenders Holding Co.," and

      5. "Kornfeld v. James A. Konrath, et al."

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, these
cases have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been
selected.

The consolidated, amended complaint was filed on Aug. 24, 2007,
and added as defendants the Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust
and certain directors of AHLHC.  

On Jan. 4, 2008, the Court denied AHLHC's motion to dismiss and
granted the REIT's motion to dismiss with leave to file an
amended complaint by Feb. 4, 2008.  

The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint.  AHLHC's
answer to the complaint was due March 14, 2008, according to
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Atlas et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co
et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00488-H-RBB," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge
Marilyn L. Huff, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David C. Walton, Esq. (davew@lerachlaw.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the defendants are:

           Andrea M. Kimball, Esq. (akimball@luce.com)
           Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps
           600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
           San Diego, CA 92101-3372
           Phone: (619) 236-1414
           Fax: (619) 645-5323

                - and -

           Joshua G. Hamilton, Esq.
           (joshuahamilton@paulhastings.com)
           Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
           515 South Flower Street, Suite 2300
           Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371
           Phone: (213) 683-6000
           Fax: (213) 927-5896


ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Ala. Litigation Alleging TILA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co., is facing several
securities fraud class action suits with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama, alleging violations of the
federal Truth in Lending Act.

The suit, "Edwards v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., et al.,"
was served on the company on March 2007.  It claims that the
company violated TILA by allegedly failing to disclose title
insurance charges and recording fees as part of finance charges.  

Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1 reported no development
in the matter in its March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Edwards et al v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00160-KD-C," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Judge Kristi K.
DuBose presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Earl P. Underwood, Esq. (epunderwood@alalaw.com)
         P.O. Box 969
         Fairhope, AL 36533-0969
         Phone: 251-990-5558
         Fax: 251-990-0626

Representing the company is:

         Jeffery J. Hartley, Esq. (jjh@helmsinglaw.com)
         Helmsing, Leach, Herlong,
         P.O. Box 2767
         Mobile, AL 36652
         Phone: 251-432-5521


ACCREDITED HOME: Served with Suit by Former Aames Loan Officer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co., disclosed that in February
2007, it was served with a class-action complaint, "Sierra v.
Aames Home Loan," which was filed by a former Aames Funding
Corp. loan officer with the Superior Court for Los Angeles
County, California in December 2006.

As a result of its merger with Aames Investment Corp. and
certain of its subsidiaries, the company succeeded to the
litigation interests of AIC and its subsidiaries, including the
interest under this matter of Aames Home Loan, a trade name of
Aames Funding Corp., a subsidiary of AIC.

The named plaintiff is a former commissioned loan officer of
AFC, and the complaint alleges that AFC violated state law by
requiring the plaintiff to work overtime without compensation.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees, the allegedly unpaid overtime,
general damages, multiple statutory penalties and interest,
attorneys fees and costs of suit.  

A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed.  There has
been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's
individual claims or the claims of the putative class.

Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1 reported no development
in the matter in its March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com
-- is a mortgage company operating throughout the U.S. and in
Canada.  The Company originates, finances, securitizes,
services, and sells non-prime mortgage loans secured by
residential real estate.  

    
ACCREDITED HOME: Md. Court Considers Motions in "Cabrejas" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to
rule on each parties' respective motions for summary judgment in
the matter, "Cabrejas v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc."

The suit, originally filed with the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County, Maryland, was served against the company in
March 2006.

The complaint alleges that Accredited's origination of second
lien loans in Maryland violated the SMLL and Consumer Protection
Act in that fees charged on such loans exceeded 10% of the
respective loan amounts.  

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated individuals, damages, disgorgement of fees,
pre-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court may grant.

On April 13, 2006, Accredited removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.  On May 15, 2006,
Accredited filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second cause of
action alleging a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act on the basis that full disclosure of the fees cannot be an
unfair or deceptive trade practice, which motion was granted on
Dec. 4, 2006.

On Jan. 3, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint, alleging that the company's origination in Maryland
of second lien loans with balloon payments was also a violation
of the SMLL.

On July 5, 2007, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss this new claim on the basis that the SMLLs prohibition
of balloon payments was and is preempted by the federal
Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act.

On Oct. 17, 2007, AHL filed a motion for summary judgment.  On
Nov. 11, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the court heard argument on the parties'
respective motions for summary judgment, but has not yet issued
any rulings, according to Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-
AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Cabrejas et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,
Case No. 8:06-cv-00975-AW," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing the defendant are:

         Kirk D. Jensen, Esq. (kjensen@buckleykolar.com)
         Buckley Kolar LLP
         1250 24th St. NW, Ste. 700
         Washington, DC 20037
         Phone: 1-202-349-8000
         Fax: 1-202-349-8080

              - and -

         Brian L. Moffet, Esq. (bmoffet@gfrlaw.com)
         Gordon Feinblatt Rothman Hoffberger and Hollander LLC
         233 E Redwood St.
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 1-410-576-4000
         Fax: 1-410-576-4246

Representing the plaintiff is:

         John A. Pica, Jr., Esq. (johnpica28@hotmail.com)
         Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos PC
         100 N Charles St., 20th Fl.
         Baltimore, MD 21201
         Phone: 1-410-649-2000
         Fax: 1-410-649-2150


ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces Home Equity Loans Lawsuit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. continues to face a
purported class action suit over adjustable-rate home equity
loans in Texas.

In October 2006, as a result of the merger with Aames Investment
Corp., the company succeeded to the position of Aames Funding
Corp.  in the class action complaint, "Miller v. Aames Funding
Corp.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas.

The complaint alleges that adjustable-rate home equity loans
originated by AFC in Texas violate the Texas Constitutions
requirement that such loans be scheduled to be repaid in
substantially equal installments.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated individuals, damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief, attorneys fees, and any other relief the
court may grant.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court on its own motion stayed the
action, pending the resolution of class certification issues in
a similar action pending before the court.

Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1 reported no development
in the matter in its March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Miller et al. v. Aames Funding Corp. et al., Case
No. 9:05-cv-00183-TH-KFG," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Thad Heartfield
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Carl A. Parker, Esq. (cparker714@aol.com)
         The Parker Law Firm
         One Plaza Square
         Port Arthur, TX 77642-5513
         Phone: 409-985-8814
         Fax: 1-409-985-2833

Representing the company is:

         Lindsay Lee Lambert, Esq. (llambert@hwallp.com)
         Hughes Watters & Askanase
         Three Allen Center, 333 Clay, 29th Floor
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-759-0818
         Fax: 713-759-6834


ACCREDITED HOME: Calif. Court Mulls Approval of FCRA Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has yet to give final approval to the tentative settlement
reached in the purported class action, "Phillips v. Accredited
Home Lenders Holding Co., et al."

The complaint, which was filed in September 2005, alleged
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with
pre-screened offers of credit that Accredited Home Lenders
Holding Co. made.

The plaintiff sought to recover, on behalf of her and similarly
situated individuals, damages, pre-judgment interest,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any
other relief the court may grant.

On Jan. 4, 2006, the plaintiff re-filed the action in response
to the court's Dec. 9, 2005, decision granting motion to:

      -- dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's claim that the offer
         of credit failed to include the clear and conspicuous
         disclosures required by FCRA,

      -- strike plaintiff's request for declaratory and
         injunctive relief, and

      -- sever plaintiff's claims as to the Company from those
         made against other defendants unaffiliated with the
         Company.

The plaintiff's remaining claim asserts that the company's offer
of credit did not meet FCRA's firm offer requirement.

On May 15, 2007, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to
certify two subclasses, the first consisting of 58,750
recipients of the initial mailer received by the named
plaintiff, and a second consisting of 70,585 recipients of the
second mailer received by the named plaintiff.

On May 24, 2007, the company filed a Petition for Leave to
Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking an
immediate appeal from the Order granting class certification and
a stay of the action in the District Court pending the outcome
of that appeal.  

On Sept. 14, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit denied the Petition filed by AHL and AHLHC.  

This matter has been settled, subject to a fairness hearing, for
an amount immaterial to the Company's financial condition and
results of operations, according to Citigroup Mortgage Loan
Trust 2007-AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Pamela Phillips, et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders
Holding Company, et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-00851-CJC-RNB," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Judge Cormac J. Carney presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kevin K. Eng, Esq. (keng@mzclaw.com)
         Edward S. Zusman, Esq. (ezusman@mzclaw.com)
         David S. Markun, Esq. (dmarkun@mzclaw.com)
         Markun Zusman & Compton
         Phone: 415-438-4515
                310-454-5900

Representing the defendants are:

         Patricia L. McClaran, Esq. (plm@severson.com)
         Michael J. Steiner, Esq. (mjs@severson.com)
         Severson & Werson
         1 Embarcadero Ctr., Ste. 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-398-3344


ACCREDITED HOME: Illinois Suit Settlement Hearing is on June 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
A June 6, 2008 final approval hearing was scheduled for the
proposed settlement in a class action suit against Accredited
Home Lenders, Inc., over allegations of consumer fraud related
to the amount of fees it pays to third parties in connection
with residential mortgage loans.   

