---

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

            Tuesday, February 20, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 36

                            Headlines


ALCOA CANADA: Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuit in Quebec
ALCOA INC: Suit Over PCB by Akwesane Indians to Enter Discovery
ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Multiple SRAM Antitrust Lawsuits
AMERICAN HONDA: "Odometer" Suits Settlement Hearing Set May 30
ASPEON INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Calif. Securities Suit Dismissal

BEAR STEARNS: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Short-Selling Transactions
BEAR STEARNS: Opposes Approval of McKesson HBOC Suit Settlement
BEAR STEARNS: Reaches Settlement in Sterling Foster Litigation
BEAR STEARNS: Settles Prime Hospitality Investors' Suit in Del.
BEAR STEARNS: Still Faces N.Y. Suit Over Mutual Funds Investment

BEAR WAGNER: Still Faces NYSE Specialists Securities Lawsuit
CASH STORE: Appeals Certification of Suit Over PayDay Loan Fees
CURREY & CO: Recalls Table, Floor Lamps with Defective Socket
CYBERONICS INC: Lead Plaintiff Sought in Tex. Securities Suit
DELPHI CORP: MDL-1725 Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Securities Claims

DIGI INT'L: Reserves $250T to Cover IPO Litigation Settlement
DOLLAR TREE: Accused of Violating Labor Laws in Three States
EXELON CORP: Faces Suits Over Tritium Spillage in Ill. Plant
FANNIE MAE: Motion to Dismiss D.C. ERISA Lawsuit Still Pending
FANNIE MAE: Seeks to Dismiss G-Fees Antitrust Litigation in D.C.

FANNIE MAE: Apartment Developers Seek Certification of Tex. Suit
FLORIDA: Court Considers Lawsuit by Broward County Part-Timers
GLADDEN FARMS: Faces Shareholders' Suit Over $8.4M Conversion
GUAM: Earned Income Tax Credit Payments to Begin in April
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set March 19

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Federman Files Securities Fraud Suit in Okla.
NEW YORK: Hearing in Bias Suit Against Parks Dept. Set April
NIAGARA CORP: March Hearing Set for N.Y. Securities Suit Deal
NISSAN NORTH: Idaho Suit Alleges Premature Warranty Expiration
ROCK HILL: Judge to Rule on $2.1M Settlement of Investors' Suit

ROSS STORES: Continues to Face Managers' Suit in California
SAKS INC: Continues to Face Breach of Contract Suit in Ala.
SEARS ROEBUCK: Sued Over Missing "Anti-Tipping" Safety Device
SELECT FINANCIAL: Ontario Court Approves Settlement of W-6 Suit
STRATOS INT'L: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval

TRAFIGURA: $198M Cleanup Payment Not to Stop U.K. Firm's Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Calif. Gender Bias Lawsuit Estimated at $11B


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GLOBALSTAR INC: Lerach Coughlin Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
NEW CENTURY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
NEW CENTURY: Klafter & Olsen Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
NEW CENTURY: Lerach Coughlin Announces Securities Suit Filing
NEW CENTURY: Lovell Stewart Files Securities Lawsuit in Calif.

NEW CENTURY: Saxena White Files Shareholder Lawsuit in Calif.
NEW CENTURY: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
NEW CENTURY: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Suit Filing
NUVELO INC: Schiffrin Barroway Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


ALCOA CANADA: Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuit in Quebec
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Canada Inc. remains a defendant in a potential class
action filed in Quebec on behalf of a putative class consisting
of all past, present and future owners, tenants and residents of
Baie Comeau's St. Georges neighborhood, according to Alcoa,
Inc.'s Feb. 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in Quebec, filed a motion
for authorization to institute a class action and for
designation of a class representative against:

     * Alcoa Canada Inc.,
     * Alcoa Limitee,
     * Societe Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee, and
     * Canadian British Aluminum

in the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Baie Comeau
on Aug. 25, 2005.  

He alleges that defendants, as the present and past owners and
operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau, have
negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants from
the smelter, specifically polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or
PAHs, that have been deposited on the lands and houses of the
St. Georges neighborhood and its environs causing damage to the
property of the putative class and causing health concerns for
those who inhabit that neighborhood.

If allowed to proceed as a class action, plaintiff seeks to
compel additional remediation to be conducted by the defendants
beyond that already undertaken by them voluntarily, seeks an
injunction against further emissions in excess of a limit to be
determined by the court in consultation with an independent
expert, and seeks money damages on behalf of all class members.

A hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification has not
been set.  Alcoa's motion for permission to adduce evidence on
class certification is not expected to be heard before the first
quarter of 2007, the company said in the regulatory filing.


ALCOA INC: Suit Over PCB by Akwesane Indians to Enter Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is set to start in a purported class action, "Margaret
George, et al., v. General Motors Corp. and Alcoa Inc.," which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of New York.

The complaint alleges personal injury and damages arising from
exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls released from the
defendants' industrial facilities in Massena, New York.  It
seeks certification of a class of plaintiffs comprised of
individual Mohawk Indians residing on the Akwesane Territory, a
Mohawk Indian Reservation, situated along the St. Lawrence River
in the U.S. and Canada.  

The suit alleges that approximately 12,000 individuals reside on
the reservation.  Alcoa is investigating the allegations and has
filed an answer denying liability.

Preliminary motions have been filed and discovery is underway,
according to the company's Feb. 15 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "George et al. v. General Motors Corp. et al., Case
No. 7:05-cv-01482-TJM-GHL," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York under Judge Thomas J. McAvoy,
with referral to Judge George H. Lowe.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Christopher A. Amato and Donald
W. Boyajian of Dreyer, Boyajian Law Firm, 75 Columbia Street,
Albany, NY 12210, Phone: 518-463-7784, Fax: 518-463-4039, E-
mail: camato@dreyerboyajian.com and
dboyajian@dreyerboyajian.com.  

Representing the defendants are David G. Hetzel and Michael W.
Peters of LeBoeuf, Lamb Law Firm, 125 West 55th Street, New
York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-424-8000 and 518-626-9000, Fax: 212-
424-8500 and 518-626-9010, E-mail: david.hetzel@llgm.com and
mwpeters@llgm.com.


ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Multiple SRAM Antitrust Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Semiconductor Corp. faces several federal antitrust
class actions in relation to static random access memory (SRAM),
according to the company's Feb. 9 Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ending Dec. 31, 2006.

In October and November 2006, the company and other companies in
the semiconductor industry were named as defendants in a number
of purported antitrust class actions filed in federal district
courts in California and other states.  The company has been
served in some but not all of these actions.

The lawsuits purport to state claims on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of SRAM products of a conspiracy between
manufacturers of SRAM chips to fix or control the price of SRAM
during the period Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2005.

Alliance Semiconductor Corp. on the Net: http://www.alsc.com.


AMERICAN HONDA: "Odometer" Suits Settlement Hearing Set May 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas will
hold on May 30 at 9 a.m. a final approval hearing for the
settlement of two consolidated class actions against American
Honda Motor Co. Inc., Honda Motor Co., the Nippon Seiki Co. and
New Sabina Industries Inc. over faulty odometers.

The class consists of all persons who bought or leased a model
year 2002 through 2006 Honda or Acura automobile or a model year
2007 Honda Fit, in the U.S. or its territories, between April
13, 2002 and Nov. 7, 2006.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas in the courtroom of the Honorable T. John
Ward.

Deadline to file objections is April 25, 2007.  Deadline to file
claims for reimbursement of repair costs or mileage penalties is
Nov. 26, 2007.

The suits, which allege that odometers on Honda vehicles
inflated the number of miles actually driven, are:

      -- "Karen Vaughn, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc.,  
         et al.," and  

      -- "Sharon McQuiston, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co.
         Inc., et al."

"Vaughn" was filed on April 13, 2004.  Odometer designers Nippon
Seiki and New Sabina were added as defendants in the case in
October 2005.  As alleged in the first amended complaint in
"Vaughn," odometer defects in Honda Odysseys results to
overstatement of mileage.

"McQuiston" was filed on June 23, 2006.  It alleges odometer
defects in all other Honda and Acura vehicles purchased or
leased between April 13, 2002, and Nov. 7.

Plaintiffs alleged in their complaints that the odometers on
approximately 6 million Honda and Acura vehicles misstated the
actual miles driven by between 2 percent and 4 percent.
  
They alleged that the odometer defects deprived car owners of
the full benefit of the warranties on their vehicles and caused
consumers who leased Honda vehicles to pay for excessive
mileage.

In general, the complaints in both class actions alleged that
the defendants violated the federal prohibition against odometer
tampering, as set forth in Rule 42 of the U.S. Civil Code
Sections 32703(1)-(2) and 32710.

District Judge John Ward granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on Nov. 7, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17,
2006).  The agreement is expected to benefit up to 6 million
consumers.  Lawyers for the class could receive up to $9.5
million in fees.

Under the agreement, consumers who incurred out-of-pocket
expenses as a result of the odometer defects -- either because
they had to pay for repairs that should have been covered by
warranties or were charged for excessive mileage on leased
vehicles -- can apply for reimbursement.

While acknowledging no wrongdoing in the settlement agreement,
company said in a press statement that in the interest of
customer satisfaction, it has voluntarily agreed to expand by 5
percent its mileage-based agreements.

The expanded agreements will now include warranties, lease
mileage-based limitations and extended vehicle service contracts
for certain 2002 through 2006 Honda and Acura vehicles and some
of the 2007 Honda Fit models, according to the statement.

American Honda Odometer Class Action on the net:

            http://www.hondaodometerclassaction.com/

For more details, contact:  

     (1) [Vaughn] Jay Kutchka of Jones Jackson & Moll, PLC, P.O.
         Box 2023, Fort Smith, AR 72902, Phone: 479/782-7203,  
         Fax: 479/782-9460, E-mail: jkutchka@jjmlaw.com;

     (2) [McQuiston] James Andrew Holmes of Wellborn Houston
         Adkison Mann Sadler & Hill, P.O. Box 1109, Henderson,  
         TX 75653-1109, Phone: 903/657-8544, Fax: 903/657-7227,  
         E-mail: jh@wellbornhouston.com; and

     (3) [American Honda] Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III of Brown  
         McCarroll, Longview, 1127 Judson Rd., Ste. 220, P.O.
         Box 3999, Longview, TX 75606-3999, Phone: 903/236-9800,  
         Fax: 19032368787, E-mail: ccapshaw@mailbmc.com.


ASPEON INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Calif. Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal with prejudice of the consolidated securities fraud
class action against Aspeon, Inc.

In October and November 2000, eight purported class actions were
filed against the company, its chief executive officer, and its
former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California for alleged violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

After the defendants moved to dismiss each of the actions, the
lawsuits were consolidated under a single action, "In re Aspeon
Securities Litigation, Case No. SACV 00-995 AHS (ANx)," and the
appointed lead plaintiff voluntarily filed an amended and
consolidated complaint.

Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint and on April 23, 2001
the court entered an order dismissing the complaint without
prejudice.  

On May 21, 2001 the appointed lead plaintiff filed a third
complaint, styled as a "First Amended Consolidated Complaint."

On June 4, 2001 the defendants moved to dismiss this complaint
and on Sept. 17, 2001, the U.S. District Court dismissed the
suit with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the company
and the company's officers.

On Sept. 20, 2001, the lead plaintiff in the class action
appealed against the dismissal of the case.

On Jan. 21, 2003 the decision to dismiss the case was upheld,
but the lead plaintiff was given the opportunity to remedy the
deficiencies in the complaint that had been filed.

Accordingly on May 30, 2003, the plaintiff filed its "Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint" which again was subsequently
dismissed by the District Court.  

