---

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

            Wednesday, February 28, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 42

                            Headlines


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces AWP-Related Litigation in Mass.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Ill.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces Fenofibrate Marketing Lawsuit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: No Ruling Yet on Westways World's Appeal
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit in Canada Over Cargo Surcharges

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Anticipates Class Status Bid in "Kivilaan"
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suits Over Surcharges Consolidated in Calif.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Court Affirms Nixing of "Harrington"
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Flight Attendants' Suit Over RPA
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Might be Named in Air Cargo Antitrust Lawsuit

ARKANSAS: Trial Begins in Teachers' Suit Against School District
BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Nev. Securities Lawsuit for $1.25M
BOLIDEN LTD: Canadian Courts Okay CA$1M Securities Suits Deal
CALIFORNIA: Deputy Sheriff's FLSA Violation Lawsuit Certified
CANADA: Pictou Plaintiffs' Lawyer Files Notice in Hepatitis Suit

CANADA: Quebec Prepares CA$13M Payment for Private Abortions
CMS ENERGY: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Remand "Breckenridge"
CMS ENERGY: Nev. Natural Gas Suit Ruling Still Under Appeal
CMS ENERGY: Calif. Natural Gas Suit Ruling Still Under Appeal
CMS ENERGY: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand "Learjet"

CMS ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation in Wisconsin
CMS ENERGY: Tenn. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Leggett"
CMS ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Mich. Securities Suit for $200M
COVERALL NORTH: Franchisees File Contract Breach Suit in Mass.
DAIEI TRADING: Recalls Itomo Mame Mixes Over Undeclared Peanuts

DELPHI CORP: Judge Rosen Grants Shareholders Access to Docs
FIJI: Interim Finance Minister Sues for Unpaid Entitlements
HARTFORD FIRE: Ore. Court Okays Credit Scoring Suit Settlement
HARTFORD LIFE: Faces Multidistrict Litigation in N.J. Court
KOREA: Civil Groups Plan to File Lawsuit Over Air Pollution

LCD MANUFACTURERS: Accused of Conspiring to Inflate Prices
MIDLAND NATIONAL: Hawaii Judge Certifies Lawsuit Over EIA
MORTGAGE LENDERS: Foreclosures to Spur Suits Over Loan Terms
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Objections to Class Claims Adjourned
TIME WARNER: N.Y. Court Declines to Approve "Parker" Settlement

* Sutter Health Lawyer Named Calif. Mag's Attorney of the Year


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                   New Securities Fraud Cases
                  
GLOBALSTAR INC: Klafter & Olsen Announces Securities Suit Filing
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Howard Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Litowitz Announces Securities Suit


                           *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces AWP-Related Litigation in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories remains a defendant in the purported class
action, "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price
Litigation, MDL 1456."

Initially, a number of cases, brought as purported class actions
or representative actions on behalf of individuals or entities,
are pending that allege generally that Abbott and numerous other
pharmaceutical companies reported false pricing information in
connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable under
Medicare and Medicaid and by private payors.

These cases, brought by private plaintiffs, the U.S. Department
of Justice, State Attorneys General, and other state government
entities, generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

Abbott has filed or intends to file a response in each case
denying all substantive allegations.

The federal court cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under the Multi-District Litigation Rules as "In
re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation,
MDL 1456."

MDL 1456 includes:

      -- a purported class action case in which plaintiffs seek
         to certify a nationwide class of Medicare Part B
         consumers and two Massachusetts classes of third party
         payors and other consumers (filed in June 2003);

      -- 11 State Attorney General and five state county
         suits, including a consolidated New York counties/City
         of New York suit (filed in June 2005); and

      -- a civil whistle-blower suit brought by the U.S.
         Department of Justice (filed in federal court in the
         Southern District of Florida in May 2006).  Abbott has
         filed a motion to dismiss the Department of Justice
         case.

The company reported no development on the case at its Feb. 23
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The consolidated suit is "In re Average Wholesale Price
Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-12257-PBS," filed in the U.S.
District Court in Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris.  

Representing the plaintiffs are David J. Bershad and J. Douglas
Richards and Melvyn I. Weiss of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY
10119, Phone: 212-594-5300.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories remains a defendant in a purported class
action alleging generally that the spin-off of Hospira, Inc.,
from the company adversely affected employee benefits in
violation of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned, "Myla
Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories
and Hospira, Inc."

Plaintiffs are former Abbott employees who allege that their
transfer to Hospira, as part of the spin-off of Hospira,
adversely affected their employee benefits in violation of
ERISA, and that in their transfer, Abbott breached a fiduciary
duty to plaintiffs involving employee benefits.

Plaintiffs generally seek reinstatement as Abbott employees, or
reinstatement as participants in Abbott's employee benefit
plans, or an award for the employee benefits they have allegedly
lost.

Abbott filed a response denying all substantive allegations.
Plaintiff's motion for class certification on the breach of
fiduciary duty claim is pending.

The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.    

Representing the plaintiffs is Paul William Mollica of Meites,
Mulder, Burger & Mollica, 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410,
Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 263-0272.

Representing the company is James F. Hurst, Winston & Strawn
LLP, 35 West Wacker Drive, 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
(312) 558-5230 or E-mail: jhurst@winston.com.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces Fenofibrate Marketing Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories, Fournier Industrie et Sante, and
Laboratoires Fournier, S.A. (Fournier) remain defendants in
several lawsuits that were filed in either the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware or in the Central District of
California, alleging antitrust and unfair competition claims in
connection with the sale of fenofibrate formulations.

Twenty lawsuits, including 15 purported class actions, are
currently pending.  The plaintiffs in these cases seek actual
damages, treble damages and other relief.  

One of the purported class actions was filed by Paul T. Regan in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
in July 2005.  

The other 14 purported class actions and five individual actions
are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware and were filed by:

                                                Filing Date
                                                -----------  
      Alberto Litter                            August 2005

      Allied Services Division Welfare
      Fund and Hector Valdes                    June 2005

      Cindy Cronin                              July 2005

      Diana Kim                                 June 2005

      Local 28 Sheet Metal Workers              July 2005

      Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc.        June 2005
   
      Meijer, Inc.                              June 2005  

      Painters District Council No.30
      Health and Welfare Fund                   June 2005

      Pennsylvania Employees
      Benefit Trust Fund                        June 2005

      Philadelphia Federation
      of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund       July 2005  

      Elaine M. Pullman                         June 2005

      Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.         June 2005

      Charles M. Shain                          July 2005

      Vista Healthplan, Inc.                    June 2005

      CVS Pharmacy, Inc.                        August 2005  

      Impax Laboratories                        June 2005

      Pacificare Health Systems, Inc.           August 2005

      Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.            June 2005

      Walgreen Co.                              June 2005

The company reported no development on the case at its Feb. 23
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Abbott Laboratories on the Net: http://www.abbott.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: No Ruling Yet on Westways World's Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has yet to rule on
plaintiffs' appeal regarding the summary judgment made by the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
the class action, "Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corp., et
al."

The suit names as defendants American Airlines, Inc., and:

     -- AMR Corp.,
     -- AMR Eagle Holding Corp.,  
     -- Airlines Reporting Corp., and
     -- Sabre Group Holdings, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that requiring travel agencies to pay debit
memos to the company for violations of American's fare rules by
customers of the agencies:

     -- breaches the Agent Reporting Agreement between American
        and AMR Eagle and the plaintiffs;

     -- constitutes unjust enrichment; and  

     -- violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
        Organizations Act of 1970.

The certified class includes all travel agencies who have been
or will be required to pay money to American for debit memos for
fare rules violations from July 26, 1995 to the present.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin American from enforcing the pricing
rules in question and to recover the amounts paid for debit
memos, plus treble damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.  

On Feb. 24, 2005, the court decertified the class.  In September
2005, the court granted Summary Judgment in favor of the company
and all other defendants.  

Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit.

The company reported no development in the matter at its Feb. 22
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corp., et al.,
Case No. 99-cv-07689-WDK-AIJ," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge William D.
Keller.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Linda S. Platisha, Linda S. Platisha Law Offices, 21520
         Yorba Linda Blvd., Ste. G-560 Yorba Linda, CA 92887,
         Phone: 714-694-1542; and

     (2) Dean Browning Webb, Dean Browning Webb Law Offices,
         8002 NE Hwy. 99, Ste. B Vancouver, WA 98665-8833,
         Phone: 503-629-2176, Fax: 503-629-9527.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Chad S. Hummel, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, 11355 W.
         Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614, Phone: 310-
         312-4000; and

    (ii) William A. Wargo, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 333 S. Grand
         Ave., 45th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197, Phone: 213-
         229-7000.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit in Canada Over Cargo Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. was named as a defendant in the
purported Canadian class action, "McKay v. Ace Aviation
Holdings, et al.," according to its Feb. 22 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Jan. 23, 2007, the company was served with a purported class
action complaint filed against the company, AMR Corp., and
certain foreign and domestic air carriers in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia in Canada.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Canadian
competition laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments.  