In December 2002, the company was served with a complaint and a
motion for class certification in the class action, "Wratchford
et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc."

The suit was brought in Madison County, Illinois, under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
the consumer protection statutes of the other states in which
the company do business and the common law of unjust enrichment.

The complaint alleges that the company has a practice of
misrepresenting and inflating the amount of fees the company pay
to third parties in connection with the residential mortgage
loans that the company funds.

The plaintiffs claim to represent a nationwide class consisting
of others similarly situated, that is, those who paid the
company to pay, or reimburse our payments of, third-party fees
in connection with residential mortgage loans, and never
received a refund for the difference between what they paid and
what was actually paid to the third party.

The plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages on behalf of
themselves and the class, in addition to pre-judgment interest,
post-judgment interest, and any other relief the court may
grant.

On Jan. 28, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally
certifying:

      -- a class of Illinois residents with respect to the
         alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
         Deceptive Business Practices Act who, since Nov. 19,
         1997, paid money to the company for third-party fees in
         connection with residential mortgage loans and never
         received a refund of the difference between the amount
         they paid to the company and the amount it paid to the
         third party; and

      -- a nationwide class of claimants with respect to an
         unjust enrichment cause of action included in the
         original complaint who, since Nov. 19, 1997, paid money
         to the company for third-party fees in connection with
         residential mortgage loans and never received a refund
         of the difference between the amount they paid the
         company and the amount it paid the third party.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the court approved the parties' settlement
agreement on a preliminary basis.  The court also scheduled a
final approval hearing for June 6, 2008, according to Citigroup
Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com
-- is a mortgage company operating throughout the U.S. and in
Canada.  The Company originates, finances, securitizes,
services, and sells non-prime mortgage loans secured by
residential real estate.  


ARIZONA: Judge Orders Aravaipa Gate to Remain Unlocked
------------------------------------------------------
Greenlee County Superior Court Judge Monica L. Stauffer entered
an order on April 7, 2008, stipulating that a gate erected by
Norma Tapia remain unlocked in perpetuity, Eastern Arizona
Courier reports.

The report recounts that Ms. Tapia erected the gate in February
2005, blocking the public's access to the Aravaipa Wilderness
Area.  She said that she did so as a protest against the Graham
County Sheriff's Office's handling of an alleged sexual assault
on her son.

Ms. Tapia told the Courier in 2005 that she felt the Sheriff's
Office ignored her pleas and the evidence proving that the boy
who molested her son is still at large in the Klondyke area and
that he is still assaulting other boys.  She said she used the
only leverage she felt she had to call attention to her son's
case -- she put a padlock on her gate.

The Courier relates that since then, Ms. Tapia has found other
reasons to guard the canyon and the thousands of acres of Bureau
of Land Management land to which the public no longer has
access.  The most pressing reason is to preserve the beauty of
the area, she said.

"The BLM is not monitoring the area or taking care of it," she
said, "so I am."

The locked gate brought forth a class action lawsuit by
surrounding landowners and the non-profit corporation Arizona
Desert Big Horn Sheep Society Inc. to open the gate for public
access, the Courier recalls.

Judge Stauffer previously granted a preliminary injunction order
on Dec. 17, 2007, that directed the gate to be unlocked.  During
the period of the injunction, Judge Stauffer said Ms. Tapia
engaged in conduct in violation of her order and was found in
contempt of court.  If Ms. Tapia does not follow the court's
permanent injunction, Judge Stauffer said contempt of court
proceedings would include the prior violations of the court's
order.

In her recent ruling on the lawsuit, Judge Stauffer said the
Aravaipa Canyon Road was initially constructed by the federal
government in the 1800s and has been maintained by Graham County
since the county was created in 1881.  She said having the
Aravaipa Canyon Road closed deters visitors to the area,
creating a negative economic impact on the residents of the
area, Graham County and the state of Arizona.

Judge Stauffer also said the public freely and continuously used
Aravaipa Canyon Road to cross the property where Ms. Tapia
installed a locked gate and placed "No Trespassing" signs.  She
ruled that, based on those facts and others, a prescriptive
easement is determined to exist across the property.

Judge Stauffer issued a permanent injunction restraining and
preventing Ms. Tapia or anyone else with interest in the
property from blocking or otherwise interfering with the
public's use or passage upon Aravaipa Canyon Road where it
traverses the property in question.

Ms. Tapia, and any successor-in-interest, will be allowed to put
an unlocked gate across the road with a sign saying "Please shut
gate," but Judge Stauffer ruled that there will be no other
markings, obstructions or anything else that might suggest the
road is privately held or that passage is restricted in any
fashion.  The gate must not contain any locks, cables, ropes or
any other impediments that could possibly create the impression
that the gate is not easily opened.  

Judge Stauffer also ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to
recover attorney and litigation fees in the amount of $10,000
and awarded their court costs of $698.64.


AU QUARANTINE & INSPECTION: Horse Owners to Launch E.I. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on April 30, 2008, that the
final report into how horse flu entered Australia was handed
to Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke on April 24.  
However, the CAR report cited ABC Online as saying, even before
the report is tabled in parliament, a class action against
government agencies looks likely.

In an update, The Age relates that Queensland law firm Atwood
Marshall is preparing to launch a multi-million dollar class
action suit against the Australian Quarantine and Inspection
Service over the horse flu outbreak.

According to The Age, more than 300 horse owners have already
registered their interest in joining the class action.

Lawyer Jeff Garrett said that the action could not be launched
until the findings of an independent inquiry into last year's
equine influenza outbreak are tabled in federal parliament.  
However, after hearing evidence presented to the inquiry that
problems at Sydney's Eastern Creek Quarantine Station were to
blame for the outbreak, he expected the AQIS to be the subject
of any action.

"If the findings come out as we expect, I am sure that not long
after that we are probably going to have a number of court
actions which will proceed," Mr. Garrett told The Age.  "If you
look at the submissions of counsel assisting the inquiry, if
they are accepted or even 50 per cent of them are accepted, it's
hard to imagine that AQIS are not going to be in the firing
line."

The Age says that the total damages claim is yet to be
determined, but Mr. Garrett estimated it could total tens of
millions of U.S. dollars.  The outbreak crippled the
thoroughbred industry in Queensland and NSW and resulted in
losses estimated at more than AU$1 billion, the report points
out.

Mr. Garrett said he expected thousands more horse owners to join
the action once the findings were made public.  He added that
the outbreak had a "huge" impact on many of his clients.

"There's been people who have been completely devastated by it
-- right across the board there's just been complete devastation
and widespread losses," Mr. Garrett said.


BRENTS-RIORDAN: Hoodies Recalled Due to Strangulation Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Brents-Riordan Inc. LLC, of Shreveport, La., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
7,400 Hooded Youth Sweatshirts and Jackets.

The company said the garments have a drawstring through the
hood, which can pose a strangulation hazard to children. In
February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children
from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Youth Hooded Sweatshirt (item # 11037Y-
39) and the Youth Insulated Bomber with Hood (item # 1113Y-39).
The item number is found in a label located underneath the care
label.  The sweatshirts have a camouflage design and
"Photoflauge" is printed on them.

These recalled Hooded Youth Sweatshirts and Jackets were
manufactured in China and were being sold at various retail
stores nationwide from July 2007 through December 2007 for
between $20 and $30.

Pictures of the recalled Hooded Youth Sweatshirts and Jackets
are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08238a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08238b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings to
eliminate the hazard or return the sweatshirts to either the
place of purchase or Brents-Riordan for a full refund.

For additional information, contact the company toll-free at
(866) 835-6357 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.brentsinc.com/


CABOT STAINS: Recalls Deck Cleaner for Inhalation and Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Stains (a division of Valspar Corp.), of Newburyport,
Mass., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 24,000 Cabot Composite Deck
Cleaner.

The company said one of the components of the composite cleaner
can react with metal foil residue on the packaging, releasing
heat and chlorine gas.  This poses a fire and inhalation hazard
to consumers.

Cabot has received one report of the composite cleaner's plastic
container partially melting and emitting a chlorine odor.  No
injuries were reported.

This recall involves the Cabot Composite Deck Cleaner #3502.  
The deck cleaner is a granular concentrate that, when mixed with
water, is used to clean composite surfaces such as decks,
railings, steps, fences and siding.  It was sold in a 2-pound
plastic container.  The label on the container reads: "Cabot
Composite Cleaner" and has number 3502 at the bottom of the
front of the label.