On Nov. 26, 2003 the lead plaintiff filed its "Third Amended
Consolidated Complaint" which was again dismissed with prejudice
in March 2004.

The lead plaintiff once again appealed against the dismissal and
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the
dismissal with prejudice on Feb. 23, 2006.

This is the fifth time that the courts have ruled in favor of
the company and against the shareholders who have brought this
suit against the company.

On each of the previous occasions the shareholders who have
brought this suit against the company have filed an appeal
against the decision of the courts.  

There can be no assurance that the shareholders who have brought
this suit against the company will not file a further appeal
against the courts' latest ruling in which case the company will
continue to vigorously defend itself against the claims.

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 15
Form 10-QSB filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Jay Spechler, et al. v. Aspeon Inc., et al., Case
No. 8:00-cv-00995-AHS-AN," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Alicemarie H.
Stotler.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Thomas C. Bright, Solomon B.
Cera, Steven Orrin Sidener, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, 595
Market St, Ste 2300, San Francisco, CA 94105-2835, Phone: 415-
777-2230, Fax: 415-777-5189.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Donald A. Daucher, Jay C. Gandhi, Colleen Elizabeth
         Hushke, Peter M. Stone, Paul Hastings Janofsky and
         Walker, 3579 Valley Centre Dr., San Diego, CA 92130,
         Phone: 858-720-2500, E-mail:
         dondaucher@paulhastings.com; and

     (2) Eric J. Belfi, Murray Frank and Sailer, 275 Madison
         Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-
         1818.  


BEAR STEARNS: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Short-Selling Transactions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bear Stearns Cos., Inc., along with numerous other financial
services firms and other unnamed persons, has been named as a
defendant in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York by customers who
engaged in short-selling transactions in equity securities since
April 12, 2000.

The complaint alleges that the defendants agreed among
themselves to charge excessive fees in connection with short
sales, and not to force deliveries of borrowed securities,
resulting in intentional failures to deliver.

The complaint alleges causes of action under the federal
antitrust laws, and New York law, according to the company's
Feb. 13 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2006.

The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.bearstearns.com.


BEAR STEARNS: Opposes Approval of McKesson HBOC Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. is appealing the final order
approving the settlement of the case, "In re McKesson HBOC, Inc.
Securities Litigation," according to the company's Feb. 13 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2006.

The suit arises out of a merger between McKesson Corp. and HBO &
Co. resulting in an entity called McKesson HBOC, Inc.

Beginning on June 29, 1999, 53 purported class actions were
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  These actions were subsequently consolidated,
and the plaintiffs proceeded to file a series of amended
complaints.

On Feb. 15, 2002, plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated
complaint, which alleges that Bear Stearns violated Sections
10(b) and 14(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act in connection with
allegedly false and misleading disclosures contained in a joint
proxy statement/prospectus that was issued with respect to the
McKesson/HBOC merger.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
persons who either:

      -- acquired publicly traded securities of HBOC between
         Jan. 20, 1997 and Jan. 12, 1999; or

      -- acquired publicly traded securities of McKesson or
         McKesson HBOC between Oct. 18, 1998 and April 27, 1999,
         and who held McKesson securities on Nov. 27, 1998 and
         Jan. 22, 1999.

Named defendants include McKesson HBOC, certain present and
former directors and/or officers of McKesson HBOC, McKesson
and/or HBOC, Bear Stearns and Arthur Andersen LLP.  Compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount are sought.

On Jan. 6, 2003, the court granted Bear Stearns' motion to
dismiss the Section 10(b) claim asserted in the third amended
complaint, and denied Bear Stearns' motion to dismiss the
Section 14(a) claim.

On March 7, 2003, Bear Stearns filed an answer to the third
amended complaint denying all allegations of wrongdoing and
asserting affirmative defenses to the claims in the complaint.

On Jan. 12, 2005, McKesson HBOC announced that it had reached a
settlement with the plaintiff class, which settlement required
court approval.  Bear Stearns' engagement letter with McKesson
in connection with the merger of McKesson and HBOC provides that
McKesson cannot settle any litigation without Bear Stearns'
written consent unless McKesson obtains an unconditional written
release for Bear Stearns and, under certain circumstances, is
required to provide indemnification to Bear Stearns.

By Order dated May 23, 2005, the court denied preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement between McKesson HBOC and
the plaintiff class.

On July 12, 2005, the plaintiff and McKesson HBOC submitted a
revised proposed settlement, purporting to address the issues
identified by the court in its order denying preliminary
approval, to which Bear Stearns objected.

The revised proposed settlement provides, among other things,
that Bear Stearns' rights under its engagement letter are
preserved for future resolution.  McKesson HBOC's claims in
connection with the letter are also preserved.

On Feb. 24, 2006, the district court granted final approval of
the revised proposed settlement.  Bear Stearns has appealed the
final approval order to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for
the 9th Circuit, seeking to reverse the final approval of the
settlement on the ground that consummation of the settlement may
deprive Bear Stearns of certain rights and remedies provided for
in its engagement letter.

The suit is "In Re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 99-CV-20743," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (New York), 170 E. 61st Street,
         Second Floor, New York, NY, 10021, Phone: 212.688.0782,
         Fax: 212.688.0783, E-mail: info@barrack.com;

     (2) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego), 402 West Broadway,
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800, Fax:
         619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com;

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

     (4) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA,
         92130, Phone: 858.793.0070, Fax: 858.793.0323, E-mail:
         blbg@blbglaw.com.

Representing the company are James E. Lyons, Jonathan J. Lerner
of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Four Embarcadero Ctr.,
Ste. 3800, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 984-6400.


BEAR STEARNS: Reaches Settlement in Sterling Foster Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bear Stearns Cos., Inc., and Bear Stearns Securities Corp.
(BSSC) reached settlements in two purported class actions
arising out of Bear Stearns' role as clearing broker for
Sterling Foster & Co., Inc., according to the company's Feb. 13
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2006.

                        Levitt Litigation

Bear Stearns was named defendant in a class action, "Levitt, et
al. v. Bear Stearns, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on Feb. 16, 1999.  

The purported class action was filed on behalf of all persons
who purchased ML Direct, Inc. common stock or warrants through
Sterling Foster & Co., Inc. between Sept. 4, 1996 and Dec. 31,
1996.  The suit also named as defendant BSSC.

The complaint alleges, among others, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and committed common law fraud
in connection with providing clearing services to Sterling
Foster with respect to certain transactions by customers of
Sterling Foster in ML Direct common stock and warrants.  

Compensatory damages of $50 million and punitive damages of
approximately $100 million were sought (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 18, 2005).  

On April 6, 1999, this action was transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  On June 27, 2002,
the court granted defendants' motion and dismissed this action
in its entirety.

On July 25, 2002, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
district court order dismissing the complaint in this action.   
On Aug. 13, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit vacated the district court order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss and remanded the action to the
district court.

                        Rogers Litigation

Bear Stearns and BSSC and a former BSSC officer were named
defendants in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York as "Rogers v. Sterling
Foster & Co., Inc." (Class Action Reporter, Feb 18, 2005).  

The action was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired certain
securities that were underwritten by Sterling Foster.  Named as
defendants, in addition to the Bear Stearns defendants are:

     -- Sterling Foster;

     -- seven individuals alleged to have had an employment
        relationship with, or exercised control over, Sterling
        Foster;

     -- six companies that issued securities underwritten by
        Sterling Foster;

     -- seven individuals who were directors, officers and/or
        employees of these issuers;

     -- one individual who controlled a corporate investor in
        and selling shareholder in the issuers's initial public
        offerings; and

     -- Bernstein & Wasserman LLP and two of its partners.

The second amended complaint alleged, among others, that the
Bear Stearns defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
349 of the New York General Business Law and committed common
law fraud in connection with providing clearing services to
Sterling Foster.  Compensatory damages in an unspecified amount
were sought.

These two matters were consolidated as part of the "In re
Sterling Foster Inc. Securities Litigation (MDL Docket No.
1208)," before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.

On Oct. 31, 2006, that court approved a settlement agreement
that dismissed all claims against all settling defendants, which
included Bear Stearns, BSSC and an officer of BSSC.

The suit is "Rogers, et al. v. Sterling Foster & Co., et al.,
Case No. 0:97-cv-00189-ADS-MLO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Arthur D.
Spatt with referral to Judge Michael L. Orenstein.


BEAR STEARNS: Settles Prime Hospitality Investors' Suit in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. reached a tentative settlement for
the consolidated class action filed against the company in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of shareholders of Prime
Hospitality Corp.

The suit, "In re Prime Hospitality, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation," which was filed on July 15, 2005, also names as
defendants the directors of Prime, the Blackstone Group and
certain affiliates of Blackstone.

As amended, the complaint alleges that the company acted as a
financial advisor to Prime in connection with the sale of Prime
to Blackstone, and that the company aided and abetted a breach
of fiduciary duty by the directors of Prime in connection with
that transaction.

The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as various forms of equitable
relief, including, but not limited to, rescissory damages, the
imposition of a constructive trust and an accounting.

On Oct. 3, 2005, Bear Stearns filed its answer to the
consolidated amended class action complaint denying all
allegations of wrongdoing and asserted affirmative defenses.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
action against all defendants, including Bear Stearns, subject
to confirmatory discovery.

Under the agreement in principle, Bear Stearns will not make any
financial contribution to the settlement, according to the
company's Feb. 13 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2006.

The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.bearstearns.com.


BEAR STEARNS: Still Faces N.Y. Suit Over Mutual Funds Investment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bear Stearns Cos. Inc., along with numerous other financial
services firms and other unnamed persons, remains a defendant in
a purported class action "In re: Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation, MDL 1586."

On Nov. 7, 2003, Bear Stearns Securities Corp., and Bear Stearns
(Bear Stearns defendants), together with 18 other entities and
individuals, were named as defendants in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by a mutual fund investor on behalf of
persons who purchased and/or sold ownership units of mutual fund
in the Janus or Putnam families of mutual funds between Nov. 1,
1998 and July 3, 2003.

On Jan. 26, 2004, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint,
again on behalf of persons who traded in the Janus or Putnam
families of mutual funds, against the same Bear Stearns
defendants and 16 other entities and individuals, including
mutual funds and other financial institutions.

On Oct. 22, 2003, another purported class action was filed on
behalf of the general public of the state of California against
multiple defendants, and subsequently included the company as a
defendant, with respect to various mutual funds.

Both of these actions allege that the defendants violated
federal and/or state laws by allowing certain investors to
market time and/or late trade mutual fund shares and seek
various forms of relief including damages of an indeterminate
amount.

On March 19, 2004, these actions were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland for coordinated
and/or consolidated pre-trial proceedings as part of "In re:
Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL 1586."

On or subsequent to Sept. 29, 2004, 15 new and/or amended class
action or derivative complaints were filed in MDL-1586 naming as
defendants the Bear Stearns defendants, various mutual fund
companies, certain broker-dealers, and others.

Plaintiffs who have brought actions, either directly or
derivatively, against one or more of the Bear Stearns defendants
are shareholders in the following families of mutual funds: AIM,
Invesco, PIMCO/Allianz Dresdner, Excelsior, Alliance, Franklin
Templeton, One Group, Strong, Columbia, Pilgrim Baxter, Alger,
Janus, RS and MFS.

Among other things, the actions allege that the defendants
violated federal and/or state laws by allowing certain investors
to market time and/or late trade mutual fund shares and seek
various forms of relief including damages of an indeterminate
amount.

The Bear Stearns defendants, along with certain other
defendants, filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action and derivative claims against them.

On Nov. 3, 2005, the derivative claims against the Bear Stearns
defendants were dismissed.  As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Bear
Stearns defendants' motion to dismiss was otherwise granted in
part and denied in part as to direct investor claims in the
following families of mutual funds: Janus, AIM/Invesco, RS, One
Group, MFS, Columbia, PIMCO/Allianz Dresdner, Alger, Excelsior
and Strong.