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages under
Canadian law.  

American Airlines, Inc. on the Net: http://www.aa.com/.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Anticipates Class Status Bid in "Kivilaan"
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. anticipates that by the first quarter of
2007, a motion for class certification will be filed in a gender
discrimination suit brought by flight attendants against the
company.

is defendant in a purported class action, "Kelley Kivilaan v.
American Airlines, Inc.," which alleges gender discrimination,
according to the company's Feb. 22 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit was filed on Sept. 16, 2004 in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee.  A flight attendant who
seeks to represent a purported class of current and former
flight attendants brought it against the company.

Generally, suit alleges that several of the company's medical
benefits plans discriminate against females on the basis of
their gender in not providing coverage in all circumstances for
prescription contraceptives.  Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
and monetary damages.

The case has not been certified as a class action, but the
company anticipate that a motion for class certification will be
filed in the first quarter of 2007.

The suit is "Kivilaan v. American Airlines, Case No. 3:04-cv-
00814," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee under Judge John T. Nixon with referral to Judge
John S. Bryant.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, Bank of America Center,
         550 Main Avenue, Suite 750, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone:
         (865) 525-7028; and

     (2) Llezlie Lloren Green of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
         Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, NW, West Tower,
         Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, US, Phone: (202) 408-
         4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: lgreen@cmht.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Stanley E. Graham of Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis,
         Nashville City Center, 511 Union Street, Suite 2100,
         Nashville, TN 37219, Phone: (615) 244-6380, E-mail:
         sgraham@wallerlaw.com; and

    (ii) Melissa M. Hensley of Baker & McKenzie, 2001 Ross
         Avenue, Suite 2300, Dallas, TX 75201, US, Phone: (214)
         965-7252, Fax: (214) 978-3099, E-mail:
         melissa.hensley@bakernet.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suits Over Surcharges Consolidated in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous cases alleging violations of U.S. antitrust laws
against American Airlines, Inc. and certain foreign and domestic
air carriers have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Approximately 52 purported class actions have been filed in the
U.S. against the company and certain foreign and domestic air
carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for
passenger transportation.

These cases, along with other purported class actions in which
the company was not named, were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California as "In re
International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation,
M 06-01793" on Oct. 25, 2006.

Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.

The suit is "In re International Air Transportation Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. M:06-cv-01793-CRB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lee Albert of Mager & Goldstein, LLP, One Liberty
         Place, 21st Fl., 1650 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
         19103, Phone: 215-640-3280, Fax: 215-640-3281, E-mail:
         lalbert@magergoldstein.com;

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

     (3) Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher, LLC,
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-545-7200, Fax: 215-545-6535.

Representing the defendants is Debra J. Pearlstein of Weil
Gotshal & Manges, LLP, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153,
Phone: 212-310-8686, Fax: 213-310-8007, E-mail:
debra.pearlstein@weil.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Court Affirms Nixing of "Harrington"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of a purported class action over an alleged failure by
American Airlines, Inc. to refund certain governmental taxes and
fees collected by the company upon the sale of non-refundable
tickets when such tickets are not used for travel.

In the matter, "Harrington v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al.,"
which was filed Dec. 6, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs sought unspecified actual
damages (trebled), declaratory judgment, injunctive relief,
costs, and attorneys' fees.   

The suit asserted various causes of action, including breach of
contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment against the company
and numerous other airline defendants.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was
granted.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.

On Feb. 7, 2007, the 1sst Circuit affirmed the dismissal,
according to the company's Feb. 22 Form 10-K Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

The suit is "Harrington v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:04-cv-12558-NMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
District of Massachusetts under Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton.

Representing the plaintiffs is Evans J. Carter of Evans J.
Carter, P.C., P.O. Box 812, Framingham, MA 01701, Phone: 508-
875-1669, Fax: 508-875-1449, E-mail: ejcatty1@Verizon.net.

Representing the defendants are Matthew A. Porter and Michael S.
Shin of Dechert, LLP, 200 Clarendon Street, 27th Floor, Boston,
MA 02116, Phone: 617-728-7100, Fax: 617-426-6567, E-mail:
matthew.porter@dechert.com and michael.shin@dechert.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Flight Attendants' Suit Over RPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc., remains a defendant in the consolidated
class action, "Marcoux et al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al."

On July 12, 2004, a consolidated class action complaint that was
subsequently amended on Nov. 30, 2004, was filed against
American Airlines and the Association of Professional Flight
Attendants (APFA), the Union that represents the American's
flight attendants.

While a class has not yet been certified, the lawsuit seeks on
behalf of all of American's flight attendants or various
subclasses to set aside, and to obtain damages allegedly
resulting from, the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement
referred to as the Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA).  

The RPA was one of three labor agreements the company
successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing
for bankruptcy in 2003.  

The suit alleges various claims against the Union and American
Airlines relating to the RPA and the ratification vote on the
RPA by individual Union members, including:

      -- violation of the Labor Management Reporting and
         Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the APFA's Constitution and
         By-laws,

      -- violation by the Union of its duty of fair
         representation to its members, violation by American of
         provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) through
         improper coercion of flight attendants into voting or
         changing their vote for ratification, and

      -- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations Act of 1970.  

On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various
state law claims against American, all but one of the LMRDA
claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of RICO.  

This leaves the claimed violations of the RLA and the duty of
fair representation against American Airlines and the APFA (as
well as one LMRDA claim and one claim against the APFA of a
breach of the union constitution).  

The company reported no development in the matter at its Feb. 22
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Marcoux et al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Nina Gershon
with referral to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Emily Maruja Bass, Law Offices of Emily Bass, 25
         Washington Street, Suite 305 Brooklyn, NY 11201, Phone:
         718-522-9705, Fax: 718-522-9707, E-mail: eb@basslaw.us

     (2) Martin Garbus and Mark J. Rachman, Davis & Gilbert,
         LLP, 1740 Broadway, 21st floor, New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-468-4800, Fax: 212-468-4888, E-mail:
         mgarbus@dglaw.com or mrachman@dglaw.com

Representing the defendants are Thomas Edward Reinert, Jr.,
Melissa C. Rodriguez and Sam Scott Shaulson of Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, 101 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10178, Phone: 212-
309-6000, Fax: 212- 309-6273, E-mail: treinert@morganlewis.com,
mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com and sshaulson@morganlewis.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Might be Named in Air Cargo Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated suit alleging antitrust violations
have not released any claims that they may have against American
Airlines, Inc., raising the possibility that the company may
later be added as a defendant in the litigation, according to
its Feb. 22 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Approximately 44 purported class actions have been filed in the
U.S. against the company and certain foreign and domestic air
carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges on
cargo shipments.

These cases, along with other purported class actions in which
the company was not named, were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York as "In re
Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775" on
June 20, 2006.  

Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.  The company has not been named as a defendant in the
consolidated complaint filed by the plaintiffs.

However, the plaintiffs have not released any claims that they
may have against the company, and the company may later be added
as a defendant in the litigation.

If the company is sued on these claims, it will vigorously
defend the suit, but any adverse judgment could have a material
adverse impact on the company.

The suit is "In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01775-CBA-VVP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge
Carol Bagley Amon with referral to Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Lee Albert of Mager & Goldstein, LLP, One Liberty
         Place, 21st Floor, 1650 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
         19103, Phone: 215-640-3280, Fax: 215-640-3281, E-mail:
         lalbert@magergoldstein.com; and

     (2) Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher, 1845
         Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-545-7200, Fax: 215-545-6535, E-mail:
         asher@wka-law.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robert G. Badal of Heller Ehrman, LLP, 333 South Hope
         Street, 39th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-
         689-0200, Fax: 213-614-1868, E-mail:
         robert.badal@hellerehrman.com; and

    (ii) Christian Reginald Bartholomew of Morgan Lewis &
         Bockius, 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300,
         Wachovia Financial Center, Miami, Fl 33131-2339, Phone:
         305-579-0418, Fax: 305-415-3001.


ARKANSAS: Trial Begins in Teachers' Suit Against School District
----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial for a 2003 class action against the Van Buren School
District over teacher pay for non-instructional duty time began
last week in Crawford County Circuit Court in Arkansas, Rusty
Garrett of The Fort Smith Times Record reports.

Attempts at negotiating a settlement for the case ended in Feb.
13, when the school board voted 6-0 against accepting an offer
that would have involved a $400,000 payment by the district.  
Thus, the case was tried on Feb. 22 (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
16, 2006).

Judge Mike Medlock is presiding over the case, which was filed
by former Coleman Junior High civics teacher Steve Jones against
the school district on Aug. 22, 2003.  The case was later
certified as a class action.  

In general, Mr. Jones claimed that teachers were not paid for
non-instructional duty time that they were required to work.  
The case centers around passing periods and whether that is non-
instructional time for teachers.  It also involves before- and
after-school duty and lunch duty.  

Mr. Jones originally filed the lawsuit along with another
teacher, Allen Wolfe, asking for payment to teachers who had
worked uncompensated duty time.  Mr. Wolfe settled his claim and
was dismissed from the lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 9,
2006).