A picture of the recalled Cabot Composite Deck Cleaner is found
at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08237.jpg

These recalled Cabot Composite Deck Cleaner is manufactured in
the United States and were being sold at home improvement
centers and hardware stores nationwide from February 2007
through February 2008 for about $20.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the product and
return it to the store of purchase for a full refund.  If the
container looks deformed or if it feels hot to the touch,
immediately call Cabot anytime to arrange for the safe handling
of the product.

For additional information, contact Cabot at (877) 755-3336, or
visit the company's Web site at:
http://www.cabotstain.com/recall


CADENCE DESIGN: Settles Tech Workers' Overtime Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cadence Design Systems, Inc., reached a settlement for the
purported nationwide class action filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California that accuses the
company of failing to pay overtime wages in violation of federal
and state labor laws, according to the company's April 25, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008.

On May 30, 2007, Ahmed Higazi, a former Cadence employee, filed
a lawsuit against Cadence with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that Cadence improperly
classified him as exempt from overtime pay.

The suit was filed by attorneys from Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, and Altshuler Berzon LLP on behalf of current
and former Cadence Systems Engineers (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 7, 2007).

Mr. Higazi, a 45-year-old Pleasanton resident, was a technical
support worker for Cadence in its San Jose headquarters for five
years.  He was responsible for installing, maintaining, and
supporting computer software and hardware for
the company.

The complaint charges that Cadence unlawfully characterizes its
employees who install, maintain, and support computer software
and hardware as exempt from certain federal and California labor
law compensation requirements in order to deprive them of
overtime pay.

The proposed class consists of current and former Cadence
Systems Engineers, who were wrongly classified by the company as
exempt from the overtime provisions of wage and hour laws.

The suit alleges claims for unpaid overtime under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act and California law, waiting time
penalties under the California Labor Code, failure to provide
proper earnings statements under California law, failure to
provide meal and rest breaks as required by California law,
unfair business practices under California Business &
Professions Code section 17200, and unpaid 401(k) contributions
in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or
ERISA.

Cadence filed an Answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint and raising a number of affirmative defenses.  

The lawsuit is asking the federal court to issue an injunction
requiring Cadence to provide overtime pay to eligible employees
as well as compensation and damages to all current and former
employees who were denied overtime both in California and
elsewhere.

On June 20, 2007, the company answered the plaintiff's
complaint, denying its material allegations and raising a number
of affirmative defenses, and on Dec. 19, 2007, the company filed
an amended answer.  

A period of discovery conducted by both sides then ensued,
followed, in January 2008, by a private mediation of the case.

At the mediation, the parties were successful in resolving their
respective differences, and have entered into a settlement
agreement without contesting the merits of the claims or
admitting liability.

The parties are in the process of obtaining court approval of
the settlement, which is not expected to occur before the third
quarter of 2008.

The suit is "Higazi v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Case No.
5:07-cv-02813-JW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge James Ware presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq. (kdermody@lchb.com)
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Phone: 1-800-541-7358
                 415-956-1000
          Fax: 415-956-1008
          Web site: http://www.lieffcabraser.com

               - and -

          Eve Hedy Cervantez, Esq.
          (ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com)
          Altshuler Berzon LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 421-7151
          Fax: 415-362-8064

Representing the defendants is:

          Molly A. Harcos, Esq. (mollyharcos@paulhastings.com)
          Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP
          55 Second Street, Twenty-Fourth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
          Phone: (415) 856-7043
          Fax: (415) 856-7100


CALIFORNIA: Moor Field Opens as Part of Title IX Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a landmark class action lawsuit celebrated
their victory at the official opening of Moor Field, site of the
new softball facilities at Alhambra High School.

They joined the high school's girls' varsity softball team on
one of the two new fields built as part of the settlement of the
case, which enforced Title IX, the 1972 law mandating equality
in athletic opportunities, facilities, and coaching for both
male and female students.  While there are rampant Title IX
violations at the elementary and high school level, few are ever
reported or corrected.  The young women, who battled the
separate but unequal facilities for girls in their school
district for years, see the case's successful settlement as
their legacy to future student-athletes at Moor Field.

"These new softball diamonds are more than just places for girls
to play ball," said Lauren Cruz, plaintiff in the case and
former member of the Alhambra High School girls' softball team.
"They are symbols of the school's commitment to treating girls
fairly and giving us the same respect that the boys have gotten
all along.  It is our right to play, and it feels good to have
our rights recognized.  This is something that's been a long
time coming and I am very happy with the outcome of the fields.
The girls' softball program is expanding and with these
wonderful changes come better opportunities for succeeding
generations to play ball."

The girls were joined by their counsel, Vicky Barker of the
California Women's Law Center (CWLC), and Patricia Shiu, Claudia
Center, and Elizabeth Kristen of the Legal Aid Society -
Employment Law Center (LAS-ELC).  The CWLC and the LAS-ELC
brought the groundbreaking lawsuit on behalf of the Alhambra
High girls for injunctive relief under Title IX and other
federal and state anti-discrimination statutes.  Title IX bars
sex discrimination in education, including athletic programs,
and the lawsuit demanded that the school and city officials
increase sports opportunities offered to girls in the district.
It required that new teams be added and that the disparity in
athletic benefits be rectified by providing females with
facilities, equipment, practice, and competition times equal to
their male classmates.

After two years of litigation, the city and school district
settled the lawsuit.  The two new softball fields for female
athletes at Alhambra High School have amenities comparable to
the current boys' baseball fields.  In addition, the girls
received a new team room and exclusive access to a locker room
that was previously reserved for boys.  They also enjoy equal
access to all shared facilities, including weight rooms and the
gym.

"Title IX changes girls' lives for the better," said Elizabeth
Kristen, LAS-ELC Staff Attorney.  "The key is to make sure girls
are allowed to benefit from the discipline and fun of sports
throughout all of their years in school.  The problem is that
violations of Title IX have become so routine as to be
considered tradition at the pre-collegiate level.  That has to
change."

"These girls are very brave," said CWLC's Legal Director, Vicky
Barker.  "Title IX has been law for over 35 years, yet the
animosity and challenges that girls face at the hands of
administrators, who cherish a status quo that gives deference to
sports like football, is robbing girls of their rights.  The
benefits of sports participation in the lives of young women are
tremendous.  When girls are denied the chance to play, their
opportunity for future success in the classroom, at the
university, at the office, and in life are greatly diminished."

In 1972, Title IX mandated that all public and private
educational institutions receiving federal funds could no longer
practice sex discrimination against their students and
employees.  The law benefits both males and females in their
athletic and scholarly endeavors and is crucial to efforts to
create gender equity in schools.

The benefits of participation in sports for young girls extend
beyond fitness and competition.  Girls who play sports earn
better grades and demonstrate higher self-esteem than those who
do not.  They are also more likely to graduate from high school
and attend college.  Female athletes are less likely to smoke,
abuse drugs, or become pregnant during their teenage years.
Skills gained from sports participation, including teamwork,
leadership, and discipline, are crucial as women progress in the
corporate world at higher levels than ever before.  Eighty-
percent of female managers of Fortune 500 companies have played
organized sports on some level.

The Legal Aid Society of San Francisco - Employment Law Center
and California Women's Law Center are innovators in pursuing
Title IX violations at the high school level.

For more information, contact:

          Contessa Kellogg Mankiewicz
          (contessa.mankiewicz@cwlc.org)
          CWLC
          Phone: 310-27-6627
                 323-951-9847
          Web site: http://www.cwlc.org/

               - and -

          Elizabeth Kristen (ekristen@las-elc.org)
          LAS-ELC
          Phone: 415-505-5290
                 415-864-8848 x. 271
          Web site: http://www.las-elc.org


DAVIDSON COS: Negligence Lawsuit Withdrawn
------------------------------------------
A federal lawsuit against D.A. Davidson charging negligence in
the loss of client information has been withdrawn, Tribune
Business Editor notes.

James Goetz, Esq., an attorney for the Davidson Cos., said he
learned of the withdrawal while attempting to file a response to
the lawsuit.  Mr. Goetz said, however, that the lawsuit could be
filed again at any time.

Tribune Business recounts that in March 2008, the Billings law
firm filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Davidson Cos.,
claiming that the company's negligence resulted in a data
security breach.

The investment company had announced in late January this year
that a hacker broke into a database and obtained the names and
Social Security numbers of about 226,000 Davidson clients.

The class-action lawsuit alleged "the Davidson Companies failed
to comply with the industry standards designed to protect such
confidential personal and financial information from theft," and
that the company did not provide "adequate safeguards in its
storage and handling of its clients' confidential personal and
financial information."

According to Tribune Business, John Heenan, Esq., of Billings,
did not immediately return phone calls.

The suit named two lead plaintiffs -- Lowell Dennis Schafer of
Bozeman, a current Davidson client; and Terri Ann Oppenheimer-
Schafer of San Antonio, Texas, a past client.  Mr. Schafer, the
report says, declined to comment on the matter.