The litigation is "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation,
Case No. 1:04-md-15862-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland under Judge Andre M. Davis.  

Representing the plaintiffs is H. Adam Prussin of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman and Gross LLP, 100 Park Ave 26th Fl, New
York, NY 10017-5516, Phone: 1-212-661-1100, Fax: 1-212-661-8665,
E-mail: haprussin@pomlaw.com.


BEAR WAGNER: Still Faces NYSE Specialists Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Wagner Specialists, LLC, a subsidiary of The Bear Stearns
Cos., Inc., is among numerous defendants named in purported
class actions brought on behalf of investors beginning in
October 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with New York Stock Exchange floor
specialist activities.

The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages, restitution,
and disgorgement on behalf of purchasers and sellers of
unspecified securities between Oct. 17, 1998 and Oct. 15, 2003.

Bear Wagner Specialists LLC and the company are also among the
defendants in a purported class action filed in December 2003 in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County alleging violation
of California law in connection with the same conduct.  This
case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  

The district court consolidated these purported class actions
under the caption, "In re NYSE Specialists Securities
Litigation, No. 03 Civ. 8264 (RWS)," according to Bear Sterns'
Feb. 13 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2006.  

On Sept. 15, 2004, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in
this action on behalf of a putative class of persons who held
American Depository Receipts between Oct. 18, 2001 and Oct. 15,
2003.

The suit is "In Re: NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-cv-08264-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs), 655West Broadway, Suite
         1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-7423, Fax:
         631-367-1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Christopher Lovell of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, 500
         Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110, Phone: (212) 608-
         1900, Fax: (212) 719-4677, E-mail: LSHLLP@LSHLLP.COM;

     (3) Stephen D. Oestreich of Entwistle & Cappucci, L.L.P.,
         299 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10171, Phone: (212) 894-
         7200; and

     (4) Curtis V. Trinko of Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko,
         L.L.P., 16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY
         10036, Phone: (212) 490-9550.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) E. Michael Bradley of John E. Lavelle, Esq., 38 Willis
         Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (212) 326-3863, Fax:
         (212) 755-7306, E-mail: embradley@jonesday.com;

    (ii) Deborah S. Burstein of King & Spalding, L.L.P. (NYC),
         1185 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone:
         (212) 556-2347, Fax: (212) 556-2222;

   (iii) Richard A. Cirillo of King & Spalding LLP (DC), 1730
         Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006-4706,
         Phone: 212-556-2337, Fax: 212-556-2222, E-mail:
         RCirillo@KSLAW.com; and

    (iv) Andrew C. Curley of Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-
         Cohen, L.L.P., 1650 Arch Street, 22nd Floor,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103.


CASH STORE: Appeals Certification of Suit Over PayDay Loan Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Inc. has served a Notice of Motion for Leave to
Appeal the decision of The Honorable Mr. Justice Cullity in May
2006 to certify a class in a lawsuit over interest and fees
charged by the company related to payday loans.

A Statement of Claim was issued in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on April 13, 2004 against The Cash Store Inc. and
Rentcash Inc., alleging that interest and fees charged in
respect of payday loans are illegal pursuant to the Criminal
Code of Canada, that the cost of borrowing is excessive and that
the transactions are harsh and unconscionable.

The action is brought under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, on
behalf of a Class consisting of any person in Canada, outside
the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, who obtained a
payday loan advances from the defendants and who were charged
the defendants standard broker's fees:

     * 22.54% if the principal amount of the loan up to March
       11, 2004;

     * 25% after March 11, 2004

A separate action has been brought in Alberta and in British
Columbia.

The Statement of Claim alleges that the defendants own and
operate 101 Cash Stores across Canada with locations in British
Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and
Labrador.

Payday loans are generally for a short period of no more than 14
days and are usually due and payable on the next scheduled
payday of the customer.

Advances are typically made up to 33% of the borrower's net take
home pay.

Interest is charged on all loans at an effective annual rate of
interest of 59%, exclusive of all other charges.  In addition to
payment of interest, however, customers are also charged a
"broker's fee" of approximately 22.5% of the amount of the loan
advance, which fee is a lump sum charge levied at the time of
the loan transaction.

When combined with the annual rate of interest of 59%, the
broker's fee increases the cost of borrowing to in excess of
1200% on loans of 7 days, more than 600% on loans of 14 days and
more than 300% on loans of 30 days, without any compounding.

The Statement of Claim alleges contravention of the Criminal
Code of Canada in that the amounts charged, collected and
received by the defendants constitutes criminal interest which
exceeds 60%, the maximum interest rate allowed by law.

The Statement of Claim also alleges that the cost of the loans
is excessive and that the transactions are harsh and
unconscionable.  A request is made that all customers are
entitled to repayment to the extent of any excess paid or
charged.

The action also alleges a breach of the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act.  The claim alleges that the defendants
have failed to properly disclose the cost of borrowing in
respect of the said payday loans.

The Certification Motion was argued in Toronto before Justice
Cullity on April 18, 2006.  He issued his decision on May 10,
2006.

The decision is favorable and certifies the claim as a class
proceeding as against The Cash Store Inc.

The claim has been certified on the basis of the following class
definition:

     any person in Canada, resident outside the Province of
     British Columbia, who borrowed money as a 'payday loan'
     from a Cash Store location, and who repaid the loan and the
     standard broker fee charged by the Cash Store (22.54% of
     the loan amount to March 11, 2004; 25 per cent of the loan
     amount after March 11, 2004) on or after the due date of
     the loan.

Thompson McCutcheon has been appointed as Representative
Plaintiff for the class.

The Cash Store Inc. has now served a Notice of Motion for Leave
to Appeal the Decision of The Honourable Mr. Justice Cullity
dated May 10, 2006.


CURREY & CO: Recalls Table, Floor Lamps with Defective Socket
-------------------------------------------------------------
Currey & Co., of Atlanta, Georgia, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,600
Thomasville table and floor lamps.

The company said the light socket has a defect, which poses
electrical shock and fire hazards.

Currey & Co. has received six reports of lamps tripping circuits
and sparking or catching on fire.  No injuries or property
damage have been reported.

This recall involves Thomasville table and floor lamps in the
Felicity Collection.  The recalled table lamps include model
numbers starting with 60001 and ending with 1006, 1007, 1008,
1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1018, 1019 and 1020.  
The floor lamps include model numbers starting with 60001 and
ending with 1016 or 1017.  The model number is printed on the
packaging and on the bottom of the lamp base.

These recalled table and floor lamps were manufactured in China
and are being sold at Thomasville Furniture dealers nationwide
from August 2006 through October 2006.  The table lamps were
sold for between $240 and $380 dollars.  The floor lamps were
sold for about $370 dollars.

Pictures of recalled table and floor lamps:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07530.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the lamps immediately and
return them to the retailer where purchased to receive a free
replacement lamp.

For more information, contact Currey & Co. toll-free at (866)
577-6430 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or
visit http://www.curreyco.com.


CYBERONICS INC: Lead Plaintiff Sought in Tex. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in "In re: Cyberonics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. H-0502121," republished a notice of
the filing of the first amended complaint for the case stating
that certain investors may apply as lead plaintiff in the case,
according to the company's Feb. 9 Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ending Oct. 27, 2006.

On June 17, 2005, a putative class action was filed against the
company and certain of its officers and Robert P. Cummins, then
chairman and chief executive, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

The lawsuit is, "Richard Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. H:05-cv-02121."  A second lawsuit with similar
allegations is "Stanley Sved v. Cyberonics, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. H:05-cv-2414," which was filed on July 12, 2005.

On July 28, 2005, the court consolidated the two cases under
Civil Action No. H-05-2121, captioned, "In re Cyberonics, Inc.
Securities Litigation," and entered a scheduling order.

On Sept. 28, 2005, the court appointed EFCAT, Inc., John E. and
Cecelia Catogas, Blanca Rodriguez, and Mohamed Bakry as lead
plaintiffs and also appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
Nov. 30, 2005.  The complaint generally alleged, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements
regarding the company's VNS Therapy System device as a therapy
for treatment resistant depression.

On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to
allege facts that state any claim for securities fraud.

On July 20, 2006, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, allowing the
plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden
to plead a securities fraud claim with particularity, including
failures to allege with particularity a material misstatement or
omission, to allege facts sufficient to raise a strong inference
of intent or severe recklessness, and to allege sufficiently the
causal connection between the plaintiffs' loss and the
defendants' actions.

The court noted that "the deficiencies in plaintiffs' complaint
might well extend beyond the point of cure," but nonetheless
granted plaintiffs the right to amend their complaint in light
of the strong presumption of law favoring a right to amend.

On Aug. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint for violation of the securities laws.  The complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by
making false and misleading statements regarding the VNS Device
as a therapy for treatment resistant depression.

Lead plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to disclose:

     -- that certain individuals associated with the U.S. Food
        and Drug Administration had safety and efficacy concerns
        about the use of the VNS Device for the treatment of
        depression and questioned the adequacy of evidence of
        safety and effectiveness the company presented to the
        FDA;

     -- that the defendants misrepresented the prospect for
        payer reimbursement for the VNS Device;

     -- that the defendants concealed executive compensation and
        governance issues and that the defendants falsely stated
        that an analyst's statements about options granted in
        June 2004 were inaccurate and without merit.

Lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons and
entities, except those named as defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities during the period
Feb. 5, 2004 through Aug. 1, 2006.  

The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
equitable or injunctive relief, if available.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to
allege facts that state any claim for securities fraud.

The lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss
on Oct. 23, 2006 and the defendants filed a reply to the
opposition on Nov. 6, 2006.  

On Oct. 31, 2006, a week before the defendants filed their reply
in connection with the motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association filed a
motion seeking to intervene and asking the court to require the
lead plaintiffs to republish notice of the amended class action
claims.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the court issued an order compelling
republication of notice and staying the proceeding pending
determination of the lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On Dec. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs published notice of the
filing of the first amended complaint, stating that investors
who purchased the company's securities during the expanded class
period (Feb. 5, 2004 through Aug. 1, 2006, inclusive) may move
the court for consideration to be appointed as lead plaintiff
within 60 days.

The suit, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case  
No. H-05-2121," is originally "Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc et al.,  
Case No. 4:05-cv-02121," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas under Judge Sim Lake.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Elizabeth A. Abbott, John G. Emerson and Scott E.  
         Poynter, all of Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale  
         Lane, Suite 100, Little Rock, AR 72202-2037, E-mail:  
         john@emersonpoynter.com;
   
     (2) Mark A. Golovach, Mark L. Knutson and Jeffrey R.  
         Krinsk, all of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, 501 West  
         Broadway, Ste 1250, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         238-1333, Fax: 619-238-5425, E-mail:  
         mlk@classactionlaw.com or fk@classactionlaw.com;

     (3) Neil Rothstein, David R. Scott and Arthur L. Shingler  
         III all of Scott & Scott LLC, 600 B Street, Ste 1500,  
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-233-4565.

Representing the defendants is N. Scott Fletcher of Vinson &  
Elkins LLP, 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-
6760, Phone: 713-758-3234, Fax: 713-615-5168, E-mail:  
sfletcher@velaw.com.


DELPHI CORP: MDL-1725 Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Corp. remains a defendant in a class action consolidated
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under the
caption, "Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA'
Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-01725-GER," according to
the company's Feb. 13 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2006.

The company along with Delphi Trust I, Delphi Trust II, current
and former directors of the company, certain current and former
officers and employees of the company or its subsidiaries, and
others were named as defendants in several class actions that
were filed beginning in March 2005 following the its announced
intention to restate certain of its financial statements.