Attorneys Brian Meadors and Mark Burnette, who both represent
Mr. Jones, claim that Mr. Jones was unfairly dismissed from his
position for making critical statements about the school
district in violation of his civil rights.

In April 2006 the two claims were added to the lawsuit:

      -- an appeal of Mr. Jones' termination under the Teacher
         Fair Dismissal Act; and

      -- an allegation of a violation of the Arkansas Civil
         Rights Act.

Judge Mike Medlock granted class-action status to that case back
in 2005, allowing about 500 Van Buren teachers to join the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit covers any certified teacher working for the school
district between August 1998 and present who has performed
"uncompensated non-instructional duties."

Mr. Jones is asking for compensation for the duty time, pre- and
post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
other relief to which he and the class are entitled.  He is also
asking for compensatory and punitive damages.

For more details, contact:

     (1) C. Brian Meadors of Pryor, Robertson & Barry, PLLC, 315
         North 7th Street, P.O. Drawer 848, Fort Smith, Arkansas
         72902-0848, Phone: 479-782-8813 and 479-782-7911, Fax:
         479-785-0254, Web Site: http://www.prblaw.com;and  

     (2) Mark T. Burnette of Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes,
         Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon, PLLC, 1010 West Third Street,
         Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-1510, (Pulaski Co.), Phone:
         501-378-7870, Fax: 501-375-1940, Web site:
         http://www.mbbwi.com.


BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Nev. Securities Lawsuit for $1.25M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bally Technologies, Inc., formerly known as Alliance Gaming
Corp., has reached agreements, subject to court approval, to
settle the consolidated federal securities class actions filed
in 2004 against the company and certain current and former
officers, as well as the shareholder derivative litigation filed
in 2006.

Both actions are currently pending in the U.S. District Court,
District of Nevada.

The cost of the settlement to the company will be $1.25 million.  
Such costs have been accrued in the company's financial
statements for the quarter ended September 30, 2005.

In addition to certain governance actions the company has agreed
to undertake, the company's directors and officers insurer will
also contribute approximately $14.75 million for a total of
$16.0 million in cash, plus certain interest, to settle the
securities class action and derivative litigation.

In June and July 2004, putative class actions were filed against
Bally and its officers, Robert Miodunski, Robert Saxton, Mark
Lerner and Steven Des Champs in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada.

The nearly identical complaints alleged violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, stemming from
revised earnings guidance, declines in the stock price and sales
of stock by insiders.  The complaints sought damages in
unspecified amounts.

The court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motions to
consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead counsel and a lead
plaintiff, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint,
all as is customary in such cases.  Bally and the other
defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint.

Thereafter, activity in the case was suspended and the parties
participated in a mediation process.  

The first identified complaint is "Tyler, et al. v. Alliance
Gaming Corp., et al., Case No. 04-CV-821," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Kent J.
Dawson.

The plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185;

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (3) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com;

     (4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin, (San
         Francisco), 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

     (6) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor,
         New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com; and

     (7) 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.


BOLIDEN LTD: Canadian Courts Okay CA$1M Securities Suits Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The British Columbia Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice has approved an agreement to settle a
securities class action against Boliden Ltd.

Lawsuits have been filed in British Columbia and Ontario
against:

     -- Boliden Limited,
     -- Trelleborg International B.V.,
     -- Trelleborg AB,
     -- Anders Bulow,
     -- Robert K. McDermott,
     -- Jan Petter Traaholt,
     -- Lars Olof Nilsson,
     -- Kjell Nilsson,
     -- Frederick Telmer,
     -- Alex Balogh,
     -- Robert Stone and
     -- Nesbitt Burns Inc.

These lawsuits have been filed on behalf of all those who
acquired common shares (or installment receipts) in Boliden
Ltd., as offered by a prospectus dated June 10, 1997, in one of
the provinces of Canada other than New Brunswick or Alberta, and
retained all or part of these shares on April 25, 1998.

These lawsuits are:

     -- "Kenneth Elliott et al. v. Boliden Limited et al.,"
        Vancouver registry no. C985348, Supreme Court of British
        Columbia (the B.C. Action) and

     -- "Kenneth Elliott et al. v. Boliden Ltd. et al.," court
        file no. 98-BN-07157, Ontario Superior Court of Justice
        (the Ontario Action).

In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
breached provincial securities statutes concerning the
disclosure of information in the Prospectus related to a
tailings dam at Los Frailes, Spain, which collapsed on April 25,
1998.

The amended class certified by the British Columbia Supreme
Court covers persons resident in that province as of February
24, 2000.

The class definition certified by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice covers all other persons, except persons in the British
Columbia class.

Collectively, these class definitions cover persons who:

     (a) acquired common shares of Boliden Limited (the "Common
         Shares") as a result of a trade in one of the provinces
         of Canada other than New Brunswick or Alberta, the
         jurisdiction of such trade being the jurisdiction where
         the registrant (broker) who received the buy order
         relating to the acquisition was located, or where a
         "trade", as defined in the applicable jurisdiction,
         occurred;

     (b) acquired the Common Shares:

         (i) as offered by the Prospectus from an underwriter
             involved in the initial public offering of the
             Common Shares (the "IPO"); or

        (ii) in the case of Common Shares acquired as a result
             of a "trade" in Manitoba, acquired the Common
             Shares either as offered by the Prospectus from an
             underwriter involved in the IPO or on the secondary
             market; and

     (c) retained all or part of the Common Shares on April 25,
         1998.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the settling defendants
will pay CA$1 million, plus certain notice costs, in full and
final settlement of all claims associated with the lawsuits.

Due to the administrative expense of distributing the net
settlement funds (after fees, disbursements and expenses) to
individual class members, no direct compensation will be paid to
any class members in this settlement.

Instead, the net settlement funds will be paid to charitable and
non-profit organizations appropriate to the allegations in the
lawsuits, to be applied to activities across Canada that are
reasonably expected to indirectly benefit the Class in the
future.

These proposed organizations are the Rotman School of
Management, University of Toronto, the Sauder School of
Business, University of British Columbia, the Consumers'
Association of Canada, and the Small Investors' Protection
Association.

In addition, the courts have approved payment of legal fees to
Class Counsel of 25% of the settlement proceeds available for
distribution to the cy pres recipients, with disbursements
assessed.

The defendants deny any liability and deny that any plaintiff or
any class member is entitled to any relief.  The courts have not
ruled on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims or the defendants'
defences.

Deadline to file for exclusion is April 16, 2007.

For more information, contact class counsel, Doug Lennox, of
Klein Lyons, Barristers & Solicitors, Suite 1100, 1333 West
Broadway, Vancouver BC V6H 4C1, Phone: 1-800-216-1383, Fax: 604-
874-7180, E-mail: dlennox@kleinlyons.com, Website:
http://www.kleinlyons.com.


CALIFORNIA: Deputy Sheriff's FLSA Violation Lawsuit Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted preliminary certification to the case "Reed v. County of
Orange et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-01103-CJC-AN."

The case can now proceed as a collective action on behalf of
Orange County Deputy Sheriffs below the rank of sergeant who
were improperly compensated for the time spent performing
required and integral pre-shift and post-shift activities.

In 2005, Castle, Petersen & Krause, LLP partner Gregory G.
Petersen, joined by Herbert Hafif of the Law Offices of Herbert
Hafif, filed the suit on behalf of Margaret Reed -- a Deputy
Sheriff at the Orange County Central Jail Complex -- and other
deputies seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages.

The deputies contend that the Orange County Sheriff's Department
required them to work overtime without compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit asserts that the County failed to properly
compensate the deputies for the time spent performing required
and integral pre-shift and post-shift activities such as
attending briefings, court hearings, collecting and maintaining
protective gear and specialized equipment, and other tasks
benefiting the Orange County.

The court has determined that a Notice of a Collective Action
will be sent to current and former sheriff's deputies who can
now opt-in to the Reed lawsuit as a class action.

The parties are finalizing the text of the Notice, which is
expected to be sent out within the next month.

The suit is "Reed v. County of Orange et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-
01103-CJC-AN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge Cormac J. Carney, with
referral to Judge Arthur Nakazato.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Miguel G. Caballero, Michael G. Dawson and Greg K.
         Hafif, all of Herbert Hafif Law Offices, 269 West
         Bonita Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-4784, Phone: 909-
         624-1671, Fax: 909-625-7772, E-mail: ghafif@hafif.com;
         and

     (2) Michael A. Jenkins and Gregory G. Petersen, both of
         Castle Petersen and Krause, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite
         1250, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-417-5600, E-
         mail: atty@cpk-law.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Teri L. Maksoudian and Marianne Van Riper, both of the
         Orange County Counsels Office, 10 Civic Center Drive,
         Santa Ana, CA 92702-3300, Phone: 714-834-3300, Fax:
         714-834-2359, E-mail: teri.maksoudian@coco.ocgov.com or
         marianne.vanriper@coco.ocgov.com; and

     (2) Brian P. Walter of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, 6033 W
         Century Blvd, Ste 500, Los Angeles, CA 90045-6415,
         Phone: 310-981-2000, E-mail: bwalter@lcwlegal.com.