Mr. Goetz said he is aware of no incidents of identity theft as
a result of the security breach, and he said the company has
vigorously kept its clients informed of developments.


DE BEERS: May 19 Claims Deadline Set for $259M Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Jewelers Vigilance Committee, which continues to provide
guidance for resellers who submit claims to the De Beers class
action settlement fund, said deadline to submit a claim is on
May 19, 2008, the JCK-Jewelers Circular Keystone reports.

                       Case Background

In 2001, lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts against
De Beers and entities associated with De Beers.  The other
defendants are:

       -- De Beers S.A.,

       -- DB Investments, Inc.,

       -- De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd.,

       -- De Beers A.G., Diamond Trading Company, Ltd.,

       -- CSO Valuations A.G.,

       -- Central Selling Organization, Central Holdings, Ltd.,
          and

       -- De Beers Centenary A.G. Defendants are the largest
          supplier of rough diamonds in the world.

The lawsuits claim that the defendants unlawfully monopolized
the supply of Rough Gem Diamonds, sponsored false and misleading
advertising and unlawfully raised the prices of Gem Diamonds
higher than they should have been, all of which violated certain
federal and state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair
competition laws.

The following are the lawsuits being settled by the proposed
settlement:

       -- "Sullivan, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al.,
          USDC, D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 04-02819 (SRC);"

       -- "Hopkins v. De Beers Centenary A.G., et al., San
          Francisco County, Ca. No. CGC-04-432954;"

       -- "Cornwell v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., Maricopa
          Co., Az. No. CV2005-2968;"

       -- "Null, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., D.N.J.
          Civil Action Index No. 05-04849 (SRC);"

       -- "Leider, et al. v. Ralfe, et al., D.N.J. Civil Action
          Index No. 06-00908 (SRC);"

       -- "Anco Industrial Diamond Corp. v. DB Investments,
          Inc., et al., D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 01-04463
          (SRC);" and

       -- "British Diamond Import Company v. Central Holdings
          Ltd., et al., USDC, D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 04-
          04098 (SRC)."

                           Settlement

People and business entities in the U.S. who purchased gem
diamonds directly from De Beers and other diamond mining
companies from Sept. 20, 1997, to March 31, 2006, or who
purchased loose gem diamonds, diamond jewelry or other products
containing a gem diamond from a seller other than a mining
company from Jan. 1, 1994, to March 31, 2006, are included in
the settlement.

Under the proposed settlement, defendants agreed to pay a total
of $295 million to the plaintiffs.  Additionally, they also
agreed to pay up to $7 million to provide Notice of the Proposed
Settlement to the Indirect Purchaser Class.  

Of the $295 million, $22.5 million has been allocated to the
Direct Purchaser Class and $272.5 million has been allocated to
the Indirect Purchaser Class.

For more details, contact:

        Diamond Settlement Administrator
        Phone: 1-800-760-5431
               (612)-359-2002
        e-mail: Administrator@diamondsclassaction.com
        Web site: https://diamondsclassaction.com/


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Mulls Motions in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on motions filed by both parties in a
consolidated securities fraud class action against Fairfax
Financial Holdings, Ltd.

In 2006, several lawsuits seeking class action status were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The Court entered an order consolidating the various pending
lawsuits and granted the single remaining motion for appointment
as lead plaintiffs.  It also issued orders approving scheduling
stipulations filed by the parties to the consolidated lawsuit.

On Feb. 8, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint, which states that the lead plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of all purchasers and acquirers of
securities of Fairfax between May 21, 2003, and March 22, 2006,
inclusive.

The amended consolidated complaint names as defendants Fairfax,
certain of its officers and directors, OdysseyRe and its
auditors.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants
violated U.S. federal securities laws by making material
misstatements or failing to disclose certain material
information regarding, among other things, Fairfax's and
OdysseyRe's assets, earnings, losses, financial condition, and
internal financial controls.

The amended consolidated complaint seeks, among other things:

        -- certification of the putative class;

        -- unspecified compensatory damages (including
           interest);

        -- unspecified monetary restitution;

        -- unspecified extraordinary, equitable and injunctive
           relief; and

        -- costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees).

These claims are at a preliminary stage.  Pursuant to the
scheduling stipulations, the various defendants filed their
respective motions to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint, the lead plaintiffs filed their oppositions thereto,
the defendants filed their replies to those oppositions and the
motions to dismiss were argued before the Court in December
2007.  

The Court has not yet issued a ruling on these motions,
according to the company's April 25, 2008 Form F-10 filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit is "Parks, et al. v. Fairfax Financial Holdings, Ltd.,
et al., Case No. 06-CV-2820," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge George B. Daniels
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Eric James Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow, LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 907-0790
          Fax: (212) 883-7579

          Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Esq. (gjarvis@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer, PA
          630 Fifth Avenue
          45 Rokerfeller Center
          New York, NY 10111
          Phone: (646) 722-8500
          Fax: (646) 722-8501

               - and -

          Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq. (nespole@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-545-4657
          Fax: (212) 545-4693

Representing the defendants are:

          Brian Howard Polovoy, Esq. (bpolovoy@shearman.com)
          Shearman & Sterling LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 848-4000
          Fax: (212) 848-7179


FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS: Recording Artists Sue Over Work Dues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three Los Angeles recording musicians have filed a federal
lawsuit against the American Federation of Musicians and AFM
Local 47 in Los Angeles alleging that work dues paid by
recording musicians to the AFM for its new one-off video game
buyout recording agreements should be returned to Local 47, Mark
Northam writes for Film Music Magazine.

The attorney for the musicians told Film Music Magazine that his
clients -- David Parameter, Anatoly Rosinsky and Andrew Shulman
-- are seeking to expand the lawsuit into a class action suit on
behalf of all musicians who paid work dues under these
agreements.

The plaintiffs allege that work dues collected from musicians by
Local 47 and sent to the AFM should be returned to Local 47 for
work done under one-off buyout recording agreements made
available to video game companies by the AFM, citing an AFM by-
law that states that work dues are due only for "negotiated
agreements."  They claim that the video game agreements were not
negotiated and ratified by the membership, and therefore should
not be subject to work dues.

The AFM has responded in court documents that the video game
agreements, while not ratified by the membership of the AFM, are
not "non-negotiated" within the meaning of its bylaws and denies
any obligation to account for or refund to Local 47 dues paid by
Local 47 to the AFM for work done under the agreements.

The plaintiffs point to a January 2007 letter issued by AFM
attorney Jeffrey Freund, Esq., in response to Michael Posner,
Esq., representing Recording Musicians Associations
International President Phil Ayling, that states that the AFM
buyout video game agreement in question "was not negotiated with
any employer; it was simply created by the IEB [AFM
International Executive Board] and made available to any
employer in the video game industry who desires to score a video
game with union musicians."

The plaintiffs point to Section 32 of Article 9 of the AFM
bylaws claiming that the video game agreements are not
"negotiated agreements" within the meaning of those bylaws.

While an October 2007 article in The Hollywood Reporter said the
RMA-LA "is demanding its parent organization, the American
Federation of Musicians, refund more than $1 million dollars in
work dues the local group claims it was improperly charged," and
an online news article at http://www.afm143.orgdescribes the  
current lawsuit as between "the RMA and the AFM," the
plaintiffs' attorney, Michael Posner, Esq., told Film Music
Magazine that the RMA and Mr. Ayling are not parties to the
current lawsuit.  

According to Film Music Magazine, Mr. Ayling and RMA-LA
President Pete Anthony did not respond to requests for comment  
regarding the matter.

In a statement to the magazine, AFM President Tom Lee said, "It
is regrettable that individuals have been convinced to go down
this path.  The AFM hopes that cooler minds will prevail and
this ill advised action will be abandoned so that we can
concentrate our efforts on matters of greater concern to a wider
group of musicians throughout the US and Canada.  We need to
focus our efforts on passing the performance rights bill which
will benefit musicians in the United States.  Piracy,
intellectual property matters, tax law, social security reform,
and health insurance are all items that may be before Congress
and each will have a collective impact on a large group of AFM
members and their families.  We urge these individuals who filed
the lawsuit to join the huge majority of their brothers and
sisters in working for positive change that will affect a
greater number of our members instead of taking negative action
which ultimately threatens the welfare of our members."

Local 47 attorney Lewis Levy, Esq., told Film Music Magazine,
"Local 47 is vigorously protecting its rights in the litigation
and expects to be fully vindicated when the matter is
concluded."

The magazine writes that the lawsuit is the latest battle in an
ongoing dispute between Los Angeles recording musicians and the
AFM regarding new buyout agreements that the AFM is offering to
employers in an attempt to reduce the amount of recording work
that is being done in Seattle, Europe and other non-AFM
locations that offer buyout contracts for film, television and
video game score recording.


FUNERAL HOMES Anapol Schwartz Files Donor Family Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley, P.C.
filed a donor family class action complaint with the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, against Philadelphia funeral
homes, funeral directors, crematories, and a N.J. tissue
harvesting company charged with pilfering bones and tissue from
the dead.