                         ERISA Litigation

One group of putative class actions, which are purportedly
brought on behalf of participants in certain of the company's
and its subsidiaries' defined contribution employee benefit
pension plans that invested in Delphi common stock, is brought
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs in the ERISA Actions allege, among others, that the
plans suffered losses as a result of alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  

On Oct. 21, 2005, the ERISA Actions were consolidated before one
judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  The ERISA Actions were subsequently transferred to
the Multidistrict Litigation.

On March 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint with a putative class period of May 28, 1999 to Nov.
1, 2005.  

The company, which was previously named as a defendant in the
ERISA Actions, was not named as a defendant in the Amended ERISA
Action.

Plaintiffs are not currently asserting claims against or seeking
relief from the company in the Amended ERISA Action due to the
company's bankruptcy filing.

Plaintiffs are not currently asserting claims against or seeking
relief from the company in the Amended ERISA Action due to the
company's Chapter 11 Filing, but have stated that they plan to
proceed with claims against the company in the ongoing
bankruptcy cases, and will seek to name the company as a
defendant in the Amended ERISA Action if the bankruptcy stay is
modified or lifted to permit such action.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Amended ERISA
Action.  No hearing on the motions to dismiss has yet been
scheduled.

                    Securities Fraud Lawsuit

A second group of putative class actions variously alleges,
among other things, that the company and certain of its current
and former directors and officers and others made materially
false and misleading statements in violation of federal
securities laws.

On Sept. 23, 2005, these securities actions were consolidated
before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly-traded securities of the company,
including securities issued by Delphi Trust I and Delphi Trust
II, during a putative class period of March 7, 2000 through
March 3, 2005.

The amended securities action names several new defendants,
including Delphi Trust II, certain former directors, and
underwriters and other third parties, and includes securities
claims regarding additional offerings of Delphi securities.

The securities actions consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (and a related securities
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida concerning Delphi Trust I) were subsequently
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan as part of the Multidistrict Litigation.

The action is stayed against the company pursuant to the
Bankruptcy Code, but is continuing against the other defendants.
The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended
securities action.

No hearing on the motions to dismiss has yet been scheduled.  On
Nov. 30, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
file an amended securities fraud complaint.

The defendants filed their responses on Dec. 15, 2006, and the
plaintiffs filed their reply on Jan. 2, 2007.  The U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has not yet ruled on
this motion.

                       Derivative Lawsuit   

The third group of lawsuits is comprised of shareholder
derivative actions against certain current and former directors
and officers of the company.

Following the filing on Oct. 8, 2005, of the Debtors' petition
for reorganization relief under chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code, all the derivative cases were administratively
closed.

The consolidated suit is "Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative
and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-01725-GER,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen.

Representing some of the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Cari C. Laufenberg of Keller Rohrback, 1201 Third Ave.,
         Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900,
         Fax: 206-623-3384, E-mail:
         claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com; and

     (2) Sara L. Madsen of Lockridge Grindal, 100 S. Washington
         Ave., Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: 612-
         339-6900, Fax: 612-339-0981, E-mail:
         slmadsen@locklaw.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Stuart Baskin of Shearman & Sterling, 599 Lexington
         Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-848-4000, Fax:
         212-848-7179, E-mail: sbaskin@shearman.com; and

    (ii) Joseph E. Papelian, Delphi Corporation Legal Staff,
         5825 Delphi Drive, Troy, MI 48098-2815, Phone: 248-813-
         2000, E-mail: joseph.e.papelian@delphi.com.


DIGI INT'L: Reserves $250T to Cover IPO Litigation Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Digi International, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 6 form
10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, asserting claims relating to the initial public
offering of NetSilicon Inc., which the company acquired in 2002,
and approximately 300 other public companies.

The complaint names as defendants the company, NetSilicon,
certain of its officers and certain underwriters involved in
NetSilicon's IPO, among numerous others, and asserts, among
other things, that NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and registration
statement violated federal securities laws because they
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding
the conduct of NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in allocating
shares in NetSilicon's IPO to the underwriters' customers.

The company believes that the claims against the NetSilicon
defendants are without merit and has defended the litigation
vigorously.

Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the two named
officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on
Oct. 9, 2002.

In June 2003, the company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
ultimately approved by the court, this proposed settlement would
result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the company and against any of the other
issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.

Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned upon
obtaining approval by the court.  On Sept. 1, 2005, the court
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and directed that
notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to
class members.

Thereafter, the court held a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006,
at which objections to the proposed settlement were heard.  
After the fairness hearing, the court took under advisement
whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

The company maintains liability insurance for such matters and
expects that the liability insurance will be adequate to cover
any potential unfavorable outcome, less the applicable
deductible amount of $250,000 per claim.  As of Sept. 30, 2006,
the company has accrued a liability for the deductible amount of
$250,000 which the company believes reflects the amount of loss
that is probable.

The suit is "In re Digi International, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "In Re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
         610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com

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


DOLLAR TREE: Accused of Violating Labor Laws in Three States
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is defendant in purported class actions
filed in various courts in California, Oregon and Alabama over
alleged violations of state labor laws.

In 2003, the company was served with a lawsuit in California
state court by a former employee who alleged that employees did
not properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest
periods along with other alleged wage and hourly violations.  
The suit requested that the California state court certify the
case as a class action.

This suit was dismissed with prejudice in May 2005, and the
dismissal has been appealed.  A California appeals court granted
the appeal and now the company is seeking a rehearing from that
Court; should that fail, the company will appeal to the
California Supreme Court, according to its Dec. 6, 2006 form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Oct. 28, 2006.

In 2005, the company was served with a lawsuit by former
employees in Oregon who allege that they did not properly
receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods.  They also
allege other wage and hour violations.  

The plaintiffs requested the court to certify classes for their
various claims and the presiding judge recently did so with
respect to two classes, one alleging that Dollar Tree's Oregon
employees, in violation of that state's labor laws, were not
paid for rest breaks and the other that upon termination of
employment, employees were not tendered their final pay in a
timely manner.  

Other claims of the plaintiffs were dismissed by an earlier
Order of the Court and are being appealed by the plaintiffs.

In 2006, the company was served with a lawsuit by a former
employee in a California state court alleging that:

     -- she was paid for wages with a check drawn on a bank
        which did not have any branches in the state, an alleged
        violation of the state's labor code;

     -- that she was paid less for her work than other similar
        employees with the same job title based on her gender;
        and

     -- the company did not pay her final wages in a timely
        manner, also an alleged violation of the labor code.

The plaintiff requested the court to certify the case as a class
action.  The company has been successful in removing the case
from the state to the federal court level.

In 2006, the company was served with a lawsuit filed in federal
court in the state of Alabama by a former store manager.  She
claims that she should have been classified as a non-exempt
employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act and, therefore
should have received overtime compensation and other benefits.  

She filed the case as a collective action on behalf of herself
and all other employees (store managers) similarly situated.  
The company is preparing to file a motion requesting that the
case be transferred from Alabama to Virginia.


EXELON CORP: Faces Suits Over Tritium Spillage in Ill. Plant
------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp. remains a defendant in several federal class
actions filed in Illinois courts over allegations that it
spilled more than six million gallons of tritium-laced water
from its Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant into the surrounding
community over a 10-year period and failed to notify residents
and regulatory officials, according to the company's Feb. 13
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On March 13, 2006, a class action was filed against the company,
Exelon Generation Co. and Commonwealth Edison Co., as the prior
owner of Braidwood, in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, on behalf of all persons who live or own
property within 10 miles of Braidwood.

The plaintiffs primarily seek:

      -- a court-supervised fund for medical monitoring for
         risks associated with alleged exposures to tritium; and

      -- compensation for diminished property values.

Exelon filed a motion to dismiss the case, contending that the
plaintiffs cannot meet the dose threshold required to maintain a
public liability action under the Price-Anderson Act.  This
motion was denied.

On March 14 and 23, 2006, 37 area residents filed two separate
but identical lawsuits against the same defendants in the
Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois alleging property
contamination and seeking compensation for diminished property
values.

The company removed these cases to federal court, and all three
cases were assigned to the same judge.  It has submitted its
answer to the class action.  The company's motions to dismiss
the amended complaints in the other two lawsuits were denied in
part on July 19, 2006.

The court dismissed all claims premised on violations of
Illinois environmental statutes.  The court has set a schedule
for a class certification motion and discovery for all three
suits.

On Sept. 29, 2006, amended complaints were filed in all three
cases.  Seven plaintiffs withdrew from the cases, and 18
additional plaintiffs were added.

On Oct. 11, 2006, two area residents filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
defendants.

The allegations in the complaint are substantially similar to
the lawsuits described above, and the case has been transferred
to the judge overseeing the other federal cases.

The first federal suit is "Duffin et al. v. Exelon Corp. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01382," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Suzanne B. Conlon.

Representing the plaintiffs is Nicholas Evans Sakellariou of
McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner, Buck, Hutchison & Ruttle, 2455
Glenwood Avenue, Joliet, IL 60432, Phone: (815) 729-4800.


FANNIE MAE: Motion to Dismiss D.C. ERISA Lawsuit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Federal Mortgage National Association (Fannie Mae)
to dismiss a consolidated lawsuit filed against it over alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
remains pending, according to the company's December 2006
regulatory filing.

Three ERISA-based cases have been filed against the company, the
company's Board of Directors' Compensation Committee, and
against former and current officers and directors Franklin D.
Raines, J. Timothy Howard, Daniel H. Mudd, Vincent A. Mai,
Stephen Friedman, Anne M. Mulcahy, Ann McLaughlin Korologos, Joe
K. Pickett, Donald B. Marron, Kathy Gallo and Leanne Spencer.

On Oct. 15, 2004, David Gwyer filed a class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  Two
additional class action complaints were filed by other
plaintiffs on May 6, 2005 and May 10, 2005.  All of these cases
were consolidated on May 24, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia.  

A consolidated complaint was filed on June 15, 2005.  The
plaintiffs in the consolidated ERISA-based lawsuit purport to
represent a class of participants in the company's Employee
Stock Ownership Plan between Jan. 1, 2001 and the present.  
Their claims are based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
relating to accounting matters discussed in the company's U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings and in the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's interim report.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
fees and costs, and other injunctive and equitable relief.  The
company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
June 29, 2005.  The company's motion and all of the other
defendants' motions to dismiss were fully briefed and argued on
Jan. 13, 2006.  

As of the Dec. 6, 2006 filing of regulatory documents by the
company, these motions are still pending.

The suit is "In re Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:04-
cv-01784-RJL," formerly David Gwyer v. Fannie Mae, filed before
Judge Richard J. Leon.


FANNIE MAE: Seeks to Dismiss G-Fees Antitrust Litigation in D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Federal Mortgage National Association (Fannie Mae)
and Freddie Mac to dismiss an antitrust suit over Freddie Mac's
guaranty fees remains pending, according to a December 2006
regulatory filing by the company.

Since Jan. 18, 2005, the company have been served with 11
proposed class action complaints filed by single-family
borrowers that allege that the company and Freddie Mac violated
the Clayton and Sherman Acts and state antitrust and consumer
protection statutes by agreeing to artificially fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the price of the company's and Freddie
Mac's guaranty fees.  

Two of these cases were filed in state courts.  The remaining
cases were filed in federal court.  The two state court actions
were voluntarily dismissed.  The federal court actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
Aug. 5, 2005.