CANADA: Pictou Plaintiffs' Lawyer Files Notice in Hepatitis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawyer of four plaintiffs, who recently settled out-of-court
a suit against the Canadian Red Cross Society, filed a notice of
discontinuation in Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Pictou County
after his clients accepted compensation under a class action,
The Chronicle Herald reports.

The plaintiffs are Pictou County residents.  They are George W.
Hughes of New Glasgow, Josephine Crowther of Westville, Kathleen
M.J. Hayman of Pictou County and David S. MacDonald of Eden
Lake.  In documents filed between 1996 and 1999, the plaintiffs
claimed they tested positive for hepatitis C after receiving
transfusions of infected blood from the Red Cross in the 1980s
while patients at Aberdeen Hospital in New Glasgow and Victoria
General Hospital in Halifax, according to the report.  

They sued the Red Cross, the hospitals, and 10 provincial
attorneys general and the federal attorney general for not
properly regulating the Red Cross.

Representing them is Jamie MacGillivray.

Canada is granting approximately $1 billion in compensation to
about 5,500 "forgotten victims" of the country's contaminated
blood supply (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2006).

                         Class Actions

In April 1998, the Ontario Hemophilia Plaintiffs commenced  
Action No. 98-CV-146405 in the Ontario Court (General Division),
at Toronto, against the Red Cross and Canada over the spread of
hepatitis C through the government's blood system.

In May 1998, the British Columbia Hemophilia Plaintiff commenced  
Action No. A981187 in the Vancouver Registry of the Supreme  
Court of British Columbia against the Red Cross and Canada.

In the same month, the Quebec Hemophilia Plaintiff commenced  
Action No. 500-06-000068-987 in the Superior Court of the  
Province of Quebec for the District of Montreal against the  
CRCS, Canada and Quebec.

In 1998, the government granted $1.1 billion payout to hepatitis
C victims between 1986 and 1990.  It then limited the
compensation, saying there was no reliable test in place before
1986 to screen out potentially deadly virus.   

On March 9, 2000, the courts appointed Crawford Adjusters Canada  
-- http://www.hepc8690.com/-- to act as Administrator of the  
1986-1990 Hepatitis C Class Actions Settlement.

In recent years, evidence emerged that Canada could have
conducted testing earlier.   

On Nov. 22, 2004, the Federal Minister of Health announced
Canada's intention to "enter into discussions on options for
financial compensation to people who were infected with
hepatitis C through the blood system before Jan. 1, 1986 and
after July 1, 1990."

In April 2005, the government decided to extend financial help
to victims who became ill before 1986 and after 1990.


CANADA: Quebec Prepares CA$13M Payment for Private Abortions
------------------------------------------------------------
The government of Quebec is preparing to start paying more than
CA$13 million to the women of Quebec who won a class action over
supplementary fees they were forced to pay for abortions between
1999 to 2006, the Montreal Gazette reports.

The suit was filed in May 2002 on behalf of the Association for
Access to Abortion, a group set up to represent claimants and
lobby for changes to the way abortions are managed in Quebec.

It principally covers claims for abortions completed in the
first 13 weeks of a pregnancy.  The lawsuit applied to about
45,000 women who paid $200-$300 to have abortions outside of the
hospital system.

In August 2006, Quebec Superior Court Justice Nicole Benard
ordered the government of Quebec to pay more than CA$13 million
to the women of Quebec who had to pay to obtain an abortion
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21, 2006).

The court concluded that the Quebec government violated its own
legislation by paying only partially for abortions.

Abortions are covered under the Quebec Health Insurance Act, and
for many years, women who require an abortion have had to pay to
obtain it when delivered in certain women's or private clinics.

The judge has ordered the government to deposit the award money
with a financial institution.

To receive payment, a claim must be submitted by Sept. 7.  If
the claim is accepted, a check will be sent by Feb. 8, 2008.

Claim forms and more information are available at
http://www.reclamation-ivg.qc.caor by calling, toll-free, 1-
866-504-9993.

A copy of the August 2006 judgment is available free of charge
at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ff5

For more information, contact Me Bruce Johnston, Me Philippe
Trudel and Me Danielle Parizeau all of Trudel & Johnston, 85 de
la Commune East, 3rd Floor, Montreal (Quebec), H2Y 1J1, Phone:
(514) 871-8385, Fax: (514) 871-8800, E-mail:
bwjohnston@trudeljohnston.com or phtrudel@trudeljohnston.com or
dparizeau@trudeljohnston.com.


CMS ENERGY: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Remand "Breckenridge"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to
rule on a motion seeking for the remand of the class action
complaint, "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD
Acquisition Co. v. Oneok, Inc., et al.," back to Colorado state
court.

The suit was brought on behalf of retail direct purchasers of
natural gas in Colorado, and was filed in Colorado state court
in May 2006.

Defendants, including CMS Energy Corp., CMS Field Services Inc.,
and CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. are alleged to have
violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with
their natural gas price reporting activities.  Plaintiffs are
seeking full refund damages.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado on June 12, 2006 and a conditional transfer order
transferring the case to the Multidistrict litigation proceeding
was entered on June 27, 2006.

Plaintiffs are seeking to have the case remanded back to
Colorado state court, according to the company's Feb. 23 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC et al. v.
Oneok Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Robert E. Blackburn with
referral to Judge Michael E. Hegarty.

Representing the plaintiffs are John Preston Baker and Philip
Wayne Bledsoe at Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.-Colorado, 1050
17th Street #2300, Denver, CO 80265, Phone: 303-572-9300, Fax:
303-572-7883, E-mail: jbaker@stklaw.com, pbledsoe@stklaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michelle B. Goodman at Sidley Austin LLP-Los Angeles
         555 West 5th Street, #4000, Los Angeles, CA 90013,
         Phone: 213-896-6014, Fax: 213-896-6600; and

     (2) Mark H. Hamer at DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, LLP-San
         Diego, 401 B Street, #1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         619-699-4758, Fax: 619-699-2701, E-mail:
         mark.hamer@dlapiper.com.


CMS ENERGY: Nev. Natural Gas Suit Ruling Still Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal regarding the order by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada to dismiss a suit by Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc.
against CMS Energy Corp. and several other defendants in
relation to the sale of natural gas in the U.S.   

Texas-Ohio Energy filed a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California in
November 2003 against a number of energy companies engaged in
the sale of natural gas in the U.S., including CMS Energy.  

The complaint alleged defendants entered into a price-fixing
scheme by engaging in activities to manipulate the price of
natural gas in California.  The complaint alleged violations of
the federal Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the
California Business and Professions Code relating to unlawful,
unfair and deceptive business practices.  

The complaint sought both actual and exemplary damages for
alleged overcharges, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief
regulating defendants' future conduct relating to pricing and
price reporting.

In April 2004, a Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Panel ordered
the transfer of the Texas-Ohio case to a pending MDL matter in
the Nevada federal district court that at the time involved
seven complaints originally filed in various state courts in
California.  

These complaints make allegations similar to those in the Texas-
Ohio case regarding price reporting, although none contain a
federal Sherman Act claim.  In November 2004, those seven
complaints, as well as a number of others that were originally
filed in various state courts in California and subsequently
transferred to the MDL proceeding, were remanded back to
California state court.  

The Texas-Ohio case remained in Nevada federal district court,
and defendants, with CMS Energy joining, filed a motion to
dismiss.  

The court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss on
April 8, 2005 and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants
on April 11, 2005.  

Texas-Ohio has appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The company reported no development on the case at its Feb. 23
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
under Judge Philip M. Pro with referral to Judge Peggy A. Leen.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Alan G. Crone of Crone & Mason, PC, 5100 Poplar Ave.,
         Suite 3200, Memphis, TN 83137, Phone: 901-683-1850
         Fax: 901-683-1963; and

     (2) Paul Alexis Del Aguila of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 77
         West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60601,
         Phone: (312) 456-8400.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Frederic G. Berner, Jr. of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood,
         LLP, 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 80005, Phone:
         202-736-8000, Fax: 202-736-8711; and

     (2) Robert E. Craddock, Jr. of Wyatt Tarrant & Combs, P.O.
         Box 775000, Memphis, TN 92177-5000, Phone: 901-537-
         1000, Fax: 901-537-1010.


CMS ENERGY: Calif. Natural Gas Suit Ruling Still Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal against the orders by the U.S. District Court for the
District of California to dismiss a consolidated antitrust class
action that names CMS Energy Corp. and several other defendants
in relation to the sale of natural gas in the U.S.   

The lawsuits are:

     -- "Fairhaven Power Co. v. Encana Corp. et al.,"

     -- "Utility Savings & Refund Services LLP v. Reliant Energy
        Resources Inc. et al.," and

     -- "Abelman Art Glass v. Encana Corp. et al.,"

The suits all make allegations similar to those in the Texas-
Ohio case, now under the caption, "In Re: Western States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-
01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566."  