Several tissue processing companies are also named.

Anapol Schwartz attorneys Larry Cohan and Melissa Fry Hague
said, "We are representing hundreds of individuals located
primarily in Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia area, including
those notified that their loved one's body parts were stolen."

Plaintiffs are seeking class certification and demanding a jury
trial based on 16 counts, ranging from civil conspiracy,
negligence and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional
distress, to fraud/deception under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

"We must hold the responsible parties and their accomplices
accountable. These families have experienced terrible suffering
-- they deserve to know the truth and move on with their lives,"
added Mr. Cohan.

Donor families include lead plaintiffs Martha Wilson, Nancy
Wilson and James Wilson, and Neil Pancoast.  The complaint
states that the tissue of Wilsons' father and Pancoast's wife
(who died of lung and bone cancer at 59) were harvested without
consent.

For more information, contact:

          Jennifer Wasilisin, Esq. (jjwasilisin@hotmail.com)
          Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley,  
          P.C.
          1710 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-495-4164


GECKO ALLIANCE: Recalls Electronic Spa Controls Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gecko Alliance of Quebec, Canada, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,670
Serenity Spa Hot Tubs.

The company said the hot tub's spa control can overheat, posing
a fire hazard.

Gecko Alliance has received 28 reports of the spa control
overheating, including one incident of damage to spa equipment.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Hydropool Serenity Series Spa hot tubs
with serial numbers 01350XXXX through 03210XXXX.  The serial
numbers are printed on the right side of the spa control.  The
Gecko spa control (SSPA-1) has model number 0202-205097 printed
on it.

These recalled Serenity Spa Hot Tubs were manufactured in Canada
and were being sold exclusively by Hydropool dealers throughout
Northeastern United States in Serenity brand spas from January
2002 through December 2004 for between $3,900 to $8,200.

Pictures of the recalled  Serenity Spa Hot Tubs are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08235a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08235b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the hot tubs and
reduce the water temperature control to the minimum setting.
Consumers should contact Gecko Alliance's Back-Pak support
center to receive the free retrofit enclosure kit.  The kit will
be provided with a full set of instructions.  Instructions are
also available at http://www.back-pak.com/

Consumers should not use their spa until after the retrofit
enclosure kit is installed.

For additional information, contact the Back-Pak support team
toll-free at (800) 784 3256 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET
or visit http://www.back-pak.com/


GEORGIA: Dougherty County Tax Lawsuit Sent to Appeals Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tifton Judicial Circuit Senior Judge John D. Crosby has
forwarded his recent ruling denying the Dougherty County Board
of Tax Assessors' Jan. 23 motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a
number of Dougherty taxpayers to the Georgia Court of Appeals
seeking a Certificate of Immediate Review, Albany Herald On-line
reports.

As reported in Class Action Reporter on April 29, 2008,
Dougherty taxpayers scored a legal victory last week when Judge
Crosby refused to dismiss the case.

The CAR report recounted that Dougherty County Tax Director
Denver Hooten and the board of tax assessors earlier filed a
motion to dismiss the class action suit, arguing that the
taxpayers had adequate remedies at law through the appeals
process and in superior court, and denying many of the
plaintiffs' factual allegations.  However, in an order filed
April 22, Judge Crosby denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
any of the complaint's 18 counts.

                         Case Background

CAR reported on Jan. 25, 2008, that about 15 property owners in
Dougherty County, Georgia, filed a purported class action
lawsuit with the Dougherty County Superior Court seeking
equitable relief from a countrywide tax revaluation.  Calling
the action "unconstitutional, illegal, null and void," the
plaintiffs are asking the court to reinstate property values
based on the county's 2006 tax digest.

The lawsuit, which named Dougherty Tax Director Hooten and
members of the Board of Tax Assessors as defendants, was
assigned to Judge Crosby.

Tax Director Hooten said that last year's countywide
reassessment of property values was the first since 1963 and it
boosted Dougherty's tax digest by some 20%, though local
governments later lowered their millage rates slightly.

However, the lawsuit asserted that the reassessment was
fundamentally flawed.

The firm hired to conduct the reassessment, Tyler CLT Division,
used a "mass appraisal" methodology, considering only square
footage and age to determine a home's value, ignoring comparable
sales and other relevant factors such as use, while agricultural
property was valued at a flat per-acre price, the suit alleged.

Of some 34,000 parcels reassessed, Dougherty officials have
reported that "slightly over 5,400 taxpayers filed appeals" of
the new values.

According to the complaint, the county also neglected to provide
a "nontechnical" explanation for increases of 15% or more as
required by Georgia law, then discouraged taxpayers during the
appeals process, scheduling hundreds of hearings at the same
time and stacking three adjunct boards of equalization with
members "disinclined to support the reduction of appraised
values."

                     Suit is up for Appeal


Julius M. Hulsey, Esq., and Jane A. Range, Esq., of Hulsey,
Oliver & Mahar, sent Hilliard P. Burt, Esq., attorney for
Dougherty taxpayers Richard R. Thomas, Lonnie Smith, Donnie
Smith, Judy Lee, Michael Smith, C.W. Hopkins, Curtis Smith, John
O’Brien, Jerry Brooks, Hilton Merchant, Tim Coley and Cecil
Musgrove, notice of the certificate in a letter dated April 25,
2008.

Dougherty County Attorney Spencer Lee told Albany Herald that
the Certificate of Immediate Review will allow the state court
of appeals to review Judge Crosby's ruling and determine if the
taxpayers' suit should be included in hearings that will include
some 150 appeals cases that are pending with the Dougherty
Superior Court.

Mr. Lee said the 150 parcels represent the remainder of the
5,000 appeals that were registered when revaluation notices were
first sent out in 2007.  Appeals were initially heard by
representatives of the company that set parcel values (Tyler CLT
of Ohio), then by the Board of Tax Assessors and finally by a
grand jury-appointed Board of Equalization.

"A motion was granted to bifurcate the cases into those based on
value and those based on uniformity," Mr. Lee said.  "A stay was
granted on trials of parcel appeals based on value until a
ruling was made on those based on uniformity (of the digest).

"This separate case, the county feels, should be ruled on with
the others.  We feel all issues come under the same
administrative process."


HED ARTZI: Israel Consumer Council Seeks to Join Kiddie Ads Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Israel Consumer Council has requested the Petach Tikva
District Court to allow it to join in a class-action suit over
hidden advertising in children's recordings, Haaretz Daily
reports.

According to Haaretz Daily, the council told the court in its
request that it has a crucial part to play in the proceedings
because of the importance of the issue -- the defense of minors
against exploitation through alleged violation of consumer laws
and others.

"It is befitting that a public and objective organization
entrusted with protecting the public interest be adjoined to the
claim from the start of the proceedings" the council contended.

The report recounts that Avshalom Sharon asked the court earlier
last month to accept a ILS100-million class-action lawsuit
against Hed Artzi, Classi-Kalatot, Osem and Strauss-Elite.
According to the claim, advertisers and companies involved in
the production and distribution of recordings -- whose targeted
consumers are children -- include in their products blatant
advertisement content without the knowledge of either the
children or their parents.

According to the council, its inclusion in the proceedings is
necessary in order to represent the position of the large
consumer public, on whom the proceedings and its outcome have
bearing before the court.


J.P. MORGAN: Faces Securities Litigation in New York State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I and several other J.P.
Morgan entities are facing a purported securities class action
suit that is now pending with the Supreme Court of the State of
New York,

On March 26, 2008, J.P. Morgan and several related entities were
served with a class action lawsuit filed by Plumbers' &
Pipefitters' Local #562 Supplemental Plan & Trust and Plumbers'
& Pipefitters' Local #562 Pension Fund before the Supreme Court
of the State of New York.

The suit involves claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933 for alleged false and misleading registration statements
and prospectus supplements filed with the Commission between
January 2006 and March 2007, according to J.P. Morgan Mortgage
Trust 2007-A1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.


KILGORE CO: Carpal Tunnel Exams Spur Lawsuit in Tennessee Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kilgore Co. is facing a clas-action complaint filed on April 25,
2008, with the U.S. District court for the Western District of
Tennessee accusing it of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act by giving nerve-conduction exams to job
applicants, and refusing to hire people it believes susceptible
to carpal tunnel syndrome, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Robinette Anderson brings this action for
discrimination in employment by taking adverse employment action
against individuals at its Toone, Tennessee plant based upon
these individuals' nerve conduction examinations.

These nerve conduction examinations purport to indicate these
individuals had a propensity to develop cumulative trauma
disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, and the defendant
thereby mistakenly perceived them to be undesirable hires who
were substantially limited in the major life activity of
working.

The plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23(a),(b)(1),(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of all applicants with apparent or
actual disabilities, or a history of being disabled, who have
been denied employment based upon nerve conduction examinations
purporting to indicate they had a propensity to develop
cumulative trauma disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, and
therefore should not be hired for what amounts to a "class or
range of jobs."

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant's policies, procedures, acts and
         omissions violated the ADA; and

     (b) whether the plaintiff and the class have sustained
         injury by reason of the defendant's acts or omissions.

The plaintiff asks the court for an order:

     -- determining that this is a proper class action to be
        certified under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- granting permanent injunction that enjoins the
        defendant, its directors, officers, employees, agents
        from engaging in, ratifying, or refusing to correct the
        employment practices which discriminate in violation of
        the ADA;

     -- directing the defendant to make the plaintiffs whole
        by providing appropriate back-pay with prejudgment
        interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, instatement
        or reinstatement to positions with the defendant;

     -- awarding extraordinary, equitable and injunctive
        relief as permitted by law, equity and the federal
        statutory provisions sued hereunder pursuant to Rule 65
        and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- awarding the plaintiff and class members restitutionary
        and remedial relief; and

     -- awarding the plaintiff and class members pre-judgment
        and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable
        attorneys fees, expert witness fees and other costs.

The suit is "Robinette Anderson et al. v. Kilgore Co., Case
1:08-cv-01095-JDT-sta," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Justin S. Gilbert, Esq. (jgilbert@gilbertfirm.com)
          Michael L. Russell, Esq. (mrussell@gilbertfirm.com)
          Jonathan L. Bobbitt, Esq. (jbobbitt@gilbertfirm.com)
          Gilbert Russell McWherter PLC
          101 North Highland Avenue
          Jackson, Tennessee 38301
          Phone: 731-664-1340
          Fax: 731-664-1540


LOUISIANA: Parish President Still Faces Lawsuits Over Katrina
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana District Judge John Peytavin recently refused to
dismiss Jefferson Parish President Aaron F. Broussard from
potential class-action suits that hold him personally
responsible for Hurricane Katrina damage, Michael Kunzelman
writes for Associated Press.

The report recounts that on the eve of Katrina, massive pumps
that keep water out of New Orleans suburb Jefferson, La., went
silent when the roughly 100 workers who run them were allowed to
flee under a "doomsday" evacuation plan.  With the storm raging,
flood water on the east bank of Jefferson Parish had nowhere to
go, damaging thousands of homes, shopping malls and businesses
between Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River in
Jefferson Parish.

For Mr. Broussard, the evacuation of the workers could be make-
or-break politically and legally, the AP report relates.

While other government officials and agencies have persuaded
courts they are immune from liability for Katrina damage or
deaths, Mr. Broussard seemed to be the last still dogged in
public and in court.  

AP says that after the storm, parish residents along the lake's
east bank dried out and scraped the muck from their middle class
and upscale homes.  They then went to court against Mr.
Broussard, with a judge recently refusing to dismiss him from
lawsuits that hold him personally responsible.

The report recalls that, at first, Mr. Broussard publicly
accepted responsibility for the evacuation decision in August
2005.  Over the years, he went about rebuilding a rapport with
angry voters with support from residents who suffered less
hurricane damage.  In October 2007, Mr. Broussard managed to
narrowly win re-election over a little-known challenger.

However, AP notes, about a month after the election, Mr.
Broussard swore under oath in lawsuit depositions that he did
not know of the doomsday evacuation plan before Katrina, saying
he learned the pump operators had gone only after the fact.

Many constituents wonder where the truth lies.

"He's changing his story to fit the legal situation," Debbie
Settoon, a civil engineer and president of the civic group
Citizens for a Safer Jefferson, told AP.

Regarding a question on why he would defend a plan he did not
know about, Mr. Broussard said it was because it "preserved
life."  On the question of why he had shouldered the blame for a
decision he swears he did not make, Mr. Broussard said that it
was the "burden of leadership."

Both sides of the lawsuits, however, agree on the fact that for
nearly 12 hours after Katrina struck, Jefferson's network of
canals overflowed because pump operators were evacuated, AP
relates.  

In refusing to dismiss Mr. Broussard, Judge Peytavin cited
"unanswered" questions posed by storm victims' lawyers during a
November deposition.

Moreover, AP says, Mr. Broussard downplays comparisons between
his public rhetoric and sworn testimony.  "Part of the burden of
leadership is accepting the public sentiment with respect," he
said.  "Legal accountability is a different standard."

The parish's former emergency director, Walter Maestri, who
retired about a year after Katrina, told victims' lawyers aslt
month that he had not discussed evacuation of pump operators
with Mr. Broussard on Aug. 28, 2005, the eve of the storm.  But
he contradicted Mr. Broussard's claim of ignorance of the
doomsday plan.

Mr. Maestri, who drafted the original plan in 1998, revised the
document in 2005 to identify a new hurricane shelter for parish
employees.  Mr. Maestri said Mr. Broussard sought the change
through a deputy, who quoted the parish president as saying he
"wanted no one to die on his watch."

Mr. Broussard said he did not recall voting on the plan in 1998,
when he chaired the parish council.  Mr. Maestri, however, said
the council approved the plan as part of a larger emergency
operations strategy that Mr. Broussard voted for in 2001,
according to parish records.

Blaine LeCesne, a Loyola University law professor, told AP that
despite the progression of several lawsuits, plaintiffs against
Mr. Broussard face long odds given legal protection afforded
public officials.

"Unless they commit some grossly negligent, highly reckless
conduct, generally the courts are not quick to hold them
responsible for those discretionary acts," Ms. LeCesne said.


MASTER LOCK: Recalls Leash Locks for Lead Paint Standard Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Master Lock, of Oak Creek, Wis., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 27,000
Lock and Leash Locks.

The company said red surface paint on the locks contains
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard.  No injuries have been reported.


This recall involves red Lock and Leash locks with model number
1551D.  The locks have a matching red coiled cable used to
anchor items.  Master Lock is printed in white above the
combination display.  Other colors are not affected by this
recall.  These recalled Lock and Leash Locks were manufactured
in Taiwan and were being sold at Hardware stores and Internet
retailers from March 2007 through January 2008 for about $8.

A picture of the recalled Lock and Leash Locks is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08236.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
locks and return them to Master Lock Company Return Goods c/o
All in One Warehouse, 2050 North Smokey Lane, Suite B, Nogales,
AZ 85621 for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Master Lock at (800) 464-
2088 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.masterlock.com/


MATTEL INC: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Product Liability Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a multi-district litigation pending in
California captioned, "In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products
Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:2007ml01897," which names
Mattel, Inc., as a defendant.

Initially, about 22 lawsuits have been filed in the U.S.
asserting claims arising out of 2007 voluntary product recalls
by Mattel and Fisher-Price, as well as the withdrawal of red and
green toy blood pressure cuffs from retail stores or their
replacement at the request of consumers.

On September 5, 2007, Mattel and Fisher-Price filed a motion
before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking
that all federal actions related to the recalls be coordinated
and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the JPML issued a transfer order, transferring
six actions pending outside the Central District of California
to the Central District of California for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with five actions already
pending in the same venue.

The remaining cases, the so-called "potential tag-along
actions," are either already pending in the Central District of
California or have been transferred there pursuant to the Jan. 3
and Jan. 17, 2008 conditional transfer orders issued by the
JPML.

These matters are all currently pending under MDL proceeding
captioned, "In re Mattel, Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability
Litigation, No. 2:07-ML-01897-DSF-AJW, MDL 1897 (C. D. Ca.)."

On March 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint in the MDL proceeding.  The plaintiffs
seek certification of a class of all persons who, from May 2003
through the present, purchased and acquired certain allegedly
hazardous toys.

The Consolidated Complaint defines hazardous toys as:

       -- those toys recalled between Aug. 2, 2007, and Oct. 25,
          2007, due to the presence of lead in excess of
          applicable standards in the paint on some parts of
          some of the toys;

       -- those toys recalled on Nov. 21, 2006, and Aug. 14,
          2007, related to magnets; and
   
       -- the red and green toy blood pressure cuffs voluntarily
          withdrawn from retail stores or replaced at the
          request of consumers.

The Consolidated Complaint refers to other, unidentified toys
that allegedly contain lead in excess of applicable standards or
unsafe magnets that have not been recalled.

Aside from Mattel and Fisher-Price, the Consolidated Complaint
names also names as defendants:

     -- Target Corp.,
     -- Toys 'R" Us, Inc.,
     -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
     -- KB Toys, Inc., and
     -- Kmart Corp.

Mattel has offered to assume the defense of and to indemnify the
retailers named in the Consolidated Complaint for the specific
claims raised in the Consolidated Complaint, which claims relate
to the sale of Mattel and Fisher-Price toys.

In the Consolidated Complaint, the plaintiffs assert claims for
breach of implied and express warranties, negligence, strict
liability, violation of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Act and
related Consumer Product Safety Rules, various California
consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek:

       -- declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining defendants
          from continuing the allegedly unlawful practices
          raised in the Consolidated Complaint;

       -- restitution and disgorgement of monies acquired by
          defendants from the allegedly unlawful practices;

       -- costs of initial diagnostic blood lead level testing
          to detect possible injury to plaintiffs and members of
          the class;

       -- costs of treatment for those who test positive to the
          initial diagnostic blood lead level testing;

       -- reimbursement of the purchase price for the allegedly
          hazardous toys; and

       -- costs and attorneys' fees.

Discovery has commenced and is ongoing, but is in the very early
stages, according to the company's April 25, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.  

The suit is "In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 2:2007ml01897," pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Dale S. Fischer presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ivy D. Arai, Esq. (ivy@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 5th Ave Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292

          Ben Barnow, Esq. (b.barnow@barnowlaw.com)
          Barnow and Associates PC
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-621-2000
          Fax: 312-641-5504

               - and -

          Mila F. Bartos, Esq. (mbartos@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran
          Duvall Foundry, 1050 30th St NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000

Representing the defendants is:

          Thomas E. Fennell, Esq. (tefennell@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          2727 North Harwood Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-220-3939


MF GLOBAL: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set for May 6
------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that
shareholders of MF Global, Ltd. who purchased shares of MF
Global in its Initial Public Offering on July 19, 2007, or in
the open market from July 19, 2007, through February 28, 2008,
inclusive, have only until May 6, 2008, to move for appointment
as Lead Plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit
currently pending with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and one or more members of its senior management, violated the
Securities Act of 1933 by including, or allowing the inclusion
of, materially false and misleading statements in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the IPO.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/986-0036
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com


NEW CENTURY: Faces Multiple Securities Litigation in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Financial Corp., the parent of NC Capital Corp., one
of the original loan sellers, is facing several purported
securities class action suits filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, according to GSAMP Trust
2007-HE2's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

On Feb. 14, 2007, NCFC was served with a complaint for a
purported securities class action filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against NCFC and
certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that NCFC and the other named defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements and failing to disclose material facts about NCFC,
which resulted in artificially inflated market prices of NCFC's
common stock, and that the plaintiff and the purported class
members purchased the registrant's stock at these artificially
inflated market prices between April 7, 2006, and Feb. 7, 2007.

The complaint seeks money damages in favor of its purported
class of purchasers of NCFC's securities, the costs and expenses
of the action and other relief that may be granted by the court.

Later on, nine additional purported class action suits were
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California between Feb. 8, 2007, and Feb. 20, 2007.

NCFC stated that these additional complaints present in large
degree the same legal and factual issues as the Original
Complaint and allege various class periods, the longest of which
is from April 7, 2006, to Feb. 7, 2007.

New Century Financial Corp. -- http://www.ncen.com-- is a real  
estate investment trust, and through its subsidiaries, operates
one of the mortgage finance companies.  The Company originates
and purchases primarily first-mortgage loans worldwide.  The
Company focuses on lending to individuals whose borrowing needs
are generally not fulfilled by traditional financial
institutions because they do not satisfy the credit,
documentation or other underwriting standards prescribed by
conventional mortgage lenders and loan buyers.  The Company
originates and purchases mortgage loans through two divisions:
Wholesale Division and Retail Division.  In September 2005, the
New Century acquired a mortgage origination platform from RBC
Mortgage Co., which expands its offerings to include
conventional mortgage loans, including Alt-A mortgage loans,
loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, and loans
guaranteed by the Veterans Administration.


QUALCOMM INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over State Antitrust Law Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qualcomm Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego accusing it of violating state antitrust law by
monopolizing the market for cell phone technology and
components, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action brought under the Cartwright Act on
behalf of all persons who:

     (1) purchased one or more cellular devices that either
         contain the Wideband Code Division Access  
         technology or that are compatible with the Universal
         Mobile Telecommunications System standard; and

     (2) purchased cellular service from any carrier in the
         United States which bundles its cellular service with
         subsidized UMTS-compliant devices.

This complaint arises from Qualcomm's illegal and
anticompetitive conduct in the markets for the technology and
chipsets that operate cell phones employing DCDMA, a third
generation (3G) technology that is implemented through the UMTS
standard. Qualcomm, by its intentional deception of private
standards-determining organizations has monopolized certain
markets for cellular telephone technology and components.

Named plaintiff Merdad Valikhani wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Qualcomm's patents are essential to
         manufacturing UMTS chipsets or UMTS devices;

     (b) whether Qualcomm has represented its patents are
         essential to manufacturing UMTS chipsets or UMTS
         devices to relevant manufacturers, and said
         manufacturers have relied on those representations;

     (c) whether Qualcomm represented or committed that it would
         license its patents on FRAND terms to SDO participants
         involved in the selection and formulation of the UMTS
         standard;

     (d) whether Qualcomm intentionally misrepresented that it
         would license its patents on FRAND terms to SDO
         participants involved in the selection and formulation
         of the UMTS standard;

     (e) whether Qualcomm has committed the UMTs Licensing
         Practices alleged;

     (f) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices alleged are fair,
         reasonable and non-discriminatory;

     (g) whether Qualcomm reneged on its commitments to license
         its UMTS patents on FRAND terms;

     (h) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices have
         anticompetitive effects, including supracompetitive
         pricing and impair non-price competition in the form of
         deterred innovation;

     (i) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices' anticompetitive
         effects are passed on to end consumers of UMTS devices;

     (j) what portion of end-user prices for UMTS devices are
         attributable to Qualcomm's anticompetitive conduct
         alleged;

     (k) whether UMTS Licensing creates a trust in violation of
         the California Cartwright Act;

     (l) whether Qualcomm's UMTS Licensing Practices are
         unlawful and otherwise unfair, and thereby constitutes
         a violation of California's unfair competition law; and

     (m) whether plaintiff and the device class are entitled to
         relief, and the nature of such relief.

The plaintiff requests that the court enter an order:

     -- certifying the action as a class action and designating
        plaintiff and his counsel as representatives of the
        device class and the service class;

     -- awarding treble damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial against Qualcomm and in favor of the Device class
        and the Service class;

     -- granting injunction against further anticompetitive
        acts, and the costs of the suit, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees;

     -- granting equitable relief including an accounting, a
        constructive trust and restitution, in an amount to be
        determined at trial, and attorneys' fees, against
        Qualcomm and in favor of the Injunctive class; and

     -- awarding pre- and post-judgment interest.

The suit is "Merdad Valikhani et al. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No.
37-2008-00082231-CU-AT-CTL," filed with the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          David C. Parisi, Esq. (dcparisi@parisihavenscom)
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq. (shavens@parisihavenscom)
          Parisi & Havens LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, California 91403
          Phone: (818) 990-1299
          Fax: (818) 501-7852


RETAIL VENTURES: Still Faces Suit Over Credit Card Data Thefts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Ventures, Inc., continues to face a purported class
action suit arising from the theft of credit card and other
purchase information from its database.

On March 8, 2005, Retail Ventures announced that it had learned
of the theft of credit card and other purchase information from
a portion of DSW, Inc.'s customers.

On April 18, 2005, Retail Ventures issued the findings from its
investigation into the theft.  The theft covered transaction
information involving approximately 1.4 million credit cards and
data from transactions involving approximately 96,000 checks.

DSW and Retail Ventures contacted and continue to cooperate with
law enforcement and other authorities with regard to this
matter.

The company is involved in several legal proceedings arising out
of this incident, including a putative class action suit, which
seeks unspecified monetary damages, credit monitoring and other
relief.  The lawsuit also seeks to certify a class of consumers
that is limited geographically to consumers who made purchases
at certain stores in Ohio.

The company reported no development in connection with the case
in its April 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

Retail Ventures, Inc. -- http://www.retailventuresinc.com--  
operates its business in three segments: Value City Department
Stores LLC, DSW Inc., and Filene's Basement, Inc.  Value City is
a full-line, value price retailer carrying men's, women's and
children's apparel, accessories, jewelry, shoes, home fashions,
electronics and seasonal items.  DSW is a specialty branded
footwear retailer operating 223 shoe stores in 35 states as of
Feb. 3, 2007.  Filene's Basement stores offer designer and name
brand apparel, home goods and accessories.  


ROHM & HAAS: Faces Air & Groundwater Contamination Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm & Haas Co. is facing a purported class action suit filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania over alleged toxic contamination of air and
groundwater by one of its installations located about one mile
north of McCullom Lake Village, according to the company's
April 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit entitled, "Gates et al v. Rohm and Haas Company et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-01743-GP," was filed by Glenn and Donna Gates
on April 25, 2006.  It seeks certification of a class comprised
of the owners and residents of about 500 homes in McCullom Lake
Village, seeking medical monitoring and compensation for alleged
property value diminution, among other things.