Plaintiffs in the consolidated action seek to represent a class
of consumers whose loans allegedly "contain a guarantee fee set
by" the company or Freddie Mac between Jan. 1, 2001 and the
present.  The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations
of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer
protection and other laws.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The company and Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss on Oct.
11, 2005.  The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and
remains pending, according to the company's Dec. 6, 2006 form
10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


FANNIE MAE: Apartment Developers Seek Certification of Tex. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) continues to
face a suit filed by plaintiffs who purport to represent a class
of multifamily borrowers whose mortgages are insured under
Sections 221(d)(3), 236 and other sections of the National
Housing Act and are held or serviced by the company.

The complaint identified as a class low- and moderate-income
apartment building developers who maintained uninvested escrow
accounts with the company or the company's servicer.  

The plaintiffs are:

     * Casa Orlando Apartments, Ltd.;
     * Jasper Housing Development Co.; and
     * the Porkolab Family Trust No. 1.

They allege that the company violated fiduciary obligations that
they contend the company owes to borrowers with respect to
certain escrow accounts and that the company was unjustly
enriched.  In particular, plaintiffs contend that, starting in
1969, the company misused these escrow funds and are therefore
liable for any economic benefit the company received from the
use of these funds.

Plaintiffs seek a return of any profits, with accrued interest,
earned by the company related to the escrow accounts at issue,
as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas (Texarkana Division) on June 2, 2004
and served on the company on June 16, 2004.  The company's
motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment were denied on
March 10, 2005.  The company filed a partial motion for
reconsideration of the company's motion for summary judgment,
which was denied on Feb. 24, 2006.

Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and a motion for
class certification.  A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was held on July 19, 2006, and the motion remains
pending, according to the company's Dec. 6, 2006 form 10-k
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit is "Medlock Southwest Mgt Corp. et al. v. Federal
National Mortgage Association, Case No. 5:04-cv-00129-DF," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
under Judge David Folsom.

Representing plaintiff Jasper Housing Development Co. is
Nicholas H. Patton at Patton & Tidwell, 4605 Texas Blvd
P.O. Box 5398, Texarkana, TX 75505-5398, Phone: 903/792-7080,
Fax: 19037928233, E-mail: nickpatton@texarkanalaw.com.

Representing Fannie Mae is Damon Michael Young at Young Pickett
& Lee, 4122 Texas Blvd., P.O. Box 1897, Texarkana, TX 75504-
1897, Phone: 903/794-1303, Fax: 19037925098, E-mail:
dyoung@youngpickettlaw.com.


FLORIDA: Court Considers Lawsuit by Broward County Part-Timers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
yet to rule on a purported class action against Broward County
School District in relation to Social Security benefits by part
time employees.

Richard Friedlander, a veteran substitute teacher, filed the
suit in 2006.  He is seeking to change a school district
practice that denies him and other part-time workers state or
federal retirement benefits.

Mr. Friedlander, 64, claims that he other teachers are not being
treated fairly.  In a report by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel
he was quoted as saying, "I'd like to see the School Board make
good on contributing to the Social Security fund so I can get
full benefits when I retire."

                         Case Background

Attorney Jane Letwin filed the suit on behalf of Mr. Friedlander
in August 2006, planning to turn it into a class action within
the month (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 6, 2006).

The suit states that Broward school district doesn't contribute
to the same type of retirement account for its 10,300
substitutes, part-timers and temporary workers that its full-
timers benefit from.  

Instead, a portion of substitutes' paychecks is sent to a
private company with no requirement for a matching district
portion.  In contrast, the district withholds money from full-
timers, whose retirement money is invested in a state-matching
program.

A change to tax laws in 1991 allowed government agencies to
contribute to government retirement programs -- instead of to
Social Security -- on behalf of their employees.  But that
retirement system isn't available to part-time or substitute
employees.

Mr. Friedlander calls the practice the "privatization" of Social
Security, and thus has sued to change it.  According to him, the
paycheck deductions he has been contributing toward retirement
have been invested in low-interest accounts and aren't enough
for him to stop working.

Mr. Friedlander works at Atlantic Technical Center in Coconut
Creek.  He has been working for the district since 1996.

The suit is "Friedlander v. Weintraub, Case No. 0:06-cv-61177-
KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida under Judge Kenneth A. Marra

Representing the plaintiffs is Jane M. Letwin of Jane M. Letwin,
10540 La Placida Drive North, Coral Springs, FL 33065, Phone:
954-757-3606, Fax: 757-3838.

Representing the defendants is Marylin C. Batista-McNamara
School Board Attorney's Office, 600 SE 3rd Avenue, 11th Floor KC
Wright Adm. Bldg., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, Phone: 754-321-
2050, Fax: 321-2705, E-mail: mcbatista@yahoo.com.


GLADDEN FARMS: Faces Shareholders' Suit Over $8.4M Conversion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Gladden Farms, LLC filed a purported class-
action complaint in Clark County Court in Nevada against the
company and several other defendants for illegally converting
more than $8.4 million of investors' money for the benefit of
the company.

The suit was filed as a "class action derivative suit" on Feb.
12, 2007.  It names as defendants:

      -- John Keilly,
      -- JMK Investments,
      -- Suncliff 5 El Mirage LLC,
      -- John Brouwers,
      -- David Del Zotto,
      -- J. Edwards,
      -- Steven Portnoff, and
      -- the company.

The suit states that plaintiffs participated as lender/investors
in various loans in which Saxton, Inc. was the borrower
guarantor, involving in excess of $38 million in loan principal.

Mr. Keilly, via his company JMK Investments acted as broker on
said loans, and was also the borrower on such loan, called U.S.
Mortgage Loan.

Saxton made payments of interest to the plaintiffs through
February 2000, at which time it defaulted on all subject loan
obligations, as no further payments were forthcoming from
Saxton.  The company is currently involved in bankruptcy
proceedings.

Generally, the proposed class is defined as all persons and
entities participating as lenders in loans brokered by John
Keilly & JMK Investments, where in Saxton, Inc., Diamond Key
Homes, Inc. or subsidiary entities were obliged as borrower or
guarantor, and where said lenders receive an interest in Gladden
Farms, or other entities to named, pursuant to an agreement
between Saxton and Mr. Keilly, dated April 26, 2000.     

Pursuant to the agreement, certain properties owned by Saxton
and Diamond Keys would be transferred to plaintiffs via an
entity to be formed by Mr. Keilly.  The entities formed for this
purpose were Gladden Farms and SUNCLIFF 5 EL MIRAGE, LLC.

According to the complaint, defendants converted monies and
property interests of the plaintiffs -- inconsistent and adverse
to the rights and interests of the plaintiffs -- to their own
use and benefit.  

Among other things, the defendants converted the following:

      -- funds used to pay attorneys' fees in excess of
         $400,000;

      -- profits relating to real property commonly referred to
         as El Mirage property (value unknown);

      -- profits relating to property commonly referred to as
         the SUNCLIFF V property (value unknown), but estimated
         at around $3,000,000;

      -- tax benefits associated with the Gladden Farms (value
         unknown);

      -- membership interests in SUNCLIFF V El MIRAGE, LLC;

      -- funds used to pay themselves for Saxton Loans wherein
         they held no legitimate claims to the subject
         properties, as against the interests of the plaintiffs
         and proposed class members, estimated at approximately
         $5,000,000.00;

      -- various fess and commissions paid to defendants (value
         unknown);

      -- interest paid to defendants (amounts unknown);
   
      -- ownership of interest in Gladden Farms (value unknown);

      -- other funds (as yet undetermined);

      -- other business opportunities (as yet undetermined);

Additionally, the complaint states that defendants' actions were
done intentionally and with blatant disregard to the rights of
the plaintiffs, and as such were oppressive acts, which warrant
an award of punitive damages.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?19ee.

For more details, contact Charles J. Lybarger, Esq., 10300 W.
Charleston Blvd., #13-12, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135, Phone: (702)
871-2200, Fax: (702) 876-2200, E-mail:
charleslybarger@hotmail.com.


GUAM: Earned Income Tax Credit Payments to Begin in April
---------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Revenue and Taxation will start paying $10
million in Earned Income Tax Credits to eligible low-income
taxpayers in early April after District Chief Judge Frances
Tydingco-Gatewood approved the wording of a legal notice that
will be issued to the public, agency Director Art Ilagan said in
a Pacific Daily News reports.

The remainder of the $90 million settlement will be paid out
annually, as the settlement specifically states that 15% of all
funds used to pay tax returns every year will be used to pay
EITC arrears, according to a KUAM News report.

Payments for eligible taxpayers for the year 1997 and 1998 are
automatically included in the reimbursement.  For tax years
1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, taxpayers
must complete and submit EITC claim forms to Rev and Tax in
order to receive the balance of the settlement.

All EITC claim forms are due by May 8, and Rev and Tax must
finish processing the forms by Sept. 5.

Mr. Ilagan said Rev and Tax has until April 2 to finish
processing the information for tax years 1997 and 1998, at which
point payments will begin.

The settlement resulted from a suit filed against the government
by Julie Babauta Santos, Charmaine Torres, and Mary Grace Simpao
with Christina Naputi in 2004.  The Simpao class is currently
opposing the payment.

In June 2006, Gov. Felix Camacho signed a $90 million agreement
to settle the suit (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2006).  The
agreement received District Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-
Gatewood's preliminary court on Jan. 9 (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 10, 2007).

The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers Peter Perez, Mike
Philips, and James Canto.


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set March 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that interested parties
may file no later than March 19, 2007 to be lead plaintiff in
the shareholder lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Louisiana on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. between Nov. 1,
2006 and Jan. 10, 2007.

Hornbeck Offshore and the company's chief executive officer is
facing complaints of violations of federal securities laws
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2007).

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Hornbeck Offshore's operations and
prospects caused the company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Hornbeck Offshore, through its subsidiaries, provides offshore
supply vessels for the offshore oil and gas industry, primarily
in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and internationally.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants,
among other things, knew or recklessly disregarded but failed to
disclose that operating issues had negatively impacted the
company's financial performance, including volatility in the
offshore vessel day-rate, a lag in the shipyard delivery
schedules for new-builds and increased turnaround time for
regulatory dry-dockings, repairs and maintenance, as well as
increased costs for personnel and insurance.

On Nov. 1, 2006, Hornbeck Offshore reaffirmed its guidance for
fiscal 2007, and specifically reaffirmed earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization for fourth
quarter 2006 to range of between $39 million and $41 million and
earnings per share to range of between $0.69 and $0.74.

These aggressive projections were crucial to the completion of a
$200 million offering of convertible senior notes (which the
company announced on Nov. 6, 2006), but had the effect of
artificially inflating the price of the stock.

On Nov. 13, 2006, the company announced that it had closed the
note offering and received the offering proceeds.

On Jan. 10, 2007, Hornbeck Offshore shocked the market by
announcing that it was revising its EBITDA and earnings-per-
share guidance for fourth-quarter and fiscal 2006, materially
reducing EBITDA for the fourth quarter to range between $33
million and $34 million, down from previous projection of $39-
$41 million.

The company announced it now expected per-share earnings for
fourth quarter 2006 to range between $0.61 and $0.63, down from
$0.72 to $0.77, and also expected to reduce 2007 guidance by 15
to 20 percent.

As a result of this news, Hornbeck Offshore shares slumped to a
52-week low in early trading on Jan. 11, 2007, and the stock was
down $7.11, or 21.2%, on increased volume.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq., of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-
9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Federman Files Securities Fraud Suit in Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma City law firm Federman & Sherwood, LLP, filed a
lawsuit, seeking class action status, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma, for clients who may have
been financially damaged by an insurer's threats and commission
incentives designed to skew adviser judgment in favor of
proprietary products, the InvestmentNews reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,  
     -- Metlife Securities Inc., and
     -- Metlife Investment Advisors Co. LLC

Federman & Sherwood attorney William Federman, MetLife and its
subsidiaries made both proprietary and non-proprietary mutual
funds and life insurance policies available to clients but
forced its investment advisers to sell at least a certain amount
of proprietary products in order to keep their jobs.