Specifically, the suits claim price manipulation and seek
similar relief.  They were originally filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California in September 2004,
November 2004 and December 2004, respectively.  

The Fairhaven and Abelman Art Glass cases also include claims
for unjust enrichment and a constructive trust.  The three
complaints were filed against CMS Energy and many of the other
defendants named in the Texas-Ohio case.  

In addition, the Utility Savings case names CMS Marketing,
Services and Trading and Cantera Resources Inc.  Cantera
Resources Inc., the parent of Cantera Natural Gas, LLC and CMS
Energy is required to indemnify Cantera Natural Gas, LLC and
Cantera Resources Inc. with respect to these actions.

The Fairhaven, Utility Savings and Abelman Art Glass cases have
been transferred to the MDL proceeding, where the Texas-Ohio
case was pending.  

Pursuant to stipulation by the parties and court order,
defendants were not required to respond to the Fairhaven,
Utility Savings and Abelman Art Glass complaints until the court
ruled on defendants' motion to dismiss in the Texas-Ohio case.  

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated class action
complaint alleging violations of federal and California
antitrust laws.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the
consolidated complaint should be dismissed for the same reasons
as the Texas-Ohio case.  

The court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss on Dec.
19, 2005 and entered judgment in favor of defendants on Dec. 23,
2005.  

Like the Texas-Ohio case, plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The company reported no development on the case at its Feb. 23
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

CMS Energy Corp. on the Net: http://www.cmsenergy.com/.


CMS ENERGY: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand "Learjet"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas refused to
grant a motion seeking to remand the putative class action,
"Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al." to state court.

On Nov. 20, 2005, CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. were
served with a summons and complaint that named CMS Energy Corp.,
CMS MST and CMS Field Services, Inc. as defendants in the suit.

Similar to the other actions that have been filed, the complaint
alleges that during the putative class period, Jan. 1, 2000
through Oct. 31, 2002, defendants engaged in a scheme to violate
the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act by knowingly reporting false
or inaccurate information to the publications, thereby affecting
the market price of natural gas.   

Plaintiffs, who allege they purchased natural gas from
defendants and other for their facilities, are seeking statutory
full consideration damages consisting of the full consideration
paid by plaintiffs for natural gas.  

On Dec. 7, 2005, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas and later that month a motion was
filed to transfer the case to an MDL proceeding in Nevada.  

On Jan. 6, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to
Kansas state court.  On Jan. 23, 2006, a conditional transfer
order transferring the case to the MDL proceeding in Nevada was
issued.

On Feb. 7, 2006, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
conditional transfer order.  The court issued an order dated
Aug. 3, 2006 denying the motion to remand the case to Kansas
state court.

The company reported no material development on the case at its
Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Learjet, Inc et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-02513-CM-JPO," filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge Carlos Murguia with referral to
James P. O'Hara.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jennifer Gille Bacon at Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC--
         KC, Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, 120 West 12th Street, Suite
         #1700, Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: 816-421-3355, Fax:
         816-374-0509, E-mail: jbacon@stklaw.com; and

     (2) Donald D. Barry at Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., 5340 West
         17th Street, P.O. Box 4816, Topeka, KS 66604, Phone:
         785-273-3153, Fax: 785-273-3159, E-mail:
         dbarry@inlandnet.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Joel B. Kleinman at Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinksy,
         LLP - DC, 2101 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037-
         1526, Phone: 202-785-9700, Fax: 202-887-0689, E-mail:
         kleinmanj@dsmo.com; and

     (2) Jerome T. Wolf at Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP -
         - KC, 4520 Main Street, Suite 1100, Kansas City, MO
         64111, Phone: 816-460-2400, Fax: 816-531-7545, E-mail:
         jwolf@sonnenschein.com.


CMS ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation in Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corp. was named as defendant in the purported
antitrust class action, "Arandell Corp., et al v. XCEL Energy
Inc., et al.," according to the company's Feb. 23 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The class action complaint was filed on or about Dec. 15, 2006
in Wisconsin state court on behalf of Wisconsin commercial
entities that purchased natural gas between Jan. 1, 2000 and
Oct. 31, 2002.

Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Energy Resource Management
Co. and Cantera Gas Co., LLC, are alleged to have violated
Wisconsin's Anti-Trust statute by conspiring to manipulate
natural gas prices.

Plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus
exemplary damages in an amount equal to three times the actual
damages, and attorneys' fees.

CMS Energy Corp. on the Net: http://www.cmsenergy.com/.


CMS ENERGY: Tenn. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Leggett"
----------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court of Fayette County, Tennessee granted a motion
to dismiss the class action, "Samuel D. Leggett, et al. v. Duke
Energy Corp., et al.," which names CMS Energy Corp. as a
defendant.

Filed in January 2005, the class action complaint was brought on
behalf of retail and business purchasers of natural gas in
Tennessee.

The complaint contains claims for violations of the Tennessee
Trade Practices Act based upon allegations of false reporting of
price inFormation by defendants to publications that compile and
publish indices of natural gas prices for various natural gas
hubs.

The complaint seeks statutory full consideration damages and
attorneys fees and injunctive relief regulating defendants'
future conduct.  Defendants include the company, CMS Marketing,
Services and Trading Co. (CMS MST) and CMS Field Services, Inc.

On Aug. 10, 2005, certain defendants, including CMS MST, filed a
motion to dismiss and CMS Energy and CMS Field Services filed a
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Defendants attempted to remove the case to federal court, but it
was remanded to state court by a federal judge.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the state court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint, according to the company's Feb. 23 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

CMS Energy Corp. on the Net: http://www.cmsenergy.com/.


CMS ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Mich. Securities Suit for $200M
------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corp. reached a tentative settlement for two class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, alleging violations of securities laws,
according to the company's Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Beginning in May 2002, a number of complaints were filed against
CMS Energy, Consumers Energy Co., and certain officers and
directors of CMS Energy and its affiliates in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit (Shareholder
Action), which generally seeks unspecified damages based on
allegations that the defendants violated U.S. securities laws
and regulations by making allegedly false and misleading
statements about CMS Energy's business and financial condition,
particularly with respect to revenues and expenses recorded in
connection with round-trip trading by CMS Marketing, Services
and Trading Co. (CMS MST).

In January 2005, the court granted a motion to dismiss Consumers
Energy and three of the individual defendants, but denied the
motions to dismiss CMS Energy and the 13 remaining individual
defendants.

In March 2006, the court conditionally certified a class
consisting of "all persons who purchased CMS Common Stock during
the period of Oct. 25, 2000 through and including May 17, 2002
and who were damaged thereby."

The court excluded purchasers of CMS Energy's 8.75 percent
Adjustable Convertible Trust Securities (ACTS) from the class
and, in response, a new class action was filed on behalf of ACTS
purchasers (ACTS Action) against the same defendants named in
the Shareholder Action.

On Jan. 3, 2007, CMS Energy and other parties entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding dated Dec. 28, 2006, subject to
court approval, regarding settlement of the two class actions.

The settlement was approved by a special committee of
independent directors and by the full board of directors.  Both
judged that it was in the best interests of shareholders to
eliminate this business uncertainty.  

The MOU is expected to lead to a detailed stipulation of
settlement that will be presented to the assigned federal judge
and the affected class in the first quarter of 2007.

Under the terms of the MOU, the litigation will be settled for a
total of $200 million, including the cost of administering the
settlement and any attorney fees the court awards.

CMS Energy will make a payment of approximately $123 million
plus an amount equivalent to interest on the outstanding unpaid
settlement balance beginning on the date of preliminary approval
of the court and running until the balance of the settlement
funds is paid into a settlement account.

Out of the total settlement, CMS Energy's insurers will pay
approximately $77 million directly to the settlement account.
CMS Energy took an approximately $123 million pre-tax charge to
2006 earnings in the fourth quarter.  In entering into the MOU,
CMS Energy makes no admission of liability under the Shareholder
Action and the ACTS Action.

CMS Energy Corp. on the Net: http://www.cmsenergy.com/.


COVERALL NORTH: Franchisees File Contract Breach Suit in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coverall North America Inc. is facing a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
"systemic misrepresentations and breaches of contract" with
cleaning service franchises, the Boca Raton News reports.

Plaintiffs:

     -- Pius Awuah of Lowell, Massachusetts;
     -- Aldivar Brandao of Watertown, Massachusetts;
     -- Denisse Pineda of Paterson, New Jersey; and
     -- Jai Prem of Union, New Jersey

accuse the firm of selling cleaning franchises while "knowing it
does not have sufficient business to satisfy its obligations
under its franchise agreements."

The suit was brought "on behalf of workers who have performed
cleaning services for defendant Coverall North America."

According to the suit, "individuals purchase these franchises
for substantial sums of money based on Coverall's
misrepresentations about the guaranteed amount of monthly income
the franchises will provide."