The suit is "Gates et al v. Rohm and Haas Company et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-01743-GP," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Gene E.K. Pratter
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq. (ajf@layserfreiwald.com)
          Layser & Freiwald PC
          1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl.
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-875-8000

Representing the defendants are:

          Jennifer A. Battle (jbattle@schnader.com)
          Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
          1600 Market Street
          Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286
          Phone: 215-751-2647

               - and -

          Albert G. Bixler, Esq. (abixler@eckertseamans.com)
          Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC
          Two Liberty Place 22nd Floor
          50 South 16th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-851-8412


ROHM & HAAS: Supreme Court Denies Petition in Pension Plan Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied Rohm & Haas Co.'s petition to hear
its appeal on a matter involving participants in its pension
plan, according to the company's April 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

On Dec. 22, 2005, a federal judge in Indiana issued an order
granting a class of participants in the Rohm and Haas pension
plan the right to a cost-of-living adjustment as part of the
retirement benefit for those who elect a lump sum benefit.  

The decision contravenes the plain language of the plan, which
clearly and expressly excludes a discretionary COLA for
participants who elect a lump sum benefit.

In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision that participants in
the plan who elected a lump sum benefit during a class period
have the right to a COLA as part of their retirement benefit.

In March 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the company's
petition to hear its appeal, and the case now returns to the
lower court for further proceedings.  

When the proceedings in the lower court have concluded, the
pension trust will be required to pay certain COLA costs.  

Rohm & Haas Co. -- http://www.rohmhaas.com/-- is a global  
specialty materials company whose portfolio of global businesses
includes specialty materials, electronic materials and salt.  
The Company's products enable the creation of consumer goods and
other products found in a segment of dynamic markets, including
building and construction, electronics, packaging and paper,
industrial and other, transportation, household and personal
care, water and food.  It has operations with approximately 100
manufacturing and 33 research facilities in 27 countries.  


TYSON FOODS: Faces Suit in Arkansas Over "Drug-Free" Chickens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc., is facing a class-action suit filed on
April 25, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas over its "Drug-Free" chickens, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The complaint claims Tyson cheats its customers in a "calculated
and cynical fraudulent scheme," by falsely claiming that its
chickens are raised without antibiotics, and charging more for
them, "knowing full well that all of its products were in fact
raised with antibiotics."

The named plaintiffs, from five large states, claim that Tyson
advertises and sells chicken "that it represents to be 'Raised
Without Antibiotics'."  The plaintiffs say the chicken behemoth
"in fact uses a type of antibiotic known as 'ionophores' in
raising its chickens," and that "it is undisputed that
ionophores are antibiotics."

The purportedly "raised without antibiotics" and "raised without
antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans" chicken
or chicken products were sold throughout the time period of
May 16, 2007, through the date of filing this class action.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all consumer
residents and domiciliaries of New York, California, Florida,
Illinois and Ohio, who purchased Tyson chicken products during
the relevant time period, having been exposed to Tyson's false
advertising.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the alleged conduct by defendant violated laws
         as alleged in the complaint;

     (b) the duration and extent of any such violations or
         unlawful conduct in the complaint;

     (c) the amount by which defendant's illegal, inequitable
         and unfair trade practices have inflated the prices
         paid by members of the class for chicken or chicken
         products over the amounts they would otherwise have
         paid for ordinary chicken or chicken products;

     (d) whether defendant's conduct caused injury to plaintiff
         and the class members; and

     (e) whether plaintiffs and the class members are entitled
         to injunctive, declaratory and other equitable
         relief requested.

The plaintiff asks the court to:

     -- determine that this action may be maintained as a class
        action and appoint plaintiffs and their counsel to serve
        as class representatives and class counsel;

     -- declare, adjudge and decree the conduct of the
        defendants as alleged to be unlawful;

     -- grant plaintiffs and all class members awards of actual,
        compensatory, statutory, punitive and exemplary
        damages in such amount to be determined at trial and as
        provided by applicable law;

     -- direct that defendant be forced to disgorge all profits
        by which it was unjustly enriched, at the expense of the
        plaintiffs;

     -- award plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs of suit; and

     -- grant plaintiffs and the class members such other,
        further, and different relief as the nature of the case
        may require or as may be determined to be just,
        equitable, and proper by the court.

The suit is "Mariko Cohen et al v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No.
4:08-CV-0366," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Damon Chargois, Esq. (damon@cmhllp.com)
          Che D. Williamson, Esq. (che@cmhllp.com)
          Chargois & Herron LLP
          2201 Timberloch Place, Suite 110
          The Woodlands, Texas 77380
          Phone: (281) 444-0604
                 (866) 444-0604
          Fax: (281) 440-0124


WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited has reached an agreement in principle to
settle a securities class action lawsuit pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The terms of the settlement, which are subject to negotiation of
definitive documentation and must be approved by the court,
include a cash payment of $16.5 million, expected to be made in
the second or third quarter of 2008.  The majority of the
settlement will be funded by insurance proceeds and it will not
have a material financial impact on the Company.

In November 2006, the company and certain of its officers, were
named as defendants in the purported class action, "Albano v.
Warner Chilcott Limited et al."  Similar purported class actions
have been filed subsequently.  

The complaints asserted claims under the U.S. Securities Act of
1933 on behalf of a class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the Company's common
stock in connection with its IPO between Sept. 20, 2006, and
Sept. 26, 2006.  

A consolidated amended complaint, which adds as defendants the
lead underwriters for the IPO, was filed on May 4, 2007.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company omitted and misstated certain facts concerning
its planned transition from the sale of OVCON 35 to the sale of
its new patented product, OVCON 35 FE (now FEMCON FE).

The Company and the individual defendants answered the complaint
on June 18, 2007.  The District Court certified the plaintiff
class on Feb. 4, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, March 26, 2008).

The settlement will resolve all claims asserted against Warner
Chilcott and the other defendants in this case.  The settlement
will not contain any admission of wrongdoing by the Company or
any of the other defendants.  Although Warner Chilcott believes
this suit is without merit, the Company is pleased to put the
uncertainty of the class action litigation behind it and
believes that the decision to settle is in the best interest of
its shareholders.

The suit is "Angelo Albano, et al. v. Warner Chilcott Limited,
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11515-WHP" filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge William H.
Pauley III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs)
          58 South Service Road
          Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

               - and -

          Lawrence Donald Levit, Esq. (llevit@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza
          Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: (212)-279-5050
          Fax: (212)-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          Daniel Shay Kirschbaum, Esq.
          (dkirschbaum@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 373-3000 x3072
          Fax: (212) 492-0072

               - and -

          Mary Jane Eaton, Esq.
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 728-8000
          Fax: (212) 728-8111
          e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP
filed a class action lawsuit on April 29, 2008, with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc.  between September 13, 2006, and July 30, 2007,
inclusive.

The complaint names Lehman Brothers, Richard S. Fuld,
Christopher M. O'Meara, and Joseph M. Gregory as defendants.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing various
materially false and misleading statements about Lehman
Brothers' financial well-being, business operations and
prospects, which had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

The complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants failed to
fully disclose the nature and extent of the Company's exposure
to losses incurred from trading in subprime mortgage-backed
derivatives and that the Company failed to timely writedown its
positions in these securities.

On July 10, 2007, Lehman Brothers announced that it had
"unrealized" losses of $459 million in the quarter ended May 31,
2007, from mortgages and mortgage-backed assets in its
inventory.  On the same day, it was reported that Standard &
Poor's indicated that it may cut ratings on $12 billion of bonds
backed by subprime mortgages, a move that would significantly
cut into the Company's trading profits, since it is Wall
Street's largest underwriter of mortgage bonds.  

As a result of the news, Lehman Brothers' stock fell $3.76 per
share on July 10, 2007 on unusually high trading volume.
Throughout the remainder of the Class Period, Lehman Brothers
continued to downplay the risks associated with owning these
mortgage-backed securities, and the nature and true extent of
the Company's exposure to subprime-related assets and financial
positions.  On July 26, 2007, it was reported by Bloomberg that
the risk of owning Lehman Brothers' bonds "soared" and its share
price plunged "as concerns escalated that investment banks will
be hurt by losses from subprime mortgages and corporate debt."

The report detailed the soaring cost of credit-default swaps
used to bet on Lehman Brothers' creditworthiness, signaling a
significant deterioration in investor confidence.  On this news,
Lehman Brothers' shares fell an additional $3.16 per share on
July 26, 2007, again on unusually heavy trading volume.  
Finally, on July 31, 2007, Bloomberg reported that ". . . Lehman
Brothers (is) as good as junk" because the prices of credit-
default swaps for the Company equated to a Ba1 rating, implying
that the Company's credit ratings were below investment grade.
On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $2.80 on
heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact:

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 800-321-0476

               - and -

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 888-299-7706




                            *********

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 research,
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, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and
Peter Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  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  * * *