The suit alleges that the threats and incentives violated rules
of Washington-based NASD (formerly known as the National
Association of Securities) and the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and federal and state laws, and caused substantial
financial loss to clients.

The suit is "Thomas et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et
al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00121-F," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma, under Judge Stephen P.
Friot.

Representing plantiffs is William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73120,
Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax: 405-239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com.


NEW YORK: Hearing in Bias Suit Against Parks Dept. Set April
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has set a final pre-trial hearing for the racial discrimination
class action against the Parks and Recreation Department for
April 16, the Queens Tribune reports.

Originally part of a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of
Justice against the Parks Dept., 11 African American and
Hispanic Parks Department employees allege that beginning at
least 10 years ago, African American and Hispanic Parks
employees were routinely discriminated against in hiring,
promotions and pay increases.

The class action was filed in May 2001 on behalf of 11 current
and former employees who claimed that they were forced to work
in a "racially hostile environment" and said that white managers
were systematically preferred for promotion to top positions.

In June 2005, the New York Times reported that the class action
came after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found
that there was "reasonable cause" to believe that the parks
department was discriminating against black and Hispanic
employees.  The suit focused almost exclusively on promotion
issues.

It charged that whites were routinely handpicked for high-level
positions, with job notices never posted and no competitive
process followed to give other employees a chance.

Besides problems with hiring and promotion practices, the
plaintiffs also allege they were punished for filing complaints
of racial discrimination to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.

The DOJ and Parks Dept. settled in 2005 with Parks agreeing to
adequately advertise open positions.

In the settlement, the department agreed to announce job
openings to the whole work force and to improve its performance
evaluations so they could serve as the basis for promotion
decisions.  The department also agreed to provide training and
job counseling for all employees.

But that outcome did not resolve the issue of alleged racial
discrimination, said Lewis Steel, the plaintiffs' attorney.

"It didn't deal with what happened in the past," he said in a
phone interview with the Queens Tribune, earlier.  "For many,
many years, African Americans and Hispanics have been denied
promotions and equal pay and when they complain they are
retaliated against.  Those aspects of the case remain open."

"Frankly, partly the main purpose of the suit was to make
conditions better and start overcoming a historic problem in the
Parks Department," Mr. Steel added.

The final pre-trial hearing is set for April 16.

The suit is "Wright, et al. v. Stern, et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-
04437-DC-MHD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Denny Chin, with referral to
Judge Michael H. Dolinger.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Cynthia Rollings of Beldock, Levine & Hoffman, L.L.P.,
         99 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-1503, Phone: (212)  
         490-0400;

     (2) Lewis M. Steel of Outten & Golden, LLP, 3 Park Avenue,
         29th Floor, New York, NY 100016, Phone: (212) 245-1000;  
         and

     (3) Robert H. Stroup of N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and  
         Educational Fund, Inc., 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600,  
         New York, NY 10013, Phone: (212) 965-2248.

Representing the defendants is Barbara B. Butler, New York City  
Law Department, 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007, Phone:  
(212) 788-0868, Fax: (212) 788-0367, E-mail:  
bbutler@law.nyc.gov.


NIAGARA CORP: March Hearing Set for N.Y. Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bernard J. Fried of New York Supreme Court, New York
County will hold a fairness hearing on March 1, 2007 at 2:15
p.m. for the settlement of securities fraud suits filed against
Niagara Corp.

The suits are:  

      -- "In re Berger v. Scharf, et al. Index No. 600935/05,"
         and

      -- "In re Spring Partners, LLC v Scharf, et al. Index No.
         601004/05"

It concerns all persons or entities who beneficially owned
shares of Niagara Corp. common stock as of Aug. 1, 2006; and all
persons or entities who beneficially owned shares of niagara
stock on April 27, 2004 and either:

      -- sold such shares between April 28, 2004 and August 1,
         2006, inclusive; or

      -- whose fractional interests in Niagara common stock were
         eliminated in connection with the reverse stock splits
         (Spring Partners Class).

The hearing will be at the New York Supreme Court, New York
County, 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007.

The suit "Berger v. Scharf," names as defendants Niagara Corp.,
Michael J. Scharf, Gilbert D. Scharf, Frank Archer, Gerald L.
Cohn, Andrew R. Heyer and Douglas T. Tansill.

Filing for exclusion and objection was until Feb. 14, 2007.  
Claims filing deadline was Feb. 15, 2007.  

Settlement Administrator      Gilardi & Co. LLC
                              P.O. Box 8040
                              San Rafael, CA 94901-8040
                              (800) 447-7657
                              http://www.Gilardi.com

Berger Class Lead Counsel     The Paskowitz Law Firm, P.C.
                              60 East 42nd St.--46th Floor
                              New York, New York 10165
                              Phone: (212)685-0969 1156
                              Fax: (212)685 2306
                              Attn: Laurence D. Paskowtiz, Esq.

                              Roy Jacobs & Associates
                              60 East 42nd Street -- 46th Floor
                              New York, New York 10165
                              Phone: (212) 867-1156
                              Fax:  (212) 504-8343
                              Attn: Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.

Spring Partners
Class Lead Counsel      Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C.
                         460 Park Avenue -- 21st Floor
                         New York, NY 10022
                         Phone:  (212) 838-3221
                         Fax:  (212 937-3139
                         Attn: Christopher J. Gray, Esq.


NISSAN NORTH: Idaho Suit Alleges Premature Warranty Expiration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan North America is facing a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho alleging that the
odometers on the company's Nissan and Infiniti vehicles
overstate the number of miles the cars are actually driven,
causing the vehicle's warranty to expire prematurely, the Idaho
Statesman reports.

The suit charges that in the case of a leased vehicle, the extra
mileage causes the vehicle user to have to pay excessive mileage
charges.

Lead plaintiff, Philip King, a 2006 Nissan Altima owner, alleges
that excessive mileage numbers were achieved by installing
software "that causes the odometer to over-register the number
of miles driven by a factor of not less than 2 percent."

Boise lawyer Ben A. Schwartzman, representing Mr. King, said
Nissan realizes significant financial benefits from having the
warranties on its cars expire early.

"You figure that most of the warranty claims are going to come
toward the end of the warranty period," Mr. Schwartzman said.
"If you multiply that by 100,000 or 200,000 cars, you're taking
about a significant amount of saved revenue."

The lawsuit requests class-action status on behalf of anyone who
bought or leased a new Nissan or Infiniti from Jan. 1, 2004 to
the present.

The suit is "King v. Nissan North America et al., Case No. 1:07-
cv-00068-BLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.

Representing plaintiffs is Benjamin Andrew Schwartzman of
Greener Banducci Shoemaker, 950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 900,
Boise, ID 83702, Phone: 208-319-2600, Fax: 208-319-2601, E-mail:
bschwartzman@greenerlaw.com.


ROCK HILL: Judge to Rule on $2.1M Settlement of Investors' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
5th Circuit Judge Ernest Kinard Jr. of Camden will conduct a
final hearing on Feb. 23, 2007 at 10 a.m. at the York County
Courthouse in South Carolina to approve a $2.1 million
settlement of two class actions brought by shareholders of the
now-defunct Rock Hill Bank and Trust (RHB&T), The Herald
reports.

Lawsuits were filed against RHB&T after irregularities were
found in the commercial loan department of the company.  Named
in the suits are two bank officers and eight directors, former
president Rob Herron, and the accounting firm of Tourville
Simpson and Caskey, which was dissolved and sold.

The class action states that the bank had losses two straight
years because of employee misconduct.  It also claims officers
and directors failed to monitor employees and loan activity.

Rock Hill was subsequently sold to the South Financial Group,
which held 22% of RHB&T's stock at the time, for $8.8 million as
part of a recovery plan.

A $2.1 million preliminary settlement was reached later for two
class actions brought by shareholders (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 22, 2006).

Court documents revealed that the agreement essentially gives
members of one of the suits about $2,095,000, or $1.02 per share
after expenses and fees.

Another $100,000 is proposed for settling the second lawsuit,
which was thrown out of court in January and is currently being
appealed.

Plaintiffs are represented by T. English McCutchen, 1414 Lady
Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201, Phone: (803) 799-9791,
Fax: (803) 253-6084, E-mail: emccutchen@mbjb.com, Web site:  
http://www.mbjb.com.


ROSS STORES: Continues to Face Managers' Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action pending in California's Orange County Superior Court
regarding employee payroll and wage claims.   

The case concerns whether the company's assistant store managers
in California are correctly classified as exempt managers under
California Wage Orders.   

Ross Stores, Inc. -- http://www.rossstores.com-- and its  
subsidiaries operate two chains of off-price retail apparel and
home accessories stores in the U.S.  Its stores offer branded
apparel, accessories, footwear, and home fashions for men and
women between the ages of 25 and 54, as well as gift items,
linens, and other home related merchandise.

The company reported no development in the case at its Dec. 6,
2006 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 28, 2006.


SAKS INC: Continues to Face Breach of Contract Suit in Ala.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saks, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
over allegations of breach of contract.

Adamson Apparel, Inc. filed the suit on Dec. 8, 2005.  The
plaintiff alleges that the company improperly assessed
chargebacks, timely payment discounts, and deductions for
merchandise returns against members of the plaintiff class.  The
lawsuit seeks compensatory and incidental damages and
restitution.

The company reported no development in the case at its Dec. 6
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 28, 2006.

The suit is "Adamson Apparel, Inc. v. Saks Inc., Case No. 2:05-
cv-02514-SLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama under Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn.   

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Richard T. Dorman Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder &  
         Brown, P.O. Box 66705, Mobile, AL 36660, Phone: 1-251-
         471-6191, E-mail: rtd@cbycb.com;  

     (2) Rachel J. Geman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,  
         LLP, 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10017,
         US, Phone: 212-355-9500, Fax: 212-355-9592, E-mail:
         rgeman@ichb.com; and

     (3) David J. Guin and Tammy McClendon Stokes of Donaldson &  
         Guin, LLC, The Financial Center, 505 20th Street North,  
         Suite 1000, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-503-4505,  
         Fax: 205-226-2357, E-mail: davidg@dglawfirm.com and
         tstokes@dglawfirm.com.  

Representing the defendant Andrew J. Sinor, Jr. of Hand  
Arendall, LLC, 1200 Park Place Tower, 2001 Park Place North  
Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-324-4400, Fax: 205-397-1310, E-
mail: dsinor@handarendall.com.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Sued Over Missing "Anti-Tipping" Safety Device
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis class action lawyer Stephen Tillery asked Madison
County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron to certify a nationwide
class action against Sears Roebuck for people who purchased
free-standing or slide-in gas or electric ranges, which Sears
delivered and set up without installing an "anti-tipping" safety
device from Sept. 11, 1999, until the date of certification, the
Madison County Record reports.

Plaintiffs -- Charles and Annemarie Parker and Joyce and David
Sumpter -- allege the ranges they purchased from Sears were not
installed properly.

They are claiming Sears breached warranty by not installing
"anti-tip brackets," which put them in danger, rather than claim
injuries.

The class wants $60-125 to have the brackets installed.

Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery LLC, Gateway on the Mall, 701
Market Street, Suite 300, St. Louis, MO 63101, Phone: (314) 241-
4844, Fax: (314) 588-7036 -- wants to be certified as class
counsel along with:

     (1) Daniel J. T. Sciano of Tinsman & Sciano, Inc., One
         Riverwalk Place, 700 N. St. Mary's Street, 14th Floor,
         San Antonio, TX 78205, Phone: (210) 225-3121, or (800)
         292-9999, Fax: (210) 225-6235, Web site:
         http://www.tsslawyers.com;and  

     (2) Blake L. Beckham of The Beckham Group , 3400 Carlisle
         Street, Suite 550, Dallas, TX 75204-1078, Phone: (214)
         965-9300, Fax: (214) 965-9301.