Mr. Awuah alleges he paid a $14,000 franchise fee and was
promised $3,000 a month in business, "but he typically received
less than $1,300 per month during his time working with
Coverall."

The suit claims Ms. Pineda paid $12,000 for a franchise fee and
was promised $1,300 a month income, "but she received less than
$500" while working for the firm.  The others also said they did
not earn what they were told they'd make.

Further, the suit alleges that Coverall violates the "form
franchise agreement" by taking accounts away "without warning
and for no justifiable reason."  

It also claims the firm gives "no opportunity to correct or
challenge alleged deficiencies in workers' performance."

The litigation also takes Coverall to task for printing the
franchise agreement "exclusively in English, in highly technical
and confusing language."

Plaintiffs request that the court enter the following relief:

     -- certification of the case as a class action;

     -- injunctive relief, requiring Coverall to cease its
        illegal practices;

     -- rescission of the written contracts between Coverall and
        the plaintiff and class members, in whole or in part;
     -- restitution for all wages, overtime, and other
        employment-related benefits that are owed to the
        plaintiff and class members;

     -- statutory trebling of all wages, overtime, and other
        employment-related benefits that are owed to the
        plaintiff and class members;

     -- all other damages to which the plaintiff and class
        members may be entitled under the above-referenced
        statutes and common law; and

     -- any other relief to which the plaintiff and class
        members may be entitled.

Jacqueline Vlaming, vice president and general counsel for
Coverall, told the Boca Raton News she hasn't had the
opportunity to review the case yet.  However, she emphasized
that the company "fulfills our obligations," according to the
report.

She also noted that the lawsuit was filed by the same firm in
Boston that represented several other aggrieved franchisers.  
Coverall settled that case, but Ms. Vlaming felt, "It was a
mistake."  As to the current litigation, she said, "We're going
to the mat with it."

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1a65

The suit is "Awuah v. Coverall North America, Inc., Case No.
1:07-cv-10287-WGY," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge William G. Young.

Representing plaintiffs are Shannon E. Liss-Riordan and
Hillary A. Schwab, both of Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg
& Liss-Riordan, P.C., 18 Tremont Street, Suite 500,
Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-367-7200, Fax: 617-367-4820,
E-mail: sliss@prle.com or hschwab@prle.com.


DAIEI TRADING: Recalls Itomo Mame Mixes Over Undeclared Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daiei Trading-Chicago-Co., Inc. of Carol Stream, Illinois is
recalling 8.8 oz packages of Bean Cracker, "Itomo Mame Mix"
because it contains undeclared peanuts.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume the
product.

The Bean Cracker, "Itomo Mame Mix" was distributed in retail
stores in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia,
Indiana, Arkansas, Texas, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
Missouri, Minnesota, Tennessee, Iowa and Oklahoma.

The product comes in a 8.8 ounce, clear plastic package, item
number 22-3163, UPC coded 784145220251.  All lots of this
product are being recalled.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
peanut-containing product was distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of peanuts.  Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by the use of labels that did
not list peanuts as an ingredient.

Consumers who have purchased 8.8-ounce packages of the Bean
Cracker, "Itomo Mame Mix" are urged to return them to the place
of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 630-752-0089.


DELPHI CORP: Judge Rosen Grants Shareholders Access to Docs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gerald Rosen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan has permitted Delphi Corp. shareholders to
examine sensitive documents which Delphi provided to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice,
and other federal agencies in connection with numerous financial
fraud lawsuits filed against the company and certain of its
former executives, Margaret Cronin Fisk of Bloomberg News
reports.

The Delphi shareholders filed a class action in the
Michigan District Court against Delphi and its officers and
directors in March 2005 after the company reported a
$200,000,000 overstatement in 2000 cash flow from operations and
a $61,000,000 overstatement in 2001 pre-tax income.  Among the
Delphi executives charged by the shareholders were former Chief
Executive Officer J.T. Battenberg III and former Chief Financial
Officer Alan Dawes.

Delphi spokeswoman Lindsey Williams told Bloomberg News that the
company "will abide by the terms of the order and provide the
necessary documents."  No timetable for Delphi to provide the
documents has been set.  (Delphi Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 58
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).  

                        Case Background

On Sept. 23, 2005 securities actions filed against the company
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.

The securities suit has been consolidated with ERISA and
derivative litigations against the company.  

The case 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 Corp. Legal Staff,  
         5825 Delphi Drive, Troy, MI 48098-2815, Phone: 248-813-
         2000, E-mail: joseph.e.papelian@delphi.com.
                   

FIJI: Interim Finance Minister Sues for Unpaid Entitlements
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Suva High Court consolidated a claim filed by Fiji Labour
Party leader and minister of finance in the current interim
administration, Mahendra Chaudhry, with a class action he
brought in relation to a 2000 Speight coup, Radio New Zealand
reports.

Mr. Chaudhry is claiming entitlements supposedly owed to him by
the state after he was deposed as prime minister in the coup.  
Radio New Zealand reports the claim is more than $60,000; Fiji
Live reports it's more than $100,000.

Mr. Chaudhry is seeking benefits and other related emoluments
supposedly owed to him as prime minister from August 2000 to
September 2001 when general elections were held.  The legal
action follows after the Fiji Court of Appeal ruled that the
coup was unlawful and Mr. Chaudhry was still the legal prime
minister until the 2001 general election.

The suit is directed against the then permanent secretary of
finance.  The class action also names as plaintiffs other
deposed members of the Labour coalition government who were held
hostage during the 2000 coup.  They are seeking compensation for
their overthrow after serving only 12 months of their 5-year
parliamentary term.

The court is expected to set a date in March to hear the
case, according to the reports.


HARTFORD FIRE: Ore. Court Okays Credit Scoring Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anna Brown of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon formally approved a nationwide multi-million-dollar class
action settlement between Hartford Fire Insurance Co. and more
than 700,000 of its policyholders.

Originally filed in 2001, policyholders alleged that Hartford
Fire and its subsidiaries failed to provide notice as required
by the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it charged customers more
for insurance based on information in their credit reports.

If the policyholders had been able to prove at trial that the
alleged violations were willful, each policyholder might have
been entitled to recover between $100 and $1,000 in statutory
damages.

Under the approved settlement, every qualified class member that
submits a timely claim form will receive a payment of at least
$150.  Claim forms will be mailed to the appropriate class
members within 60 days, unless an appeal is filed.

Hartford Fire also agreed to an injunction requiring it to use a
revised adverse action notice form in compliance with the
governing law in the Ninth Circuit.

The Oregon District Court initially ruled that Hartford Fire had
complied with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Hartford Fire violated
the adverse action notice provisions of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, and remanded the case to the Oregon District
Court for a determination of whether Hartford Fire acted
willfully.

Hartford Fire filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Ninth Circuit's opinion.  
That petition is currently pending.

Related cases against Farmers, Safeco, State Farm and GEICO were
pending at the time the Hartford Fire case was settled.  Two of
the related cases (Safeco and GEICO) were accepted for
consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court this term. Arguments in
those cases took place on Jan. 16, 2007.

The suit is "Rausch et al. v. Hartford Financial Services Group,
Incorporated et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-01529-BR," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Anna
J. Brown.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven C. Berman, Steve D. Larson and N. Robert Stoll,
         all of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter, 209 S.W.
         Oak Street, Fifth Floor, Portland, OR 97204, Phone:
         (503) 227-1600, Fax: (503) 227-6840, E-mail:
         sberman@ssbls.com or slarson@ssbls.com or
         rstoll@ssbls.com; and

     (2) Charles A. Ringo of Charlie Ringo & Associates, P.C.,
         974 NW Riverside Blvd., Bend, OR 97701, Phone: (541)
         330-6447, Fax: (541) 382-3328, E-mail:
         Charlie@Ringolaw.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Steven A. Ellis and Richard Grad, both of Sidley Austin
         LLP, 555 W. Fifth St., Ste 400, Los Angeles, CA 90013-
         1010, Phone: 213-896-6650 or (213) 896-6630, Fax: 213-
         896-6600, E-mail: sellis@sidley.com or
         rgrad@sidley.com; and

     (2) Douglas G. Houser and Loren D. Podwill, both of
         Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC, 300 Pioneer Tower, 888 SW  
         Fifth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 228-6351
         or (503)499-4620, Fax: (503) 295-0915, E-mail:
         doug.houser@bullivant.com or
         loren.podwill@bullivant.com.


HARTFORD LIFE: Faces Multidistrict Litigation in N.J. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Life Insurance Co. was named as a defendant in a
multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey in relation to its property-casualty
insurance and group benefits products, according to its Feb. 23
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

There are two consolidated amended complaints filed in the
multidistrict litigation, one related to alleged conduct in
connection with the sale of property-casualty insurance and the
other related to alleged conduct in connection with the sale of
group benefits products.  The company and several of its
subsidiaries are named in both complaints.

The actions assert, on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased insurance through the broker defendants, claims under
the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, state law, and in the case of the group
benefits complaint, claims under Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The class period alleged is 1994 through the date of class
certification, which has not yet occurred.  

The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief, and attorneys' fees.  

The Hartford also has been named in two similar actions filed in
state courts, which the defendants have removed to federal
court.  Those actions currently are transferred to the court
presiding over the multidistrict litigation.  

The Hartford Life Insurance Co. on the Net: www.thehartford.com.


KOREA: Civil Groups Plan to File Lawsuit Over Air Pollution
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Seoul Air Pollution Litigation Group, including the Korean
Environmental Litigation Center of Green Korea United, and
others announced that they will file a lawsuit with the Seoul
District Court against the Seoul metropolitan government and
automobile makers for damages from air pollution, the Chosun
Ilbo reports.

The suit represents some 22 sufferers of breathing or
respiratory ailments who live or work in Seoul or have done in
the past.

The litigation group plans to seek about $32,000 per plaintiff
or about $702,000 total, from the central government and Seoul
metropolitan government for "not fulfilling their responsibility
to maintain clean air in Seoul" and from automobile companies
such as Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd., Kia Motors Corp., and Ssangyong
Motor Co. for providing polluting vehicles.

"This suit is to establish the fact that the central government,
Seoul metropolitan government, and the automobile companies
share responsibility for air pollution," the group said, and
that as the parties responsible for pollution they should carry
the financial burden for treating respiratory diseases.

A Seoul city government official said they would review the
lawsuit before responding.


LCD MANUFACTURERS: Accused of Conspiring to Inflate Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
Fargo, North Dakota resident, Robert George, filed a lawsuit
seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Dakota against more than 20 electronics
companies, accusing makers of liquid crystal display screens of
artificially inflating prices, The Associated Press reports.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- LG Philips LCD Co. LTD  
     -- LG Philips LCD America, Inc.,  
     -- LG Electronics Inc.,  
     -- Royal Philips Electronics NV  
     -- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,  
     -- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.  
     -- AU Optronics Corp.  
     -- AU Optronics Corp. America  
     -- Chi Mei Optoelectronics  
     -- Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.  
     -- Sharp Corp.  
     -- Sharp Electronics Corp.  
     -- Toshiba Corp.  
     -- Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd.  
     -- Hitachi Ltd.  
     -- Hitachi Displays, Ltd.  
     -- Hitachi America, Ltd.  
     -- Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.  
     -- Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corp.  
     -- NEC Corp.  
     -- NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd.  
     -- IDT International Ltd.  
     -- International Display Technology Co., Ltd.  
     -- International Display Technology USA Inc.  
     -- Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. and
     -- HannStar Display Corp.

The complaint said the case "arises out of a long-running
nationwide conspiracy" starting as early as Jan. 1, 2002.  It
resulted in "artificially inflated prices" for such LCD products
as flat panel TVs, computer monitors, laptop computers and
mobile phones, the lawsuit said.

"Throughout and beyond the class period, defendants and their
coconspirators affirmatively and actively concealed their
unlawful conduct from plaintiffs, advancing their conspiracy in
secret," the complaint said.  "Defendants and their
coconspirators provided public justifications for price increase
and supply constraints that were pretextual and false."

In December, officials announced that LCD makers in Japan and
Taiwan were facing probes by trade watchdogs as part of a
widening investigation, the report said.  At least two companies
confirmed they had received subpoenas from regulators in South
Korea, the U.S. and Japan.

The suit is "George v. LG Philips LCD Co. Ltd. et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00022-RSW-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Dakota under Judge Rodney S. Webb, with
referral to Judge Karen K. Klein.

Representing plaintiffs are Daniel E. Gustafson, 650
Northstar East, 608 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN
55402, Phone: 612-333-8844; and Michael S. Montgomery of
Montgomery, Goff & Bullis, PO BOX 9199, Fargo, ND 58106,
Phone: 701-281-8001, Fax: 701-281-8007, E-mail:
mike@bullislaw.com.


MIDLAND NATIONAL: Hawaii Judge Certifies Lawsuit Over EIA
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii in Honolulu
granted class-action status in a suit filed against Sioux Falls,
S.D.-based Midland National Life Insurance Co. over its equity
index annuities, InvestmentNews reports.

The class members are all Hawaii residents 65 and older when
they purchased Midland EIAs between May 2001 and May 2005.  They
are estimated at 600 to 700.

Jim Bickerton, a partner with Honolulu law firm Bickerton
Lee Dang & Sullivan LLLP, filed the suit.

The suit is "Yokoyama, et al. v. Midland National, Case
No. 1:05-cv-00303-JMS-KSC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Hawaii under Judge J. Michael
Seabright with referral to Kevin S.C. Chang.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Scott I. Batterman at Clay Chapman Crumpton
         Iwamura & Pulice, Topa Financial Ctr, 700 Bishop
         St Ste 2100, Honolulu, HI 96813, Phone: 535-8400;
         and

     (2) James J. Bickerton at Bickerton Lee Dang &
         Sullivan, Fort St Tower, 745 Fort St Ste 801,
         Honolulu, HI 96813, Phone: 599-3811, E-mail:
         bickerton@bsds.com.

Representing the defendant are:

     (1) William H. Higgins at Reed Smith LLP, 1999
         Harrison St. Ste 2400, Oakland, CA 94612-3572,
         Phone: 510-763-2000; and

     (2) Steven B. Jacobson, PO Box 240761, Honolulu, HI
         96824-0761, Phone: 377-1814.


MORTGAGE LENDERS: Foreclosures to Spur Suits Over Loan Terms
------------------------------------------------------------
Home foreclosures will lead to a wave of class suits against
mortgage lenders who offered mortgages that put off payments for
years, The Kiplinger California Letter reports.

Meanwhile, class action lawyers are preparing to go after
mortgage lenders in a wave of class actions by borrowers
claiming they were deceived about loan terms (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 22, 2007).

These lenders allegedly concealed how high and fast interest
rates could rise on some adjustable rate mortgages, leaving
borrowers in shock later on.

Most suits will cover subprime borrowers, mostly low-incomers
who claim they didn't realize how fast future payments would
increase.

The main targets will be the biggest lenders to tap for damages.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Objections to Class Claims Adjourned
--------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider Northwest Airlines Corp.'s objection to
Claim No. 11339 for $100,000,000 in its bankruptcy proceedings
before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper will be adjourned to
a later date.  The Claim relates to a class action complaint for
violations of employee retirement income (Northwest Airlines
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 57; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).

On Oct. 14, 2005, Jennifer Karpiuk filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of a
purported class of participants in various Northwest-sponsored
retirement plans, alleging violations of the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  On Nov. 3, 2005, Neil
Hastings filed a nearly identical complaint with the Minnesota
District Court.

On April 7, 2006, various participants in Northwest Airlines-
sponsored retirement and pension plans filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a purported class of participants in the Plans,
alleging ERISA violations.  The plaintiffs are:

   -- Bruce W. Cress, Peter Ochabauer, Walter Boulden, Keith
      Schilling, Mark A. Knudsen, and Christopher J. Parkyn,
      allegedly participants in both the Northwest Airlines
      Retirement Savings Plan for Pilot Employees and the
      Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Pilot Employees; and

   -- Amanda R. Ochabauer and Bernard C. Larkin, allegedly
      participants in both the Northwest Airlines Retirement
      Savings Plan for Contract Employees and the Northwest
      Airlines Pension Plan for Contract Employees.

                     Class Action Defendants

The ERISA complaints name 26 individuals and two committees as
defendants.  Among the defendants are:

   a. Douglas Steenland, the Debtors' chief executive officer;

   b. Terri Keimig, the Debtors' director of Retirement Savings
      and Stock Plans;

   c. Timothy Meginnes, vice president of Compensation Benefits;

   d. Michael Becker, senior vice president of Human Resources
      and Labor Relations;

   e. Daniel Matthews, senior vice president and treasurer;

   f. Robert Brodin, the Debtors' former senior vice president
      of Labor Relations and is currently a Debtors' consultant
      to supervising labor negotiations with the their pilots
      union;

   g. four current members of the Debtors' Board of Directors:

      -- Mr. Gary Wilson,
      -- Mr. Frederic Malek,
      -- Mr. Dennis Hightower, and
      -- Mr. George Kourpias;

   h. Richard Blum and V.A. Ravindran, the Debtors' former
      directors;

   i. Richard Anderson and John Dasburg, the Debtors' former
      chief executive officers; and

   j. James Mathews, the Debtors' former vice president of
      Finance and chief accounting officer.

Northwest Airlines Corp. -- http://www.nwa.com/-- and 12  
affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on Sept. 14, 2005
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 05-17930).


TIME WARNER: N.Y. Court Declines to Approve "Parker" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
declined to grant final approval to a settlement reached in a
purported nationwide class action filed against Time Warner
Entertainment Co., L.P., and Time Warner Cable.

The suit, "Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time
Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. and Time Warner Cable," alleges
that the company sold its subscribers' personally identifiable
information and failed to inform subscribers of their privacy
rights in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984 and common law.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On Aug. 6, 1998, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which
was denied on Sept. 7, 1999.  On Dec. 8, 1999, the company filed
a motion to deny class certification, which was granted on Jan.
9, 2001 with respect to monetary damages, but denied with
respect to injunctive relief.

On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the court's decision denying class certification
as a matter of law and remanded the case for further proceedings
on class certification and other matters.

On May 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which Time Warner Cable has opposed.  On Oct. 25,
2005, the court granted preliminary approval of a class
settlement arrangement on terms that were not material to the
company.

A final settlement approval hearing was held on May 19, 2006,
and on Jan. 26, 2007, the court denied approval of the
settlement.

The suit is "Parker, et al. v. Time Warner Entertai, et al.,
Case no. 1:98-cv-04265-ILG-JMA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge I. Leo
Glasser.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael G. Lenett of Cuneo Waldman & LaDuca LLP, 507 C
         Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202-789-
         3960; and

     (2) Peter Steven Linden of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP,
         830 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 371-
         6600.  

Representing the company are:

     (i) Landis Cox Best and Jonathan D. Their of Cahill Gordon
         & Reindel LLP, 80 Pine Street, New York, NY 10005,
         Phone: (212) 701-3694, Fax: (212) 269-5420, E-mail:
         lbest@cahill.com or jthier@cahill.com; and

    (ii) George W. Sampson of Hagens Berman LLP, 1301 Fifth
         Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Fax (206) 623-
         0594.


* Sutter Health Lawyer Named Calif. Mag's Attorney of the Year
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Lawyer magazine awarded Kelly M. Dermody, partner at
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, the prestigious
California Lawyer Attorneys of the Year (CLAY) Award for her
outstanding achievements in the category of litigation.  

Ms. Dermody received the recognition for her representation of
hundreds of thousands of uninsured patients who alleged that
Sutter Health charged them excessive and unfair prices for
medical treatment and engaged in aggressive and unfair
collections practices.  

In 2006, the Honorable David W. Abbott of the Sacramento
Superior Court granted final approval to a class action
settlement resolving claims regarding pricing and collection
practices for uninsured patients at all of Sutter Health's
affiliate hospitals, which resolves all claims against Sutter
and its affiliated hospitals (Dec. 14, 2006).

As part of the settlement, class members will be entitled to
make a claim for refunds or deductions of between 25% to 45%
from their prior hospital bills.

As a result of plaintiffs' litigation against Sutter Health, the
hospital chain entered into a precedent-setting and
comprehensive settlement that provided substantial monetary
relief for all uninsured patient class members and required all
of Sutter's 23 hospital affiliates to lower their prices for all
uninsured patients going forward.

"After a heated legal battle," the California Lawyer stated,
"the Sacramento-based hospital chain agreed in August [2006] to
make available $276 million in refunds or deductions to
qualified Sutter patients.  It also agreed to maintain more
compassionate collections for uninsured patients who fall behind
in their payments and to continue providing free or greatly
discounted care to low-income patients."

Ms. Dermody is one of 43 attorneys in 17 areas of legal practice
that received CLAY awards for their extraordinary achievements
in 2006.  The lawyers selected as Attorneys of the Year, as
noted by the California Lawyer, "changed the law, substantially
influenced public policy or the profession, or achieved a
remarkable victory for a client or for the public."  

In addition to her case work, Ms. Dermody is a committed
attorney in the legal community.  Her many leadership roles
include membership on the Board of Directors of the Bar
Association of San Francisco and Co-Chair of the American Bar
Association Labor and Employment Law Section Committee on Equal
Opportunity in the Legal Profession.

Ms. Dermody recently finished a two-year term as Co-Chair of the
Board of Directors of the National Center for Lesbian Rights,
and prior to that she served as Co-Chair of the Board of the
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area.

For more information, contact Stephen Cassidy of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Phone: 415-956-1000, Website:
http://www.lieffcabraser.com.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

March 2007
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

March 7-9, 2007
Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and
State Courts CM090
ALI-ABA
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S SOLVENT SCHEMES OF ARRANGEMENT CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 14-15, 2007
LIFE SCIENCES MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-
2480

March 15-16, 2007
MEALEY'S FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 19-20, 2007
MEALEY'S MASS TORT INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 20-21, 2007
MANAGING & SETTLING CORPORATE PATENT LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-
2480

March 21-22, 2007
ANTI-COUNTERFEITING & BRAND INTEGRITY PROTECTION
American Conference Institute
Las Vegas
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-
2480

March 22-23, 2007
Trial Evidence in the Federal Courts: Problems and
Solutions CM078
ALI-ABA
New York
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 28-29, 2007
GENERAL COUNSEL FORUM
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-
2480

March 28-29, 2007
RESOLVING MASS TORT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-
2480

April 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Hyatt Regency, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Intercontinental Buckhead, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2007
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS MEDICINE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 19-20, 2007
MEALEY'S LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Intercontinental, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 25-28, 2007
MEALEY'S 14TH ANNUAL INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE
ROUNDTABLE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 3-4, 2007
Accountants' Liability CM076
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 17-19, 2007
Electronic Records Management and Digital Discovery:
Practical Considerations for Legal, Technical, and
Operational Success CM098
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

July 11-13, 2007
Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and
State Courts CN009
ALI-ABA
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

July 18-19, 2007
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE ON TRIAL
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-
2480



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

February 1-28, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE
INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION,
INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT
AND TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 6, 2007
MEDICINE FOR LAWYERS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CARDIOLOGY FOR
PHARMA LAWYERS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR
MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
WRITTEN DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR
TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL
DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF
TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org


__________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in
the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


GLOBALSTAR INC: Klafter & Olsen Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP has been retained to commence a securities
fraud class action against Globalstar Inc. and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of investors who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Globalstar during the period from November
2, 2006 through February 5, 2007.

The suit claims Globalstar and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 by
misrepresenting and failing to disclose the following material
adverse facts:

     (i) that the performance of the company's power
         amplification communication system antennas on its
         global satellite system was degrading at an accelerated
         rate; and

    (ii) as such, the commercial usefulness of the satellites
         was declining at an accelerated rate.

On Feb. 5, 2007, Globalstar disclosed that its power
amplification communication system antennas were degrading at a
greater rate than that disclosed in connection with Globalstar's
November 2006 IPO, by which the Company sold 7.5 million shares
at $17 per share.

On this news, shares of the company's stock fell $4.08 per
share, or 28 percent, to close on February 6, 2007 at $10.40 per
share, on nearly 20 times the average three month volume.

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/.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Howard Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of NovaStar Financial, Inc. between
May 4, 2006 and Feb. 20, 2007.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the company's business and financial
performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of
NovaStar securities.

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

For more information, contact Howard G. Smith of the Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, Bensalem, PA, Phone: (215)
638-4847 or (888) 638-4847, E-mail:
howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Website:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Law News announces that a class action has been
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on behalf of purchasers of NovaStar Financial, Inc.
(NYSE:NFI) common stock during the period between May 4, 2006
and Feb. 20, 2007.

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

NovaStar operates as a specialty finance company that
originates, purchases, invests in and services residential
nonconforming loans.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (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 about loan delinquencies;

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

     (c) 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 production
         going forward; and

     (d) given the increased volatility in the lending market,
         the company had no reasonable basis to make projections
         about its ability to maintain its Real Estate
         Investment Trust (REIT) taxable income, which drives
         dividends, and potentially even its very status as a
         REIT.

As a result, the company's projections issued during the Class
Period about its REIT taxable income and dividends were at a
minimum reckless.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of NovaStar common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff
is represented by Lerach Coughlin, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

As a result of defendants' false statements, NovaStar stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $37.59 per share in May 2006.

On Feb. 20, 2007, after the markets closed, NovaStar announced
disappointing fourth quarter and year-end 2006 results and
further warned that the company expected to earn little, if any,
taxable income in the next five years.

On this news, NovaStar's stock collapsed to close at $10.10 per
share on Feb. 21, 2007, a one-day decline of 42%, on volume of
22.4 million shares, 15 times the average three-month volume.

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


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Litowitz Announces Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announces that a class
action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or acquired the common stock of Openwave
Systems Inc. (NASDAQ: OPWV) between Sept. 30, 2002 to Oct. 26,
2006.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Openwave and
the Individual Defendants violated the federal securities laws
by publicly issuing false and misleading statements.

The complaint further alleges that the Company improperly
accounted for grants of stock options, which were backdated to
provide the company's executives with unreported benefits.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants Openwave,
David C. Peterschmidt, Harold L. Covert, Donald Listwin, and
Alan Black violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
the Individual Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the U.s.
Exchange Act.

Openwave has admitted that certain of its option grants were
improperly backdated, and, as a result, it is required to
correct its previously reported finances by taking additional
charges of $182 million.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than 60 days from
February 26, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Gerald H. Silk or Salvatore J.
Graziano, both of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Phone: 212-554-1400, E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com or
sgraziano@blbglaw.com, Website: http://www.blbglaw.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  * * *