Sears is represented by Larry E. Hepler of Hepler, Broom,
MacDonald, Hebrank, True & Noce, LLC, Two Mark Twain Plaza,
Suite 300, 103 West Vandalia Street, P.O. Box 510, Edwardsville,
Illinois 62025-0510, Phone: 618-307-1117, Telecopier: 618-656-
1364.


SELECT FINANCIAL: Ontario Court Approves Settlement of W-6 Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Mr. Justice Crane of the Ontario Superior Court
approved on Nov. 2, 2006 a CA$1.8 million settlement in a class
action filed by investors who lost money in discounted standby
letter of credit type of banking instrument.  

Plaintiffs are David Humphreys, Jim Kenney, Betty Chou, William
G. Armstrong, Rupert Ronald, Barb Montesanto, Bill Ayre and Bill
Dunfield.

The plaintiffs are all investors in limited partnership units.
Six Limited Partnerships were established to promote, develop
and to invest in a discounted standby letter of credit type of
banking instrument.  Every plaintiff investor allegedly lost the
capital he or she had invested.

Defendants are:

     -- Robert James Adams;
     -- Select Financial Services Inc.;
     -- the estate of Ron Kerfoote (deceased);
     -- the Estate of Derwin Trevor Davis (deceased);
     -- Shirley Davis, directors/officers of Select;  
     -- Art Klassen, Willem Termorshuizen;
     -- Robert Adourian; and
     -- John Booth; and
     -- Murray Huffman (third-party defendant).

The defendants in the action are a financial investment
brokerage, financial advisors, a lawyer, two accountants, and
each general partner of each of six limited partnerships, all of
whom participated in the promotion, sale and/or management of
the limited partnership investments.

The class is defined as:

     "Any person[s] who invested in the W-6 Limited
     Partnerships, including those who invested in the W-6
     Limited Partnerships through their investments in the
     Orlando Partnerships, as specifically identified, sub-
     classified and named in Schedule "B" and their
     predecessors, heirs, successors, and assigns."

The settlement requires the defendants to make payment of the
aggregate sum of $1.8 million which will then be distributed by
counsel to all Class Members on a pro-rata basis in accordance
with their Net Investment Losses.

Investors can expect to receive approximately 30% of their
original investment back, after taking account of any monies
received by way of redemptions and after currency conversion
from U.S. to CDN dollars.

Plaintiff Jim Kenney is paid $6,000.  Each of the remaining
named plaintiff is paid CA$2,000.  Plaintiffs counsel Scarfone
Hawkins LLP is to get CA$450,000.

The suit was filed in September 1998 by 67 plaintiffs against 20
named defendants.  The action was not initially commenced under
the Class Proceeding Act but rather as a multi-plaintiff action.

The aggregate capital loss and loss of opportunity to all
investors is estimated to exceed US$10 million.  The action
alleges breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence
and negligent misrepresentation.  

In March 2001, the plaintiffs commenced an action by Statement
of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the
Class Proceedings Act seeking to convert and certify the action
as a class proceeding.

The suit is Court File No. 01-3510-CP.

A copy of the order approving the settlement is available for
free at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1a01

David Thompson or Matthew G. Moloci of Scarfone Hawkins LLP,
Barristers & Solicitors, One James Street South, 14th Floor,
Hamilton Ontario L8N 3P9, Phone: 905-523-1333, Fax: 905-523-
5878; E-mail: thompson@shlaw.ca; moloci@shlaw.ca; Web site:
www.classactionlaw.ca.

Select Financial is represented by Boyd Balogh of Gowling
Lafleur Henderson LLP, 1 First Canadian Place, Suite 1600, 100
King Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5X 1G5 (City of Toronto),
Phone: 416-862-7525, Fax: 416-862-7661.  Investors are
represented by Matthew Moloci of Scarfone Hawkins
(http://www.classactionlaw.ca/mainpage.html).


STRATOS INT'L: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement in a consolidated securities class action against
Stratos International, Inc.

The company and certain of its former directors and executive
officers have been named as defendants in purported class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York.   

The first of these lawsuits, filed on July 25, 2001, is "Kucera
v. Stratos Lightwave, Inc. et al. No. 01 CV 6821."  The
complaints are substantially identical to numerous other
complaints filed against other companies that went public during
the time of Stratos' initial public offering.  

Three other similar lawsuits have also been filed against
Stratos and certain of the company's former directors and
executive officers.   

The complaints also name as defendants the underwriters for
Stratos' initial public offering.  The complaints generally
allege, among other things, that the registration statement and
prospectus from the company's June 26, 2000 initial public
offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the
underwriters for the offering.  

The complaints charge Stratos and several of the company's
former directors and executive officers with violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and/or Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) to the U.S.  
Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.   

The complaints also allege claims solely against the
underwriting defendants under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities  
Act of 1933, as amended.  

In 2003, the company agreed to a Memorandum and Understanding,
which reflects a settlement of these class actions as between
the purported class action plaintiffs, Stratos and the former
officers and directors, and the company's liability insurers.  

Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the
company's liability insurers will pay certain sums to the
plaintiffs, with the amount dependent upon the plaintiffs'
recovery from the underwriters in the IPO class actions as a
whole.  

Plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice their claims against  
Stratos and the company's former officers and directors, and  
Stratos will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that it may
have against the underwriters.  

Plaintiffs filed with the court a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, which, when granted, would lead to
the mailing of class-wide notices of the settlement and a
hearing date for approval of the settlement.  

The issuers, including Stratos, filed a statement joining in the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.  
The underwriter defendants opposed the motion.  

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued its ruling granting the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
with the issuers, subject to certain changes to the bar order to
be included as part of the settlement and to the notice to the
class, and the court recently approved the revisions made to the
settlement and the notice pursuant to its prior order.  

The settlement still remains subject to final approval by the
court after notice of the settlement is sent to the class.  A
final fairness hearing on the settlement was held on April 24,
2006, at which time the court took final approval of the
settlement under advisement.

The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 31, 2006.

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


TRAFIGURA: $198M Cleanup Payment Not to Stop U.K. Firm's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trafigura signed an agreement to pay XOF ($198 million) to Ivory
Coast for the damages incurred by the country when a cargo ship
chartered by the London-based arm of the Dutch oil trader dumped
400 tons of highly toxic on the country's Ivorian economic
capital Abidjan in August 2006, Reuters reports.

The payment will be used largely to reimburse the costs the
state incurred for removing the waste and treating those
affected after the waste was dumped, the report said.

The Panamanian-registered Probo Koala, which was chartered by
Trafigura, initially tried unsuccessfully to unload the waste in
Amsterdam.  But proceeded to Abidjan later where the waste was
reportedly dumped around the city.

Allegations that the waste had high levels of caustic soda, as
well as a sulphur compound and hydrogen sulphide, have been
strongly denied by Trafigura.

At least 10 people died and more than 40,000 sought medical
advice after suffering from sickness and nausea, diarrhoea,
vomiting, breathlessness, headaches, skin damage, and swollen
stomachs, after noxious fumes drifted over the city.  

Martin Day of London-based law firm Leigh Day & Co. is suing the
company on behalf of a class of people who suffered the effects
of the toxic dumping.

In light of the recent development, Mr. Day said the civil case
would proceed until the victims had been paid the full value of
their claims.

"If our clients were to receive something from this we would be
delighted and this would be an interim payment offset against
the value of each individual's claim," he told Reuters.

A British court has agreed to hear the class action (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2007).

For more details, contact Leigh Day & Co., Priory House, 25 St.
John's Lane, London, EC1M 4LB, Phone: (020) 7650 1200, Fax:
(020) 7253 4433, DX 53326 Clerkenwell, E-mail:
postbox@leighday.co.uk.


WAL-MART STORES: Calif. Gender Bias Lawsuit Estimated at $11B
-------------------------------------------------------------
Legal experts estimate that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s liability in
the case of "Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." could
run as high as $11 billion and involve as many as two million
women who have worked for the retail giant since 1998,
PersonnelToday.com reports.

Wal-Mart had argued that granting the lawsuit class-action
status was inappropriate because its 3,400 U.S. stores operated
as individual businesses, and issues of pay and promotion were
decided on a local basis.

                      Case Background

The suit was filed in June 2001 on behalf of all past and
present female employees in all of the company's retail stores
and wholesale clubs in the U.S.

The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training and job assignments.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees.

On June 21, 2004, following a hearing on class certification on
Sept. 24, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The class, which was certified by the District Court for
purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief,
punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions,
includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail
store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may be
subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies
and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6
million present and former female Associates (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 10, 2005).

                 Ruling Affirming Class Status

In his ruling, Judge Jenkins said that a congressional act
passed during the civil rights movement in 1964 prohibits sex
discrimination and that giant corporations are not immune.  The
judge had also stated that the women put on enough anecdotal
evidence to warrant a class-action trial.

He ruled that the "plaintiffs present largely uncontested
descriptive statistics which show that women working at Wal-Mart
stores are paid less than men in every region, that pay
disparities exist in most job categories, that the salary gap
widens over time, that women take longer to enter management
positions, and that the higher one looks in the organization the
lower the percentage of women."

Finally, Judge Jenkins found that the evidence so far "raises an
inference that Wal-Mart engages in discriminatory practices in
compensation and promotion that affect all plaintiffs in a
common manner," (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2005).

On Feb. 6, 2007, in a 2 to 1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit affirmed the class action status of the case
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7, 2007).

Wal-Mart plans to seek a review of the decision (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 8, 2007).

The suit is "Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
3:01-cv-02252," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs is Brad Seligman of The Impact Fund,
125 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone: 510-845-3473
ext 304, Fax: 510-845-3654, E-mail: bs@impactfund.org.

Representing the company is Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., of
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles
California 90071, Phone: (213) 229-7000, Fax: (213) 229-7520, E-
mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


GLOBALSTAR INC: Lerach Coughlin Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of common stock
purchasers of Globalstar, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the
company's initial public offering on or about Nov. 2, 2006
through Feb. 5, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933.

This action concerns the initial public offering of Globalstar
common stock, which took place on or about Nov. 2, 2006.

The complaint charges Globalstar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Act.  
Globalstar offers satellite communications services.  The
company provides mobile and fixed voice and data services, asset
tracking and monitoring services, high-speed Internet access,
video and audio broadcasting, and remote file transfer and
virtual private networking services.

As alleged in the complaint, on or about Nov. 2, 2006, the
Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the
Registration Statement, became effective and, at least, 7.5
million shares of Globalstar's common stock were sold to the
public, thereby raising more than $127 million.

The Prospectus failed to disclose that Globalstar's
constellation of satellites was degrading at an increasingly
fast rate and the length of their commercial viability was
decreasing.

Then, on Feb. 5, 2007, Globalstar filed a Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing several material
events.

Among other things, the company disclosed that it has received
updated information concerning its constellation of satellites
and that the satellites' rate of degradation had accelerated.

In response to the announcement about the company's satellites,
on Feb. 6, 2007, the price of Globalstar stock declined
precipitously falling from $14.48 per share to $10.40 per share
-- approximately 39% below the IPO price -- on extremely heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased the common stock of Globalstar pursuant and/or
traceable to the company's initial public offering on or about
Nov. 2, 2006 through Feb. 5, 2007.

For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-
1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Website:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/globalstar/.


NEW CENTURY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of New
Century Financial Corp. between May 4, 2006 and Feb. 7, 2007,
inclusive.

The complaint charges New Century Financial and certain of the
company's executive officers and directors with violations of
federal securities laws.

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the company's financial performance caused
New Century Financial's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Further, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period
defendants knew but failed to disclose that New Century
Financial was being forced to buy back substantially more loans
than originally had been expected.

Despite knowing of the surge in forced loan repurchases, the
defendants failed to properly account for them.  In addition,
the company failed to write-down the value of the loans
reacquired, even though these troubled loans had materially
declined in value.

On Feb. 7, 2007, New Century Financial shocked the market by
announcing that it would restate its financial results for the
first three quarters of 2006 because the company had failed to
account for all of the re-purchased loans and had failed to
properly reduce the value of the loans repurchased.

The company was forced to admit that its financial statements
for the quarters ending March 31, 2006, June 30, 2006 and Sept.
30, 2006 could no longer be relied upon.

As a result of the Feb. 7, 2007 revelations, New Century
Financial shares slumped to a 52-week low, dropping $10.92 -- a
decline of more than 36%, on volume of 25 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

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

New Century Financial operates in the U.S. as a real estate
investment trust which originates and purchases mortgage loans.

For more information, contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224 (Toll Free), E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Website:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


NEW CENTURY: Klafter & Olsen Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Klafter & Olsen LLP filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock and other securities of
New Century Financial Corp. who purchased during the period from
May 4, 2006 through Feb. 7, 2007, inclusive.

The claims against New Century and certain of its officers and
directors allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning the company's operations and financial
results for the first three quarters of 2006.

On Feb. 7, 2007 the company shocked the market by announcing
that it was going to restate its financial results for the first
three quarters of 2006 because the company had failed to account
for all of the re-purchased loans, and had failed to properly
reduce the value of the loans repurchased.

The company was forced to admit that its financial statements
could no longer be relied upon.  As a result of this unexpected
news, New Century shares slumped to a 52-week low, plunging
$10.92, to close at $19.42 per share a decline of over 36% on
extraordinary volume of over 25 million shares.

However, before that announcement, company insiders sold more
than $26 million worth of their personal holdings during the
Class Period.

New Century, a mortgage finance company, makes substantial
amounts of residential mortgage loans. It does not hold these
loans but sells the loans to banks and investors. The purchasers
can require New Century to repurchase loans which become
troubled.

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

For more information, contact Kurt B. Olsen of Klafter & Olsen
LLP, Phone: +1-202-261-3553, Website:
http://www.klafterolsen.com.


NEW CENTURY: Lerach Coughlin Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
announced that a class action has been commenced in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired New Century
Financial Corp. common stock during the period between April 7,
2006 and Feb. 7, 2007.

The complaint charges New Century and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results and concealed the
following material adverse facts from the investing public:

     (a) the company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the company's projections and reported
         results issued during the Class Period were based upon
         defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts;

     (b) the company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         its allowance for loan repurchase losses;

     (c) the company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         its residual interests in securitizations by failing to
         timely write down the impaired asset;

     (d) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in
         the subprime market, the company would be forced to
         tighten its underwriting guidelines which would have a
         direct material negative impact on its loan productions
         going forward; and

     (e) given the increased volatility in the subprime market,
         the company had no reasonable basis to make projections
         about its ability to maintain its current mortgage loan
         production levels for 2007.

As a result of these false statements, New Century stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $51.22 per share on April 28, 2006.

Defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling 665,334
shares of their New Century stock for proceeds of over $26.6
million.

Then, on Feb. 7, 2007, after the market closed, New Century
announced that it will have to restate its consolidated
financial results for the first three quarters of 2006 to
correct errors the company discovered in its application of
generally accepted accounting principles regarding the company's
allowance for loan repurchase losses.

On this news, New Century's stock collapsed $10.92 per share to
close at $19.24 per share on Feb. 8, 2007, a one-day decline of
36%, on volume of 25 million shares, 17 times the average three
month volume.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired New Century common stock during
the Class Period

New Century is a real estate investment trust that through its
subsidiaries operates mortgage finance companies.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com.


NEW CENTURY: Lovell Stewart Files Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and other securities
of New Century Financial Corp. from May 4, 2006 through Feb. 7,
2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that New Century and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning
the company's operations and financial results for the first
three quarters of 2006.

During the Class Period defendants allegedly knew but failed to
reveal that New Century was being forced to buy-back
substantially more loans than originally had been expected.  
Despite knowing of the surge in forced loan repurchases, the
defendants failed to properly account for them.

In addition, the company failed to write-down the value of the
loans reacquired, even though these troubled loans had
materially declined in value.

Then on Feb. 7, 2007 the company shocked the market by
announcing that it was going to restate its financial results
for the first three quarters of 2006 because the company had
failed to account for all of the re-purchased loans, and had
failed to properly reduce the value of the loans repurchased.
The company was forced to admit that its financial statements
could no longer be relied upon.

As a result of this unexpected news, New Century shares dived to
a 52-week low, dropping $10.92, a decline of over 36% on volume
of 25 million shares.

New Century, a mortgage finance company, makes substantial
amounts of residential mortgage loans.  It does not hold these
loans but sells the loans to banks and investors.  The
purchasers can require New Century to repurchase loans which
become troubled.

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

For more information, contact John Halebian or Kenneth Smith,
both of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, Phone: 212-608-1900, E-
mail: jhalebian@lshllp.com or fgerkens@lshllp.com, Website:
http://www.lshllp.com.


NEW CENTURY: Saxena White Files Shareholder Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of shareholders
against New Century Financial Corp.

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who acquired New Century stock
from May 4, 2006 through and including Feb. 7, 2007.  

The lawsuit claims that New Century, its chief executive
officer, Brad A. Morrice, its chief financial officer, Patti M.
Dodge, and its chairman and former chief executive officer
Robert Cole violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
statements to the investing public.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants reported quarter after quarter of seemingly
strong financial results, despite a difficult operating
environment in the mortgage industry.

As a result, the stock traded as high as $51.22 per share during
the Class Period.

On Feb. 7, 2007, after the market closed, defendants shocked the
market by announcing that 2007 loan production would fall short
of expectations.

The company said it now expects 2007 loan production to be 20%
below 2006 levels, in contrast to previous forecasts that it
would be flat, as the level of early-payment defaults and loan
repurchases have led to tighter underwriting guidelines.

The company also said it would restate results for the quarters
ending March 31 through Sept. 30 to correct accounting errors
related to loan repurchase losses, and admitted to having
material weaknesses in its financial controls.

In response, the stock price dropped dramatically, falling from
over $30 per share on Feb. 7, to slightly over $19 per share on
Feb. 8, 2007, on unusually high trading volumes of 25 million
shares traded, vastly higher than the average trading volume of
approximately 1.5 million shares.

In fact, the true magnitude of losses to investors is still
unknown as the company has yet to quantify the amount of the
restatements.

However, before the truth concerning the company's true
financial condition was revealed, insiders, including defendant
Cole and Edward Gotschall, a cofounder of the company and Vice
President of Finance, sold enormous quantities of their own
stock, for proceeds of over $24 million.

Based in Irvine, California, the company is a real estate
investment trust, providing mortgage products to borrowers
nationwide through its operating subsidiaries. One of New
Century's specializations is providing loans to customers in the
sub-prime, higher risk loan market.

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

For more information, contact Maya Saxena or Joseph White, both
of Saxena White P.A., 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257 Boca
Raton, FL 33431, Phone: (561) 394-3399, Fax: (561) 394-3382, E-
mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com or jwhite@saxenawhite.com,
website: http://www.saxenawhite.com.


NEW CENTURY: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Scott+Scott, LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of New Century Financial Corp. common stock purchasers during
the period April 7, 2006 through Feb. 7, 2007, inclusive.

The suit charges New Century and certain directors and officers
for violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
business and operations and that, as a result, the price of the
company's securities was inflated during the Class Period,
thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the company's
quarterly financial results and profits, in active concealment
of the wayward nature of their internal controls over
accounting.

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants actively
concealed violations of "generally accepted accounting
principles" and Securities and Exchange Commission rules in
order to conceal the true dimensions and adverse impact of
rapidly growing early-payment defaults and loan repurchases on
the company's financial results.

According to the allegations, rather than disclose the truth of
these matters, defendants were upbeat in the assessment of the
company's performance, stating that the company was "on track"
to meet profit margin targets, that the company's quarterly
results were "particularly impressive," and that "operating
results were solid."

The truth of these matters was revealed on Feb. 7, 2007, upon
defendants' shocking announcement that the company would restate
its consolidated financial results for the quarters ended March
31, June 30 and Sept. 30, 2006 to correct violations of GAAP
regarding the company's allowance for loan repurchase losses.

Defendants also admitted that they failed to properly consider,
or to disclose to the investment community, for each of the
first three quarters of 2006, the growing volume of repurchase
claims outstanding that resulted from the increasing pace of
repurchase requests that occurred in 2006.

The corrective nature of the company's shocking press release of
Feb. 7, 2007 was immediate and overwhelming in its effect. On
Feb. 8, 2007, New Century's stock price plunged $10.92 or 36.2%,
closing at $19.24 per share, on astounding and unprecedented
volume of 25.2 million shares, a loss of over $605 million in
total market value.

For more information, contact Scott+Scott, LLP, Phone: (800)
404-7770 or (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com.


NEW CENTURY: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announced that
a securities class action was commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of New Century Financial Corp.
between April 7, 2006 through and including Feb. 7, 2007,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10b-5
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
materially false and misleading statements contained in press
releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
during the Class Period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial
results and concealed that, among other things, the company's
financial statements were materially misstated due to its
failure to properly account for its allowance for loan
repurchase losses and its failure to properly account for its
residual interests in securitizations by failing to timely write
down the impaired asset.

As a result of these false statements, New Century stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $51.22 per share on April 28, 2006.

Defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling 665,334
shares of their New Century stock for proceeds of over $26.6
million.

On Feb. 7, 2007, New Century announced that it will have to
restate its financial results for the first three quarters of
2006 regarding the company's allowance for loan repurchase
losses.

As a result of this announcement, on Feb. 8, 2007, the company's
stock fell $10.92 per share to close at $19.24 per share on.

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

For more information, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector,
Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Philadelphia, Phone: 888-844-5862, E-
mail: classaction@srk-law.com, Website: http://www.srk-law.com.


NUVELO INC: Schiffrin Barroway Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler announced
that a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Nuvelo, Inc. from Jan. 5, 2006 through Dec. 8,
2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges Nuvelo and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the clinical trial information regarding multiple
         alfimeprase studies was inaccurate;

     (2) specifically, clinical data from testing failed to show
         that alfimeprase, when administered through a catheter,
         could dissolve blood clots;

     (3) that no reliable data existed to show that alfimeprase
         would meet the high standards for efficacy for FDA
         approval;

     (4) that such information, as described above, was known to
         Defendants as early as December 2004, when Amgen
         discontinued its investment in alfimeprase; and

     (5) that, as a result of the above, the company's
         statements concerning alfimeprase and its clinical
         trials were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On Dec. 11, 2006, Nuvelo shocked investors when it revealed
that, contrary to earlier positive reports provided by the
Defendants, Nuvelo's clinical trials of alfimeprase did not meet
any of the primary or key secondary endpoints established for
success.

In addition, the company announced that it had temporarily
suspended enrollment in all other ongoing trials, pending
discussions with outside experts and regulatory agencies due to
safety concerns and the usefulness of alfimeprase.

On this shocking and unexpected news, shares of Nuvelo plummeted
$15.50, or 79 percent, to close, on Dec. 11, 2006, at $4.05 per
share, on unusually high trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq., both of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler,
LLP, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 (toll-free), E-
mail: info@sbtklaw.com, Website: http://www.sbtklaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *