CAR_Public/070523.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 23, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 101

                            Headlines


AG-MART PRODUCE: Found Violating Migrant Workers' Housing Rights
AMERICAN HONDA: Aug. 21 Hearing Set for Tex. "Odometer" Lawsuits
AMERICAN TOWER: Amended Securities Complaint Filed in Mass. Case
AQUILA INC: Reaches $10.5M Settlement in Mo. ERISA Litigation
AQUILA MERCHANT: Settles Natural Gas Antitrust Suit for $6.6M

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Still Faces N.Y. Suit Over Mortgage Loan Fees
AWB LTD: Faces New U.N. "Oil-for-Food" Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Racial Discrimination Litigation in Mass.
BRANDON AUTO: Fla. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Compensation
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Earmarks $691M for Antitrust Fines, Claims

CALIFORNIA: Parent Sues District for Blocking Students' Transfer
CANADA: Ont. Pensioners' Lawyer to Bring Suit to High Court
CANADA MORTGAGE: B.C. Court Reserves Ruling in Condo Buyers Suit
C.B. FLEET: Va. Firm Files $10M Suit Over Drug's Side Effects
DRESDNER KLEINWORT: Reaches Settlement in N.Y. Gender Bias Suit

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: 7th Circuit Reverses Ruling in "Gillespie"
EVCI CAREER: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 27
FIJI: GCC Chiefs Sue to Challenge Suspension Order by Minister
FLORIDA BLACKTOP: Workers Sue to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
GATEWORKS: Employees File Lawsuit in Fla. to Claim Unpaid Wages

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: July 19 Hearing Set for AWP Suit Settlement
GUARDIAN ANGEL: Nurses File Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime Wages
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
ILLINOIS: Voters File Suit Over Alleged Privacy Act Violations
MCCALL FARMS: Recalls Turnip Greens With Traces of Diesel Fuel

MCCALLUM GROUP: Former Employee Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit
MELANDO INC: Fla. Lawsuit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
MICHAEL BIANCO: Faces Suit for Alleged Non-payment of Overtime
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Utah Court Allows Investors' Suit to Go Ahead
NORTH FORK: June Hearing Set in $20M Securities Suit Settlement

PACIFIC OAKS: Suit Alleges School Scams Latinos in ECE Program
PENNSYLVANIA: Restaurateur Mulls Suit Over Train Station Project
REFCO INC: June 29 Hearing Set for BAWAG's $108M Suit Settlement
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Discovery Continues in Tex. Securities Suit
RUBBER COS: Sued in Fla. for Allegedly Fixing Marine Hose Prices

SERACARE LIFE: Completes Reorganization; Settles Investor Suit
SOURCEFIRE INC: Investor Files Suit to Recover Losses in IPO
SPECTRUM LABORATORY: Recalls Caffeine Citrated from Pharmacies
TOILET TAXI: Employee Files Suit in Fla. Over FLSA Violations
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Supreme Court Throws Out Antitrust Suit

WOODWARD GOVERNOR: Ill. Court Approves $5M Labor Suit Settlement


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                            *********


AG-MART PRODUCE: Found Violating Migrant Workers' Housing Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Henry Lee Adams ruled that Ag-Mart Produce
Inc. violated federal laws that guarantee clean, safe and
licensed housing for migrant workers, Christine Stapleton and
John Lantigua of Palm Beach Post reports.

The class action stemmed from the 2001-2002 growing season when
nearly 2,000 migrant farm workers were housed in three
unlicensed and crowded hotels that lacked laundry as well as
cooking facilities.

Some of improper practices indicated in the court ruling are:

     * the company failed to obtain housing permits that require
       laundry and cooking facilities and set minimum living
       space requirements;

     * in one hotel, three double beds were crammed into rooms
       where six workers and sometimes men and women who did not
       know each other were assigned to sleep;

     * one motel required workers to remove their shoes before
       entering their rooms so as not to track dirt.  Crew
leaders then counted the shoes to verify how many workers
were in a room;

     * crew leaders had keys to the rooms and were allowed full
       access.  At one motel, crew leaders enforced a curfew;
       and

     * the motels had no or inadequate cooking facilities,
       leaving many workers no choice but to buy the $6 meals
       from a "taco wagon."  Judge Adams also added that
       "some workers received no net wages whatsoever for a
       workweek."

Ag-Mart of North Florida countered it's not liable because it
hired labor contactors who oversee the workers' needs and
arrange their housing.  The firm said it was aware of the laws
that protect the housing rights of farm workers, but didn't
secure licenses confident that commercial motels were exempt
from housing laws.

Deadline for both attorneys' proposals over the amount Ag-Mart
has to pay in damages is set May 24.

Aside from the housing issue, Ag-Mart, grower of Santa Sweet
grape tomato, is also presently facing a lawsuit about wage and
hour practices.

Plaintiffs' counsel is:

          Gregory Schell, Esq.
          Migrant Farmworker Justice Project
          Florida Legal Services
          508 Lucerne Ave.
          Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819
          Phone: 561/582-3921
          Fax: 561-582-4884
          E-mail: Greg@Floridalegal.Org

Representing Ag-Mart Produce Inc. is:

          David J. Stefany, Esq.
          Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A.
          324 S. Hyde Park Ave., Suite 225
          Tampa, FL 33606-4127
          Phone: 813/251-1210
          Fax: 813/253-2006
          E-mail: dstefany@anblaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Aug. 21 Hearing Set for Tex. "Odometer" Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 21, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. for the
settlement of two consolidated class actions against American
Honda Motor Co. Inc., Honda Motor Co., the Nippon Seiki Co. and
New Sabina Industries Inc. over faulty odometers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"McQuiston" was filed on June 23, 2006.  It alleges odometer
defects in all other Honda and Acura vehicles purchased or
leased between April 13, 2002, and Nov. 7, 2007.

Plaintiffs alleged in their complaints that the odometers on
approximately 6 million Honda and Acura vehicles misstated the
actual miles driven by between 2 percent and 4 percent.

They alleged that the odometer defects deprived car owners of
the full benefit of the warranties on their vehicles and caused
consumers who leased Honda vehicles to pay for excessive
mileage.

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

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

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

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

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

American Honda Odometer Class Action on the net:

            http://www.hondaodometerclassaction.com/

               http://www.odosettlementinfo.com/

For more details, contact:

         Jay Kutchka, Esq.
         Jones Jackson & Moll, PLC
         P.O. Box 2023
         Fort Smith, AR 72902
         Phone: 479/782-7203,
         Fax: 479/782-9460
         E-mail: jkutchka@jjmlaw.com

         James Andrew Holmes, Esq.
         Wellborn Houston Adkison Mann Sadler & Hill
         P.O. Box 1109
         Henderson, TX 75653-1109
         Phone: 903/657-8544
         Fax: 903/657-7227
         E-mail: jh@wellbornhouston.com

              - and -

         Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III, Esq.
         Brown McCarroll, Longview
         1127 Judson Rd., Ste. 220, P.O. Box 3999
         Longview, TX 75606-3999
         Phone: 903/236-9800
         Fax: 19032368787
         E-mail: ccapshaw@mailbmc.com


AMERICAN TOWER: Amended Securities Complaint Filed in Mass. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a securities fraud class
action filed against American Tower Corp. and certain of its
current officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

John S. Greenebaum filed the suit.  Also named plaintiff in the
case is Steamship Trade Association-International Longshoremen's
Association Pension Fund.

The complaint names the company, James D. Taiclet, Jr. and
Bradley E. Singer as defendants.  It alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws in connection with public
statements made relating to the company's stock option practices
and related accounting.  The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-
5.  Plaintiff seeks monetary relief.

In December 2006, the court appointed the Steamship Trade
Association-International Longshoreman's Association Pension
Fund as the lead plaintiff.

On March 26, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which includes additional current and former officers
and directors of the company as defendants, according to the
company's May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

The suit is "Greenebaum v. American Tower Corp. et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-10933-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Mark L. Wolf.

Representing plaintiff is:

         Jason B. Adkins
         Adkins, Kelston and Zavez, P.C.
         90 Canal Street, 5th Floor
         Boston, MA 02114
         Phone: 617-367-1040
         Fax: 617-742-8280
         E-mail: jadkins@akzlaw.com

              - and -

         David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
         Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017-5563
         Phone: 212-907-0700

Representing the company is:

         Michael T. Gass, Esq.
         Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP
         111 Huntington Avenue
         Boston, MA 02199
         Phone: 617-239-0100
         Fax: 617-227-4420
         E-mail: mgass@eapdlaw.com


AQUILA INC: Reaches $10.5M Settlement in Mo. ERISA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aquila, Inc. reached a $10.5 million settlement in a
consolidated class action, "In re Aquila ERISA Litigation,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri and was seeking to recover from the company
more than $150 million in alleged retirement losses.

On Sept. 24, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company
and certain members of the company's board of directors and
management.

The suit is alleging that defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and were responsible for losses
that participants in the company's 401(k) plan experienced as a
result of the decline in the value of their Aquila common stock
held in the 401(k) plan.

A number of similar lawsuits alleging that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants in
violation of ERISA by concealing information and/or misleading
employees who held the company's common stock through the
company's 401(k) plan were subsequently filed against the
company.

The suits also seek damages for the plan's losses resulting from
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  On Jan. 26, 2005, the
court ordered that all of these lawsuits be consolidated into a
single case captioned, "In re Aquila ERISA Litigation."

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in March
2005, which largely repeats each of the allegations in the first
complaint.

The case has been certified as a class action and set for trial
in December 2007.

In April 2007, the company settled the case for $10.5 million,
which will be paid by its insurance carrier, according to the
company's May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

The suit is "Itteilag v. Aquila, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:04-cv-
00865-DW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri under Judge Dean Whipple.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael Jaffe, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 545-4600

              - and -

         Bruce Keplinger, Esq.
         Norris & Keplinger, LLC
         6800 College Blvd., Suite 630
         Overland Park, KS 66211
         Phone: (913) 323-3185
         Fax: (913) 663-2006
         E-mail: bkeplinger@k-c-lawyers.com

Representing the company is:

         Stanley Daryl Davis, Esq.
         Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
         2555 Grand Boulevard
         Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
         Phone: (816) 474-6550
         Fax: (816) 421-4066
         E-mail: sddavis@shb.com


AQUILA MERCHANT: Settles Natural Gas Antitrust Suit for $6.6M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aquila Merchant Services, Inc. settled for $6.6 million a
antitrust class action over natural gas.

On July 8, 2004, the County of Santa Clara and the City and
County of San Francisco each filed suit against seven energy
trading companies and their subsidiaries and affiliates,
including Aquila, Inc. and Aquila Merchant, in the Superior
Court of California for San Diego County alleging manipulation
of the California natural gas market in 1999 through 2002.

Since that date, 14 other complaints making nearly identical
allegations have been filed against Aquila and Aquila Merchant
in California state courts, including a class action, which did
not name Aquila.

These lawsuits allege violations of the Cartwright Act and in
some cases California's Unfair Competition Law, and also assert
an unjust enrichment claim.

They have been coordinated before a single Motion Coordination
Judge in the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Diego, in the proceeding entitled, "In re Natural Gas Antitrust
Cases I, II, III & IV."

In February 2007, a motion to dismiss Aquila was granted by the
California Court of Appeals, leaving only Aquila Merchant as a
defendant.

In March 2007, Aquila Merchant settled the class action for $6.6
million, according to the company's May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Aquila, Inc. -- http://www.aquila.com/-- is an integrated
electric and natural gas utility. The Company's business is
organized into three business segments: Electric Utilities, Gas
Utilities and Merchant Services.  Electric Utilities comprises
Aquila's regulated electric utility operations.  Gas Utilities
includes the Company's regulated gas utility operations.
Merchant Services comprises the unregulated energy activities
operated by Aquila's wholly owned merchant energy subsidiary,
Aquila Merchant Services, Inc.  All other operations are
included in Corporate and Other, which includes the Company's
former 97%-owned subsidiary, Everest Connections and its former
investment in the United Kingdom.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Still Faces N.Y. Suit Over Mortgage Loan Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Astoria Financial Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, claiming that the company's charging of attorney
document preparation fees, recording fees, and facsimile fees
for mortgage loans violate state laws.

In 2004, David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated filed the suit
against Astoria Financial Corp., and other defendants.

The action, commenced as a punitive class action, alleges that
in connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans
made by Astoria Federal, The Long Island Savings Bank, FSB,
which was acquired by Astoria Federal in 1998, and their related
entities, customers were charged attorney document preparation
fees, recording fees and facsimile fees allegedly in violation
of:

     -- the federal Truth in Lending Act,
     -- the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA),
     -- the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA), and
     -- the New York State Deceptive Practices Act

The suit also alleges unjust enrichment and common law fraud.

Astoria Federal previously moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part,
dismissing claims based on violations of RESPA and FDCA.  The
Court further determined that class certification would be
considered prior to considering summary judgment.

On Sept. 19, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  Astoria Federal has denied the claims set
forth in the complaint.

Both the company and the plaintiffs have filed motions for
summary judgment, which are currently pending before the Court,
according to the company's May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "McAnaney et al. v. Astoria Financial Corp. et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-01101-JFB-WDW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Joseph F.
Bianco with referral to Judge William D. Wall.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         G. Oliver Koppell, Esq.
         99 Park Avenue, Suite 800
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-368-0400
         Fax: 212-973-9494
         E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com

              - and -

         Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
         Whalen & Tusa, P.C.
         90 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-786-7377
         Fax: 212-658-9685
         E-mail: joseph@whalen-tusa.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Alfred W.J. Marks, Esq.
         Day, Berry & Howard, LLP
         875 Third Avenue, 28th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-829-3634
         Fax: 212-829-3601
         E-mail: awjmarks@dbh.com


AWB LTD: Faces New U.N. "Oil-for-Food" Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. wheat farmer and lawyer Melvin Erb filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against wheat exporter AWB Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary AWB
(USA) Ltd., The Australian Financial News reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of U.S. hard red winter wheat farmers,
alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and U.S. anti-trust laws.

The latest action follows U.S. wheat farmers' filing on April 20
of a class action against AWB alleging it paid bribes and
kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq that cost U.S.
wheat growers million dollars of lost sales, The Forbes
reported.

From 1999 until 2003, AWB allegedly paid bribes and kickbacks to
the Saddam Hussein regime in exchange for exclusive contracts
for wheat sales under the U.N.'s "Oil for Food Program" and to
keep its competition -- American-grown wheat -- out of the Iraqi
market.

As a result, American farmers were stuck with an oversupply of
wheat during that period which depressed the prices at which
they could sell their wheat.

The U.N. completed an 18-month investigation in October of 2005,
finding that AWB was the single largest source of kickbacks in
one of the largest financial scandals in modern history -- the
manipulation of the $60 billion Oil for Food Program.

The findings of the U.N. investigation were verified and further
detailed by an Australian government investigation completed in
November of 2006.

"The amount claimed is not quantified in the complaint, which
has yet to be served on AWB," the company said of the recent
lawsuit.

"AWB will vigorously defend the claim if it proceeds."


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Racial Discrimination Litigation in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Investment Services, Inc. and its parent Bank of
America, N.A. were named as defendants in a purported federal
class action that accuses them of racial discrimination.

The suit, "Turnley et al. v. Banc of America Investment
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10949-NG," was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May
18, 2007.

Listed as plaintiffs in the suit are:

      -- Richard Turnley, III,
      -- Baron H.C. Finlayson,
      -- Coleen Alecia Hinds,
      -- Mark Anthony Brown, and
      -- Timothy Johnson, II.

In general, the complaint is alleging that defendants
discriminated against African-American brokers and bankers in
promotion, compensation, mentoring and other employment
opportunities.

It specifically alleges that defendants regularly discriminated
against black bankers and financial advisers, teaming them with
other black bankers or advisers and steering more lucrative
clients to white employees.

As a result of this practice, "African Americans face greater
difficulty in developing their business, career and income,"
according to the complaint.

The complaint seeks cover people who worked as bankers or
brokers for the defendants from April 2003 to present.  It also
seeks a halt to the alleged improper practices, back pay, and
compensatory and punitive damages.

Defendants have denied these allegations, pointing out that:
"Bank of America has a strong track record of hiring and
developing associates.  We have been recognized for our success
in creating and supporting a diverse and inclusive workplace.
Our company does not tolerate discrimination.  We intend to
vigorously defend against the claims made in this lawsuit."

The suit, is "Turnley et al. v. Banc of America Investment
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10949-NG," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
Judge Nancy Gertner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ellen J. Messing, Esq.
         Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky PC
         50 Congress Street, Suite 1000
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-742-0004
         Fax: 617-742-1887
         E-mail: mail@mrwemploymentlaw.com


BRANDON AUTO: Fla. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Auto Clinic, Inc. is facing a class action filed May 18
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Allan F. Montecalvo files this action for recovery of
unpaid overtime compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., as amended.

Mr. Montecalvo claims he was a non-exempt employee, thus,
pursuant to the FLSA, entitled to receive overtime compensation
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.

He further claims defendants failed to him one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of
40 per work week, as required by the FLSA.

As a direct and proximate result of the defendants' willful and
intentional failure to fully compensate Mr. Montecalvo for
overtime hours worked during his employment, Mr. Montecalvo has
been damaged in the loss of overtime wages and has incurred and
is incurring costs and reasonable attorney's fees, his suit
claims.

Mr. Montecalvo demands judgment against defendants for
compensatory damages (unpaid overtime compensation), liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA, and
such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

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

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

The suit is "Montecalvo v. Brandon Auto Clinic, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 8:07-cv-00851-JSM-MSS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge James S.
Moody, Jr. with referral to Judge Mary S. Scriven.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Ellen Faye Brandt Block, Esq.
          The Block Law Firm, P.A.
          224 Datura St., Suite 900
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561/366-8100


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Earmarks $691M for Antitrust Fines, Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
British Airways plc has made a provision of GBP350 million ($691
million) for settlement of fines and claims in connection with
competition investigations into longhaul passenger and cargo
fuel surcharges and a pension credit of GBP396 million as a
result of a change to the New Airways Pension Scheme (NAPS).

The company is being investigated by the Department of Justice
in the U.S.A., the European Commission and the U.K. Office of
Fair Trading in relation to anti-competitive activity on long
haul passenger and cargo fuel surcharges.

British Airways said at its recent full year results it has now
completed the information gathering required by these
authorities.

It also stated: "BA has a long-standing, clear and comprehensive
competition compliance policy.  This policy requires all staff
to comply with the law at all times.  It has become apparent
that there have been breaches of this policy in relation to
discussions about these surcharges with competitors.

"As a result it is now appropriate for the company to make a
provision of GBP350 million in its full year accounts, which
represents the company's best estimate of the amounts that could
be required to settle all known claims in relation to these
matters.

"The provision relates to potential Government fines in a number
of countries in respect of competition investigations into long
haul passenger and cargo fuel surcharges.  It also relates to
civil claims in the USA, Australia and Canada."

                         Class Actions

Twenty-three actions containing common allegations regarding a
conspiracy among the various defendants to raise, fix, maintain,
or stabilize the prices of fuel, security and insurance
surcharges for air cargo shipping services were transferred in
June 2006 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York for multidistrict litigation.

Plaintiffs bring claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
and/or Section 4 of the Clayton Act on behalf of putative
classes of purchasers of air cargo shipping services.  The suit
is now captioned, "In Re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust
Litigation, Docket No. 1775."

The lawsuits consolidated include these cases filed in the
Eastern District of New York:

     -- "Fleurchem, Inc. v. British Airways et al., C.A. No.
         1:06-706,"

     -- "Animal Land, Inc. v. Air Canada, et al. C.A. No. 1:06-
         725,"

     -- "Joan Adams v. British Airways, et al. C.A. No. 1:06-
         776,"

     -- "Global Apparels Kenya (EPZ), Ltd. v. British Airways,
         PLC et al. C.A. No. 1:06-981."

Australian law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman also served seven
large international airlines, including British Airways a $228
million cartel class action (Class Action Reporter, March 23,
2007).

In February, Maurice Blackburn Cashman, in a writ lodged in
Australian Federal Court, alleged that seven large international
airlines secretly agreed to use the rise in fuel prices and
security costs after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Iraq
war, as an excuse to over-inflate freight charges (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 1, 2007).

The case involves various surcharges the airlines imposed over
that time.

These include fuel surcharges attributed to higher fuel costs,
security charges attributed to extra security measures after the
Sept. 11 attacks and war-risk surcharges attributed to higher
insurance costs linked to the Iraq war.

Plaintiff law firm Slater & Gordon filed a statement of claim in
the federal court in Australia on Dec. 15, 2006 against
defendants including British Airways.  The defendants are
accused of breaching the Trade Practices Act by forcing travel
agents to record fuel surcharges as a tax rather than as part of
the fare (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2006).


CALIFORNIA: Parent Sues District for Blocking Students' Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------
A parent of a 6th grade student at Inglewood Unified filed a
suit in Los Angeles Superior Court last week, alleging school
officials are blocking students' transfer to charter schools,
KABC-TV reports.

Enisha Griffin of Inglewood, Calif. claims the district is not
releasing students' records because otherwise, it would lose
student-attendance money.  She claims the district's practice
violates the state Education Code and state Constitution.

The suit describes how Freeman School Principal Carnita M.
Thomas told Ms. Griffin that she couldn't afford to lose
student-attendance money by losing a student in the district.
Ms. Thomas also said that attending schools other than the
district requires a permit.

According to the suit, Ms. Griffin, some parents at Freeman
School, and some at Frank D. Parent Middle School have been
denied access to students' records countless times.  They need
those records to enroll their children at Culture and Language
Academy of Success in Inglewood by fall.

The lawsuit further states that most local school districts
resent charter schools because they see them as competitors for
their student-attendance money.

Aside from seeking class-action status for her case, Ms. Griffin
is also asking the court for an injunction to forbid the
district from denying parents access to student records they
need in order to move their students to charter schools.

General counsel for Inglewood Unified is:

          Adrienne Konigar-Macklin, Esq.
          Inglewood Unified School District
          106 West Manchester Avenue, Suite 250
          Inglewood, CA 90301
          Phone: (310) 330-4401


CANADA: Ont. Pensioners' Lawyer to Bring Suit to High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' lawyer in a suit against Ontario Northland
Transportation Commission is hopeful that his case will be
revived after the Ontario Court of Appeals certified a suit
against the Ottawa-based MBNA Canada Bank.

Just like what happened to the suit against MBNA, a unit of Bank
America Corp., the lawsuit that Jonathan Foreman filed against
the commission had been denied class status by two lower courts.

"There are some paragraphs in [the MBNA case ruling] that we say
(apply) favorably to our case," Mr. Foreman, a lawyer with
Harrison Pensa in London, Ontario, told about 80 people at the
Elks Lodge for the eighth annual general meeting of the Ontario
Northland Pensioners' Association.

The group claims the commission unlawfully removed $80 million
from their pension fund to pay for retirements between 1996 and
2004.  They are seeking restitution from the commission for
funds, which were "illegally or inequitably" removed from the
fund to pay for employee buyouts and severance packages.  The
suit alleges that the commission should not have used the
Contributory Defined Benefit Pension Plan, created in 1939.  It
should have used its own money instead.

Mr. Foreman said they would attempt another appeal at the
Ontario's highest court, Maria Calabrese of The North Bay Nugget
reports.

The lawsuit against MBNA Canada Bank was originally filed in
2003 in Ontario Superior Court by Stephen Markson, who got
charged 94% interest on a CAN$100 cash advance from the bank's
credit card.  He said the interest rate was way too high and he
believes the bank violated the Criminal Code, limiting the
interest rate up to 60% annually.

For more information, contact the plaintiff's lawyer:

          Jonathan J. Foreman, Esq.
          Harrison Pensa LLP
          450 Talbot St.
          P.O. Box 3237
          London, ON N6A 4K3
          Phone: (519) 661-6775
          Fax: (519) 667-3362
          Email: jforeman@harrisonpensa.com


CANADA MORTGAGE: B.C. Court Reserves Ruling in Condo Buyers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
B.C. Supreme Court Madam Justice L. Smith has reserved her
decision whether to certify as class action a suit filed by
condo buyers against Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., Martin
van den Hemel of the Richmond Review reports.

Plaintiffs will have to wait as long as two months for a
decision, the report said.  If the lawsuit is certified, all
owners of leaky condos built between 1981 and the date of the
lawsuit's certification may join the case.

Many condominium owners who purchased a home from the company
early in the 1990s were later hit with extensive repair costs
due to moisture damage and mold in their units.

Lawyer Ross Clark argued recently in court to free Canada's
national housing agency from liability saying it owes no
statutory duty of care to homeowners.  He said the
responsibility rests with those behind the "poor design and
construction."

Lawyer John Singleton, who is arguing the certification
application, reasoned that under the National Housing Act, the
department is responsible for initiating "investigations...into
housing conditions...and to cause steps to be taken for the
distribution of information."

Representative plaintiffs in the case are Alan McMillan and his
wife Linda Hepner.

Representing the company is:

          D. Ross Clark, Q.C.
          Davis LLP
          2800 Park Place, 666 Burrard Street
          Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 2Z7
          (Vancouver Co.)
          Phone: 604-687-9444
          Fax: 604-687-1612

Representing plaintiffs is:

          John R. Singleton, Q.C.
          Singleton Urquhart LLP
          1200-925 West Georgia Street
          Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3L2
          (Vancouver Co.)
          Phone: 604-682-7474
          Fax: 604-682-1283


C.B. FLEET: Va. Firm Files $10M Suit Over Drug's Side Effects
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Norfolk, Virginia law firm has filed a $10 million lawsuit
against Lynchburg-based C.B. Fleet Co. on behalf of a Texas
woman who suffered acute renal failure and other side effects
after the use of Fleet Phospho-soda prior to a medical
procedure.

While there have been hundreds of reports of patients damaged by
the product, this legal action is believed to be the first filed
against the large manufacturer of health, medical and
pharmaceutical products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff in the case, Lora
Joyce Goza, entered Scott & White Hospital in Temple, Texas in
May of 2005 for a routine cancer screening colonoscopy.  As part
of the preparation for the procedure Ms. Goza was given a Fleets
Phospho-Soda Bowel Prep solution, a common practice designed to
cleanse a patient's bowels to facilitate accurate viewing of the
intestines.

But according to the suit, the Phospho-Soda combined with Ms.
Goza's blood pressure medication to create a negative response,
causing permanent kidney damage and eventually kidney failure.

The lawsuit further alleges that the damage to Goza was
avoidable due to the fact that C.B. Fleet Company had known for
at least 12 years of the potential of the product to produce
dehydration, renal failure and other complications when combined
with certain blood pressure medications and diuretics.

Furthermore, the suit alleges that C.B. Fleet Company did not
issue special warnings to gastrointestinal physicians or
radiologists who were the likely users of the bowel purgative
even though C.B. Fleet knew of the dangers.  Neither the product
package nor the accompanying instructions carried any warnings
about the dangerous side effects of the product, in spite of
frequent reports of problems from patients and physicians.

"This is a clear case of negligence on the part of a large
corporation that is more focused on protecting their best-
selling product than protecting peoples' lives," said Jeffrey
Breit of the law firm of Breit Drescher & Imprevento in Norfolk,
Virginia.  "Instead of warning physicians and patients like Ms.
Goza about the dangers of their product, they chose to ignore
the vast amount of information that indicated major problems so
they could keep meeting their sales goals.  Their negligence has
brought immense pain and discomfort to Ms. Goza and will almost
certainly shorten her life by several years."

Fleet Phospho-Soda is one of the best-selling bowel cleansing
products in the world, with millions consumed annually by
patients undergoing medical examinations.  After several years
of reported side effects, the FDA issued a notice to healthcare
professionals in 2005 of reported "acute renal failure, a
serious event associated with the use of oral sodium phosphates
for bowel cleansing."

The notice listed other complications of the solution when
combined with a number of different drugs.

"Hopefully, the FDA's action will prompt C.B. Fleet Company to
attach appropriate warnings to its products and encourage them
to adequately notify health care providers about the dangers of
their product," said Jack Drescher, co-counsel on the complaint.
"Unfortunately, it's too little too late for Ms. Goza and that
is the focus of this legal action," Mr. Drescher added.

Breit Drescher & Imprevento expects to represent hundreds of
clients against C.B. Fleet in the near future.  Breit's location
in the same state as the plaintiff facilitates the legal process
for out-of state plaintiffs as well as those living in Virginia.
And it is generally acknowledged that Virginia's defective
product laws are fairer to plaintiffs than those of many other
states.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Breit, Esq.
          Jack Drescher, Esq.
          Breit Drescher & Imprevento, P.C.
          1000 Dominion Tower
          999 Waterside Drive
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Phone: 757.622.6000
          Fax: 757.670.3939
          Web Site: http://www.breitdrescher.com/


DRESDNER KLEINWORT: Reaches Settlement in N.Y. Gender Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Securities, LLC reached an out-
of-court settlement in a federal lawsuit filed by six female
employees who claimed that that the company discriminates
against women, preventing advancement and fair treatment.

Though the bank declined to give specific details, it said that
the case was "resolved without admission of liability to the
satisfaction of the parties."

According to a report by the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung, Douglas Wigdor of Wigdor & Gilly, the attorney
representing the six former Dresdner Kleinwort employees in the
case confirmed the settlement of the case to the newspaper.  The
report also indicated that the parties involved agreed not to
disclose the details of the settlement.

                         Case Background

Then current and former female employees of the German
investment bank filed the $1.4 billion lawsuit, which sought
class-action status, on January 2006 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suit, brought on behalf of all female employees at the firm,
offered a slew of statistics to back up their claims, noting for
instance that only four of 258 women in the company's Capital
Markets Division are managing directors, positions held by 15
percent of men (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2006).

It further alleges, "Although we live in 2006, the 'glass
ceiling' is alive and well at this German investment bank where
women are treated as second class citizens with respect to all
of the terms and conditions of their employment."  It goes on to
state, "This class action seeks to put an end to these
intolerable and discriminatory practices."

According to the six women, who were named as plaintiffs in the
lawsuit, they sought for an end to the unlawful denial of
promotions as well as compensation equal to male employees and
equality in other conditions of employment.  They alleged in
their suit that women couldn't advance to senior levels at the
company.

The women also claim that in addition to barriers to advancement
to the highest executive level, managing director, there also
were barriers at the lower levels.

Additionally, their claim also included references to after-work
trips to strip clubs and allegations of sexual banter in the
office.

According to the lawsuit, as of May 2005, women comprised only
99, or less than 15 percent, of 775 positions as directors, the
second highest executive level in the company's Capital Markets
Division.

The suit said that 20 percent of the 500 female employees in the
Capital Markets Division were directors compared to 40 percent
of their male colleagues.

In addition, the suit pointed out that about 300, or 60 percent,
of the 500 women in the department were associates while only
379, or 22 percent, of the 1,700 male employees in the division
were associates.

It noted that the statistics reveal "a telling picture ... in
which women are subjected to the lowest pay and rank."  The suit
also noted that the results were similar in the company's other
divisions, leaving "a remarkable lack of women in the highest
executive levels" throughout the company.

In the later part of 2006, Dresdner Kleinwort filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.  However, Judge Deborah Batts of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the
motion to dismiss (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 16, 2006).

The suit is "Hart et al. v. Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
Securities LLC et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00134-DAB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Deborah A. Batts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Scott Browning Gilly, Esq.
         Kenneth P. Thompson, Esq.
         Douglas Holden Wigdor, Esq.
         Thompson Wigdor and Gilly
         350 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: (212)-239-9292
         Fax: (212)-239-9001
         E-mail: sgilly@twglawyers.com
                 kthompson@twglawyers.com
                 dwigdor@twglawyers.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Kenneth John Kelly, Esq.
         Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C.
         250 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10177
         Phone: 212-351-4606
         Fax: 212-878-8606
         E-mail: kkelly@ebglaw.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: 7th Circuit Reverses Ruling in "Gillespie"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit reversed a
decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment in the
case, "Gillespie, et al v. Equifax Inc."

The suit filed on Jan. 10, 2005 by Heather Gillespie and Angela
Cinson alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
against Equifax Information Services, L.L.C.  It generally
accuses Equifax of failing to "clearly and accurately" disclose
consumers' credit histories.

According to the 7th Circuit's opinion, Heather Gillespie and
Angela Cinson each defaulted on a credit account and this
failure was noted in their respective credit files.

Ms. Gillespie opened a credit account with Direct Merchants Bank
in 1999 but the account became delinquent in 2001.  Ms. Cinson
opened an account with Sears in 1993 with a resulting
delinquency in 1996 or 1997. Merchants and Sears sold the
delinquent accounts to a collection agency, Sherman
Acquisitions Co.

And, of course, the delinquency information also found its way
to the credit reporting agencies including Equifax, and then
into plaintiffs' credit files.

Outside creditors provide information to Equifax that
Equifax places in the consumer's credit file.  Creditors report
both positive and negative information about the consumer.
Equifax lists the date of the consumer's last activity for the
reported account in the Date of Last Activity field.

If the account is delinquent, with no subsequent activity, then
the Date of Last Activity reflects the date of delinquency. If
the consumer has been paying the account, the Date of Last
Activity reflects the last payment.

In the case of a previously delinquent account in which the
consumer has started to make subsequent payments, the last
payment by the consumer replaces the delinquency date in the
Date of Last Activity field.

Equifax also provides a secondary disclosure referencing the
Date of Last Activity field entitled "Facts You Should Know."
The disclosure states:

"Payment history on your credit file is supplied by credit
grantors with whom you have credit. This includes both open
accounts and accounts that have already been closed. Payment in
full does not move your payment history.  The length of time
information remains in your credit file is shown below:

Collection Accounts: Remain for 7 years.

Credit Accounts: Accounts paid as agreed remain for up to 10
years. Accounts not paid as agreed remain for 7 years.

(The time periods listed above are measured from the date in
your credit file shown in the "date of last activity" field
accompanying the particular credit or collection account.)"

The plaintiffs allege that Equifax's disclosure is not clear and
accurate as required under FCRA because Equifax's disclosure
does not allow them to determine whether Equifax is properly
calculating the seven and one-half year limitation period as
required pursuant to FACR.

The plaintiffs imply that Equifax makes the disclosure confusing
to benefit debt collectors who are trying to collect outstanding
debts.

Equifax counters that it clearly and accurately discloses all of
the information in the consumer's file.  Equifax's position is
that the consumer can simply take the date reported in the Date
of Last Activity field on a delinquent account and then add
seven years to determine the date that the information should be
removed from the credit file.

In the latter stages of the litigation, Equifax filed a motion
for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims.  The district
court granted Equifax's motion.

That decision was later appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 7th Circuit.  Without addressing Equifax's liability,
the 7th Circuit ruled that "the judgment of the district court
is reversed and the case is remanded for additional proceedings
consistent with this decision."

                    Circuit Court's Opinion

In its opinion, the 7th Circuit stated that it found Equifax's
policy confusing.  "Even more damning to Equifax," the circuit
wrote, is that the disclosures contain a field for the date the
first major delinquency was reported, but that Equifax leaves it
blank.

The case requires the 7th Circuit to determine whether Equifax's
procedure of using the "Date of Last Activity" complies with
FCRA's requirement to "clearly and accurately disclose . . . all
information" in the plaintiffs' consumer file."

The 7th Circuit concludes that Equifax's disclosure to the
plaintiffs may be accurate but it is not necessarily clear.  The
recording of multiple dates in the "Date of Last Activity" can
cause significant confusion and uncertainty for the consumer.

It said it is only deciding that the case must continue.  The
issue of Equifax's liability, whether decided through a
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment or at trial, is for the
district court to decide in the first instance.

Finally, the 7th Circuit notes that the district court did not
consider the plaintiffs' motion for class certification because
it granted Equifax's motion for summary judgment.  The district
court should return to its consideration of the class
certification if the plaintiffs choose to pursue a class action.

A copy of the 7th Circuit's opinion is available free of charge
at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1f61

The suit is "Gillespie, et al. v. Equifax Inc., Case No. 1:05-
cv-00138," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
         Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates
         25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: (312) 372-8822
         E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

              - and -

         James McIntyre Pietz
         Malakoff, Doyle & Finberg, P.C.
         437 Grant Street, Suite 200
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219
         Phone: (412) 281-8400
         E-mail: jpietz@mdfpc.com

Representing the plaintiffs are

         John Joseph Friedline, Esq.
         Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
         1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: (404) 815-6500
         E-mail: jfriedline@kilpatrickstockton.com

              - and -

         David Luther Hartsell, Esq.
         McGuireWoods LLP
         77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4400
         Chicago, IL 60601-7567
         Phone: (312) 849-8100
         E-mail: dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com


EVCI CAREER: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold on July 27, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. a fairness hearing for a
$7,725,000 settlement of the consolidated securities fraud class
action, "Glauser v. EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. et al.,
Case No. 7:05-cv-10240-CM."

The class consists of all persons or entities who bought or
acquired common stock of EVCI Career Colleges from Aug. 14, 2003
through Dec. 6, 2005.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in the courtroom of the Honorable Colleen
McMahon.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is July 13, 2007.
Deadline to file claims is August 29, 2007.

On Dec. 6, 2005, "Glauser v. EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp.,
et al.," was filed on behalf of a class of EVCI's investors who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Nov.
14, 2003 and Oct. 19, 2005.

Plaintiff alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
the Exchange Act, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in
connection with various public statements made by the company
and seeks an order that the action may proceed as a class action
and an award of compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and
the other purported class members in an unspecified amount,
together with interest and reimbursement of costs and expenses
of the litigation.

To date, five follow-on actions have been filed in the same
court alleging substantially similar claims, except that some of
these follow-on actions allege a class period from Aug. 14, 2003
to Dec. 5, 2005.

On May 9, 2006, the court ordered the actions consolidated and
appointed a lead plaintiff.  After the filing of a consolidated
amended complaint on July 21, 2006, defendants made a motion to
dismiss the actions that was denied by the court on Dec. 13,
2006.

On April 12, 2007, defendants and lead plaintiff reached an
agreement to settle the litigation (Class Action Reporter, May
2, 2007).

Under the settlement agreement, defendants have agreed to pay a
total of $7,725,000 (which is earning interest), to the class.

The settlement will be funded by EVCI's insurance carriers, and
will include the dismissal of all claims without any liability
or wrongdoing attributed to EVCI or any other defendant.

EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. Securities Litigation on the
net: http://www.evcisecuritiessettlement.com

The suit is "Glauser v. EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. et
al., Case No. 7:05-cv-10240-CM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Colleen
McMahon.

Lead Counsel:

          Darnley D. Stewart, Esq.
          Jeffrey N. Leibell, Esq.
          Alyson C. Bruns, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 800-380-8496
          Website: http://www.blbglaw.com


FIJI: GCC Chiefs Sue to Challenge Suspension Order by Minister
--------------------------------------------------------------
More members of the suspended Great Council of Chiefs are set to
join a class action against the interim government, said Rewa
high chief and deposed Education Minister, Ro Teimumu Kepa,
according to fijilive.com.

The GCC was suspended last month and its membership is under
review after the chiefs rejected President Ratu Josefa Iloilo's
nomination of Ratu Epeli Nailatikau for the vice presidency in
April.

The Voice of New Zealand reported earlier that the suspended
chairman of Fiji's GCC and his deputy filed legal action against
the interim minister of Fijian affairs to challenge their
suspension.

They are challenging the legality of Ratu Epeli Ganilau's
decision on the grounds that he is not an elected minister.
They want the High Court to stop him from appointing new members
of the GCC and to overturn actions taken by him.

Plaintiffs in the suit are GCC chairman Tui Tavua Ratu Ovini
Bokini, Nadroga chief Ratu Sakiusa Makutu, Taveuni chief Ratu
Ratavo Lalabalavu and Bau chief Ratu Apenisa Cakobau.

No date has been set for the first court hearing of the case,
according to the report.

Representing the plaintiffs is lawyer Kitione Vuetaki.


FLORIDA BLACKTOP: Workers Sue to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Blacktop, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
May 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Franklin Rouse brings this action for overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

He brings this action on behalf of all former and current non-
exempt laborers who have worked in excess of 40 hours during one
or more weeks on or after May 2004 and did not receive time and
a half their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they
worked over 40 in or more work weeks.

Plaintiff alleges that because of defendants said intentional,
willful and unlawful acts, he has suffered damages plus
incurring costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Mr. Rouse demands judgment against Florida Blacktop for the
payment of all overtime hours at one and one-half his regular
rate of pay due him for the hours worked for which he has not
been properly compensated, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and for all proper relief
including prejudgment interest.

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

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1fd6

The suit is "Rouse v. Florida Blacktop, Inc. et al., Case No.
0:07-cv-60693-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com


GATEWORKS: Employees File Lawsuit in Fla. to Claim Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gate Works, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed May 16
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Armando Yanes, a former laborer of the company, brings
this action for overtime compensation and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

He brings this action on behalf of all other former and current
non-exempt salaried laborers of Gate Works who have worked in
excess of 40 hours during one or more work weeks on or after May
2004 and have not received time and half their regular rate of
pay for all of their hours worked for over 40 in one or more
work weeks.

Mr. Yanes demands judgment against Gate Works for the payment of
all overtime hours at one and one-half their regular rate of pay
due them for the hours worked by them for which they have not
been properly compensated, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs of suit, and for all proper relief
including prejudgment interest.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1fd0

The suit is "Yanes v. Gate Works,Inc et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-
60708-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Marcia G. Cooke.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Stacey Hope Cohen, Esq.
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: July 19 Hearing Set for AWP Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on July 19, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for the
proposed $70 million settlement by SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
d.b.a. GlaxoSmithKline, in the matter, "In re: Pharmaceutical
Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
12257-PBS, MDL No. 1456."

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before June 22, 2007, and May 27, 2007, respectively.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant drug companies either report
the AWP of each drug they make to trade publications or provide
those publications with information from which the publications
calculate an AWP for each of defendants' drugs.

The published AWP of a drug has been used to set the price those
consumers who made Medicare Part B co-payments, and Medicare
paid for the drug.  Insurance companies often used the published
AWP to determine what they will reimburse doctors or pharmacies
for these drugs.

The lawsuits claim, among other things, that consumers making
Medicare Part B co-payments, and consumers who paid in full for
drugs or made a percentage co-payment outside of Medicare Part
B, paid more than they should have paid for the Covered Drugs
because drug companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, intentionally
reported false and inflated AWPs concerning the drugs at issue.

                         The Settlement

The settlement will provide reimbursement to both patients and
third-party payers, such as union benefit funds and health
plans, who pay for drugs on behalf of their members (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2006).

In the proposed settlement agreement, 30 percent of the $70
million settlement will go to consumers who incurred co-payments
based on Average Wholesale Price for a list of specific Medicare
Part B covered drugs manufactured by Glaxo.  The remaining 70
percent will go to third-party payers including health plans,
Health Maintenance Organizations and other organizations who
purchased certain Glaxo drugs.

The proposed settlement will refund class members for drug
amounts paid in excess, and will guarantee a minimum payment of
$100.00.

Five states -- including Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Connecticut
and New York -- will split $2.5 million for their role in
leading the litigation efforts.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 623-0594, Web site:
         http://www.hagens-berman.com;and

     (2) GSK AWP Litigation Administrator c/o Complete Claim
         Solutions, LLC, P.O. Box 24743, West Palm Beach, FL
         33416, Phone: 1-888-568-7645, Web site:
         http://www.GSKSettlement.com.


GUARDIAN ANGEL: Nurses File Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guardian Angel Nursing, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed on May 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee.

Licensed practical nurses who filed the suit against their
employer are: Judy Crouch, Cheryl Huff, Eric Threadgill, Rebecca
Blackburn, Shauna Hensley, Pat Planskett, Patty Mason, Elonda
Layne, Lisa Johnson, Anthony Quinn, Jennifer Fraley, and Brandy
Rohweder.

The suit is brought on behalf of all licensed practical nurses
who were not paid overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each work week.

Plaintiffs allege that none of them were employed in executive
or administrative positions, nor were they subject of any
collective bargaining agreement, nor were they salaried
employees of the defendants.  Thus, defendants were required to
pay them overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times of
their hourly rate of pay applicable for the time and shift hours
work, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. Sections 206 and 207.

They further claim they were improperly classified as
independent contractors and as a result, defendants failed to
pay them their share of the Federal Insurance Contribution Act
(FICA) taxes on their gross wages, and were accordingly required
to pay the same.

Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

     -- they be allowed to give notice to all other potential
        plaintiffs who may be similarly situated, or that the
        court issue such notice;

     -- other similarly situated former and present employees be
        given the opportunity to join this lawsuit as part
        plaintiffs by filing written consents pursuant to 29
        U.S.C. Section 216(b);

     -- plaintiffs be awarded damages in the amount of their
        respective uncompensated overtime wages, plus an equal
        amount of liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
        Section 216(b);

     -- plaintiffs are awarded punitive damages in the amount of
        $500,000 and other compensatory and consequential
        damages;

     -- plaintiffs are awarded reasonable attorney's fees;

     -- plaintiffs are awarded costs and expenses of this
        action;

     -- plaintiffs are awarded prejudgment interest;

     -- each plaintiff is awarded an amount equal to 7.65% of
        his or her gross wages for defendants' failure to pay
        their employer's share of FICA; and

     -- plaintiffs are granted such other and further general
        and/or special legal and/or equitable relief to which
        they may be entitled or the court deems just and proper.

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1fc3

The suit is "Crouch et al. v. Guardian Angel Nursing, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00541," 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 plaintiffs are:

          Kenneth Shannon Williams, Esq.
          Madewell, Jared, Halfacre & Williams
          230 N Washington Avenue
          Cookeville, TN 38501
          Phone: (931) 526-6101
          E-mail: ksw@citlink.net

          - and -

          Cynthia A. Wilson, Esq.
          Law Office of Cynthia A. Wilson
          First Tennessee Building
          345 S Jefferson Avenue, Suite 401
          Cookeville, TN 38501
          Phone: (931) 525-1473
          E-mail: caw1@citlink.net


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to
issue a ruling on a motion seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action against Hutchinson
Technology, Inc.

The company and six of its present executive officers, two of
which are directors, were named as defendants in a Consolidated
Complaint filed by several investors on May 1, 2006.

The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of all persons, except the defendants, who purchased
company stock in the open market between Oct. 4, 2004 and Aug.
29, 2005.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements about the company, and the business
and prospects, in press releases and the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings during the class period, and that
the market price of the company's stock was artificially
inflated as a result.

Additionally, the consolidated complaint also alleges claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

It seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged class in
an unspecified amount, interest, an award of attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation, and unspecified equitable/injunctive
relief.

On June 30, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint.  The defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was heard by the Court on Oct. 27, 2006.

As of May 2, 2007, the Court had not yet ruled on the motion,
according to the company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Hutchinson Technologies Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-02095-PJS-JJG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Patrick
J. Schiltz with referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         58 S. Service Rd., Ste. 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-454-7722
         E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com

         Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP
         100 Washington Ave., S. Ste. 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
         Phone: (612) 339-6900
         Fax: (612) 339-0981
         E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com

              - and -

         Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         1 Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-631-8605
         E-mail: smlee@milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Ahna M. Thoresen, Esq.
         Faegre & Benson, LLP
         90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
         Phone: 612-766-7000
         Fax: 612-766-1600
         E-mail: athoresen@faegre.com


ILLINOIS: Voters File Suit Over Alleged Privacy Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White and Chicago Board of
Elections Commissioners are facing a purported federal class
action that accuses them of exposing millions of people to
identity theft by publicly posting personal information of
individuals who are either applying for a driver's license or
registering to vote.

Joseph Lake filed the civil rights case in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 16, 2007.
Aside from the above-mentioned entities other defendants in the
suit are:

      -- Langdon Neal;
      -- Richard Cowen;
      -- Marisel A. Hernandez; and
      -- Lance Gough.

According to the complaint, Mr. Lake brings the suit on his own
behalf and on behalf of a class of all persons who have made an
application to register to vote for elections for federal
office, and also at that same time made an application for a new
motor vehicle driver's license in the Illinois secretary of
state's office; and whose application was transmitted to
defendant Chicago Board of Election Commissioners; who in turn
have disclosed that individual's restricted personal information
thirty days prior to any federal election.

Generally, the suit is challenging defendants' policy, practice
and custom of disclosing information that identifies an
individual, including an individual's social securities number,
name, address, and telephone number in violation of the Drivers
Privacy Protection Act of 1994, the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Lake claims that the Chicago Board distributes the
information on CDs, and through its Web site.  He also claims
that the compromised information exposes voters and drivers to
identity theft.

Thus, Mr. Lake is demanding an injunction, $2,500 fine per
violation, and punitive damages.  He also demands a jury trial
for the case.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1fe6

The suit is "Lake v. White et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02742,""
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Nicholas Constantine Kefalos, Esq.
         Vernor Moran LLC
         27 North Wacker Drive #2000
         Chicago, IL 60606-2800
         Phone: (312) 264-4460
         E-mail: nkefalos@vernormoran.com


MCCALL FARMS: Recalls Turnip Greens With Traces of Diesel Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------------
McCall Farms of Effingham, S.C., is voluntarily recalling more
than 2,500 cases of Margaret Holmes Seasoned Turnip Greens after
tests by the N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services confirmed trace amounts of diesel fuel in product
samples, Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler announced today.

The recall affects 27-ounce cans of Margaret Holmes Seasoned
Turnip Greens with the product code TURN3 K10GY and a best-by
date of November 2009.  The recalled product was distributed to
retail stores in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

State public health officials said the level of diesel fuel
detected in the samples of turnip greens should not pose a
health risk.

"Consumers who have this product should return it to the place
of purchase for a refund," Mr. Troxler said.  "Our inspectors
will be checking to be sure this product is pulled from store
shelves, and will be testing additional products."

The NCDA&CS Food and Drug Protection Division launched an
investigation after a consumer complained that the product had a
chemical taste.  Testing confirmed trace amounts of diesel fuel
in the turnip greens.

The company is cooperating with state and federal authorities to
determine the cause of the problem.

Consumers with questions may contact McCall Farms at 1-800-277-
2012.


MCCALLUM GROUP: Former Employee Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
McCallum Group Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Advantage Delivery &
Logistics is facing a class-action complaint filed May 15 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations.

This action arises from McCallum's alleged violations of
plaintiff Keith Williams' rights under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. and the collective provision
of the FLSA found in Section 216(b), to remedy violations of the
overtime provisions of the FLSA by defendant which has deprived
him of lawful wages.

Further, this action arises from defendant's improper
classification of Mr. Williams as independent contractor instead
of employee, thus denying him the common benefits of employee
status, such as wages, holiday pay, workers' compensation,
unemployment insurance, and income tax withholding.

Mr. Williams brings this complaint as a class action on behalf
of a class consisting of all ADL dedicated drivers who were
improperly classified as independent contractors, instead of
employees.

He claims, under the FLSA, he should be classified as a non-
exempt employee, thus, affording him overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in each work week at an overtime rate of
one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay.

He contends that throughout his employment with defendant, he
was subjected to repeated and regularly recurring FLSA
violations which deprived him of his lawful wages.  These
recurring violations resulted from defendant's failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in each work week.

Mr. Williams, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, pray for
the following relief:

     -- that, at the earliest possible time, they be allowed to
        give notice of this action, or that the court issue such
        notice, to all persons who are presently, or have at any
        time during the three years immediately preceding the
        filing of this suit, up through and including the date
        of this court's issuance of court-supervised notice,
        been employed in a non-exempt position with ADL.  Such
        notice should inform them that this action has been
        filed and of the nature of the action, and of their
        right to opt-into this lawsuit if they believe they
        suffered any of the violations alleged;

     -- that the court enter an order granting class action
        certification certifying that this lawsuit is a proper
        class action;

     -- that the court declares ADL's practices as alleged to be
        unlawful and which provides for recovery of all sums
        determined by the court to be owed by defendant to the
        plaintiff and the class members;

     -- that he, Mr. Williams, and all similarly situated
        persons be awarded damages in the amount of their
        respective unpaid compensation, plus an equal amount of
        liquidated damages and/or prejudgment interest;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- the costs and expenses of this action;

     -- award prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and

     -- such other and further legal and equitable relief,
        including but not limited to, any injunctive and or
        declaratory relief to which they may be entitled.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1fd4

The suit is "Williams v. McCallum Group Enterprises, Inc., Case
No. 0:07-cv-60697-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Judge Marcia G. Cooke,

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Bruce Craig Botsford, Esq.
          Botsford & White
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 208
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: 954-374-1420
          Fax: 374-1422
          E-mail: ruce@flalawfirm.com


MELANDO INC: Fla. Lawsuit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melando, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed May 15 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Johnny Garcia brings this action for overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

He brings this action on behalf of all other former and current
cooks and non-exempt kitchen employees of Menland who have
worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more work weeks on or
after May 2004 and have not received time and half their regular
rate of pay for all of their hours worked for over 40 in one or
more work weeks.

Mr. Garcia demands judgment against Melando for the payment of
all overtime hours at one and one-half their regular rate of pay
due them for the hours worked by them for which they have not
been properly compensated, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs of suit, and for all proper relief
including prejudgment interest.

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

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

The suit is "Garcia v. Melando, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-
60691-JIC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge James I. Cohn, with referral to
Judge Lurana S. Snow.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com


MICHAEL BIANCO: Faces Suit for Alleged Non-payment of Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Employees at Michael Bianco Inc., of New Bedford, Massachusetts,
filed a federal class action on May 14 charging that the company
systematically cheated them of pay, Danielle Dreilinger of
BostonNOW reports.

Michael Bianco employee, Flor Chach, said that after clocking
out at 5 p.m., she clocks in to Front Line Defense at 5:15 p.m.
and goes home at 11 p.m.  Instead of getting an overtime pay,
she gets one paycheck from each company, as if she has two jobs.
But they are the same job at the same place.  Neither of the
paychecks indicates overtime pay.

Aside from that, workers also get a 15-minute deduction if they
clock in two or three minutes late, adding up to at least
several thousand dollars in wages, according to Greater Boston
Legal Services attorney Audrey Richardson.  Employees said the
company only has two time clocks for hundreds of employees,
making it hard to avoid being late.

Ms. Richardson said in a press conference that the company
president Francesco Insolia created Front Line Defense as a
"fiction" to avoid paying overtime.

The lawsuit includes both documented and undocumented workers
from three years ago.  Ms. Richardson said employees do not
often know their rights.

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

          Audrey Richardson, Esq.
          Greater Boston Legal Services
          197 Friend St.
          Boston, MA 02114
          Phone (Voice): 617-371-1234
          Toll-Free: 800-323-3205
          Fax: 617-371-1222
          Web Site: http://www.gbls.org/


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Utah Court Allows Investors' Suit to Go Ahead
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart denied for the most part
Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.'s bid to dismiss a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed in federal court in Salt
Lake City, Grace Leong of the Daily Herald reports.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah by five shareholders against:

      -- Nature's Sunshine;
      -- Douglas Faggioli, company president and chief
         executive;
      -- Craig Huff, former chief financial officer, and
      -- Franz Cristiani, former chairman of the audit
         committee.

Plaintiffs accuse the defendants of filing misleading Sarbanes-
Oxley Act certifications, Form 10-Q quarterly earnings reports,
and press releases with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission to illicit "clean" audit reports from its former
auditor, KPMG LLP.

Phillip Kim of The Rosen Law Firm, lead counsel for the
plaintiffs, pointed out that the company voluntarily stated in
SEC filings it had engaged in illegal activities related to the
financial statements and that these illegal activities are
serious enough to warrant notifying government authorities like
the SEC and the Department of Justice.

According to the suit, the false financial statements, enabled
defendants to sell millions of dollars worth of stock between
April 23, 2002, and April 5, 2006, at artificially inflated
prices.

Court documents show that Mr. Huff made about $1.47 million
selling more than 84,010 shares of company stock in what the
suit calls "suspiciously timed" deals.

Meanwhile, Mr. Faggioli made $2.15 million selling more than
108,454 shares of stock, which "constituted a significant profit
compared to his costs basis," court documents revealed.

Additionally, the suit also alleges that defendants were
engaging in a cover-up since they had postponed hiring new
auditors since KPMG's resignation and restating its financial
statements for the first three quarters of fiscal 2005, 2004,
2003 and 2002 as well as its annual report for fiscal 2004.

The suit adds that the company also tried to cover up the fact
that Mr. Huff was terminated because of the fraud when they
claimed in SEC filings that he resigned to "pursue other
interests."

Judge Stewart found KPMG's proof of fraud against the defendants
reliable.  According to the report, "The court finds that
plaintiffs have set forth factual allegations which support that
Nature's Sunshine took steps to cover-up a misdeed, failed to
take remedial actions required by KPMG, and that suspicious
insider trades took place."

The suit said KPMG's investigation found electronic evidence
showing Mr. Faggioli knew of an alleged fraud in the company's
international operations, but tried to cover it up.

The court also found proofs that support allegations of
irregularity in Mr. Faggioli's stock trades

The suit is "Hyman v. Nature's Sunshine Products et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-00267-TS-SA," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah under Judge Ted Stewart with referral to
Judge Samuel Alba.

Representing the plaintiffs is Scott A. Call of Anderson &
Karrenberg, 50 W. Broadway, Ste. 700, Salt Lake City, UT 84101,
Phone: (801) 534-1700, E-mail: scall@aklawfirm.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Karen Pieslak Pohlmann of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, P.A.,
         1701 Market St., Philadephia, PA 19103-2921, Phone:
         (215) 963-5000, E-mail: kpohlmann@morganlewis.com; and

     (2) Erik A. Christiansen of Parsons Behle & Latimer, 201 S.
         Main St., Ste. 1800, P.O. Box 45898, Salt Lake City, UT
         84145-0898, Phone: (801) 532-1234, E-mail:
         ecf@parsonsbehle.com.


NORTH FORK: June Hearing Set in $20M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the state of New York for the County of New
York will hold on June 15, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. a fairness hearing
on a proposed $20 million settlement of the class action "Lasker
v. Kanas et al., Index No. 06/103557."

The class consists of all persons who held the common stock of
North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. and their successors-in-interest
and transferees, immediate and remote, at any time during the
period March 12, 2006 through Dec. 1, 2006 other than defendants
and any person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity
related to or affiliated with any of the defendants.

The hearing will be at the Supreme Court of New York, New York
County in the courtroom of the Honorable Karla Moskowitz.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is May 25, 2007.

On March 12, 2006, the company announced that it had entered
into an agreement and plan of merger with Capital One Financial
Corp. pursuant to which the company would merge with and into
Capital One, with Capital One continuing as the surviving
corporation (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2006).

On March 15, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed
on behalf of North Folk's public shareholders against the
company and each of its directors in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County.  The suit is "Lasker v. Kanas et al.,
Index No. 06/103557."

On Mar. 16, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of North Folk's public shareholders against the company
and each of its directors in the Supreme Court of New York,
Nassau County.  The suit is "Showers v. Kanas et al., Index No.
06-004624."

Two further putative class actions on behalf of the public
shareholders of North Fork were subsequently filed:

     -- "New Jersey Building Laborers Pension & Annuity Fund v.
        Kanas et al., Index No. 06-004786," filed in the Supreme
        Court of New York, Nassau County on Mar. 21, 2006; and

     -- "Gold v. Kanas, et al., Index No. 06105091," filed in
        the Supreme Court of New York, New York County on Apr.
        12, 2006.

These complaints allege, among other things that the directors
of the company breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize shareholder value in the transaction.

Pursuant to a Court Order dated May 31, 2006, the Lasker and
Gold actions were consolidated under the caption "Lasker and
Gold v. Kanas, et al., Index No. 103557/06" and the Court
appointed the law firms of Stull, Stull & Brody and Vianale &
Vianale LLP as co-lead counsel to represent the class.

On July 12, 2006, North Fork and Capital One filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission a joint proxy
statement/prospectus concerning the merger.

On or about July 17, 2006, plaintiffs served upon defendants a
consolidated amended class action complaint.

The action predominantly seeks injunctive and other relief on
the ground that, among other things, the alleged conduct of the
Defendants in connection with the merger constitutes a breach of
fiduciary duties by the defendants to North Fork's shareholders.

On July 27, 2006, the court:

     (i) ordered the parties to proceed in good faith on an
         expedited discovery program and directed defendants to
         make deponents available for depositions;

    (ii) approved a briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion for
         preliminary injunction; and

   (iii) scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a
         preliminary injunction for Aug. 18, 2006.

Between June 30, 2006 and July 30, 2006, defendants produced a
total of 6,596 pages of documents to plaintiffs' counsel, and
plaintiffs obtained thousands of pages of additional documents
from several non-parties.

Plaintiffs took the depositions of:

     (a) Daniel Healy, a director and chief financial officer of
         North Fork, on July 28, 2006;

     (b) A. Robert Towbin, an outside director of North Fork, on
         July 31, 2006; and

     (c) Brian Sterling, principal of Sandler O'Neill &
         Partners, L.P., one of North Fork's financial advisers,
         on August 2, 2006.

Plaintiffs' counsel and counsel for defendants have engaged in
arm's-length negotiations concerning a possible settlement of
the action.

Following negotiations between the parties, counsel for the
parties reached an agreement in principle providing for the
settlement of the action on the terms and conditions
incorporated into a Memorandum of Understanding, dated Aug. 7,
2006, and the plaintiffs believe that entering into the
Stipulation consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding, is in the best interests of the class they seek
to represent.

In the settlement, North Fork will agree:

     -- to establish a settlement fund in an aggregate amount of
        $20 million, out of which the plaintiffs' attorneys'
        fees will be paid, with the remaining balance of the
        settlement fund to be allocated among North Fork
        stockholders who are members of the class as of the
        completion of the merger (other than those stockholders
        who perfect appraisal rights or opt out of the
        settlement);

     -- to waive any right to realize total profit in excess of
        $630 million under the North Fork stock option agreement
        granted to Capital One in connection with the merger;
        and

     -- to publicly announce additional information relating to
        the merger and certain other matters in a Form 8-K filed
        with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under the terms of the settlement, all claims relating to the
merger agreement and the proposed merger will be dismissed and
released on behalf of the settlement class.

As a result of the foregoing and the negotiations among counsel
to the parties, the parties to the action have agreed to the
settlement, which provides as follows:

     -- Capital One has irrevocably waived any right to any
        portion of the Total Profit, as that term is used in the
        Stock Option Agreement between North Fork and Capital
        One, dated March 12, 2006, to the extent that such Total
        Profit exceeded $630,000,000 (notwithstanding the fact
        that the Stock Option Agreement provided for a Total
        Profit of up to $730,000,000;

     -- North Fork included additional disclosures to
        shareholders in a Press Release and in a Form 8-K filed
        with the SEC on Aug. 8, 2006 (and thereby incorporated
        by reference into the Proxy);

     -- During the course of this Action, Plaintiffs requested
        that North Fork undertake additional due diligence on
        certain of Capital One's operations.

        North Fork carried out such additional due diligence on
        July 31, 2006 and Aug. 1, 2006.

     -- North Fork has deposited the sum of $20,000,000 in cash
        into a market-rate, interest-bearing account entitled
        "North Fork Bancorporation Inc Settlement Fund" at North
        Fork Bank (the "Settlement Fund").

        Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the
        Stipulation, the entirety of the Settlement Fund shall
        remain deposited in the North Fork Bancorporation Inc
        Settlement Fund account, and all interest earned on such
        funds shall be part of the Settlement Fund, until such
        time as the Settlement Fund is allocated pursuant to the
        terms of the Stipulation.

        Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the
        Stipulation, within thirty (30) days after Final Court
        Approval of the Settlement, North Fork or its
        successor(s), on behalf of Defendants, shall cause the
        Settlement Fund to be allocated as follows:

             (a) The amount awarded by the Court as attorneys'
                 fees and expenses (attorneys' fees up to 25% of
                 the Settlement Fund plus up to $100,000 in
                 expenses) shall be paid out of the Settlement
                 Fund payable to Stull, Stull & Brody.

             (b) The Settlement Fund less any amount awarded as
                 Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses shall
                 be distributed to the Class Members in the
                 manner described herein and shall constitute
                 the "Net Settlement Fund." The Net Settlement
                 Fund shall be allocated among Class Members
                 holding North Fork common stock as of December
                 1, 2006 (the "Effective Time") on a pro rata
                 basis in accordance with ownership of North
                 Fork common stock by Class Members at the
                 Effective Time. Payments shall be made within
                 30 days of the Final Court Approval as defined
                 in the Stipulation.

             (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Class Member
                 who has (a) properly exercised such
                 stockholder's appraisal rights under Section
                 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law or
                 (b) delivered a timely and valid request for
                 exclusion from the Settlement pursuant to the
                 terms herein (collectively, the "Excluded
                 Members") shall not be entitled to receive any
                 distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

             (d) For purposes of allocating the Settlement Fund,
                 shares held by Excluded Members shall not be
                 considered when calculating the total number of
                 shares held by Class Members as of the
                 Effective Time.

             (e) Any money remaining in the Net Settlement Fund
                 more than six months after distribution is
                 completed shall be donated to a Regulation
                 501(c) non-sectarian charity in the State of
                 New York mutually agreed to by the Plaintiffs
                 and North Fork or its successor(s). Plaintiffs
                 and North Fork have agreed that The Legal Aid
                 Society in the City of New York would receive
                 any such remaining money.

             (f) The administration of the Net Settlement Fund
                 shall be undertaken in a manner mutually
                 agreeable to the signatories to the Stipulation
                 subject to the proviso that all costs
                 associated with the administration of the
                 Settlement Fund shall be borne by North Fork or
                 its successor(s).

             (g) In the event the Stipulation is terminated, the
                 Settlement Fund shall be released to North Fork
                 or its successor(s) and neither Plaintiffs nor
                 Plaintiffs' counsel shall have any claim or
                 entitlement to any part thereof.

     -- Each Class Member who was a holder of record of North
        Fork common stock on Dec. 1, 2006, except for
        Excluded Members, shall be sent a check representing
        his, her or its pro rata share of the Net Settlement
        Fund. Checks will be payable in U.S. funds and will be
        sent to eligible shareholders by first-class mail. It is
        not necessary for Class Members who held North Fork
        stock on December 1, 2006 and are otherwise eligible to
        share in the Net Settlement Fund to submit a claim or
        request for payment.

        Class Members, who are North Fork shareholders of record
        on December 1, 2006, and are not Excluded Members, will
        be sent payment. The payment will vary depending upon
        the number of shares of North Fork stock held on
        December 1, 2006 and the size of the Net Settlement
        Fund.  Assuming the $20,000,000 Settlement Fund
        increases with interest to approximately $20,500,000
        when payment is distributed to Class Members, the
        payment for each share of North Fork stock owned on
        December 1, 2006 will vary as follows:

             (a) if 25% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in
                 expenses are awarded, Class Members will
                 receive approximately $0.0337 per share;

             (b) if 20% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in
                 expenses are awarded, Class Members will
                 receive approximately $0.0360 per share;

             (c) if 15% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in
                 expenses are awarded, Class Members will
                 receive approximately $0.0383 per share;

             (d) if 10% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in
                 expenses are awarded, Class Members will
                 receive approximately $0.0405 per share;

             (e) if 5% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in
                 expenses are awarded, Class Members will
                 receive approximately $0.0428 per share; or

             (f) if no attorneys' fees or expenses are awarded,
                 Class Members will receive approximately
                 $0.0453 per share.

     -- Checks sent to Class Members in connection with this
        Settlement must be presented for payment within 120 days
        of issuance. Each check will bear a legend to this
        effect.

     -- North Fork also agreed to and did issue on one or more
        business news wires, a press release devoted solely to
        announcing:

             (a) the fact that the parties have reached an
                 agreement in principle to settle the Action,
                 and

             (b) the general terms of the Settlement. Included
                 in the business news wire and press release was
                 the disclosure of, among other things,
                 conversations during the first half of 2005 by
                 members of North Fork management with
                 management of a financial service company
                 regarding a potential acquisition of North
                 Fork.

                 Such discussions did not lead to an agreement
                 to acquire North Fork. The press release, also
                 disclosed preliminary discussions with another
                 financial services company during late 2005 and
                 the first quarter of 2006 which did not result
                 in an offer for North Fork. In addition the
                 press release discussed changes in the interest
                 rate environment of which North Fork management
                 became aware in the second half of 2005,
                 strategies executed by North Fork in response
                 to that change and its impact as to whether or
                 not North Fork would pursue the merger with
                 Capital One in March 2006.

     -- The Settlement shall be voidable by defendants if a
        certain percentage of North Fork shareholders,
        previously agreed upon by the parties in writing,
        exclude themselves from the Settlement.

On March 12, 2007, the parties entered into the Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, which contains the terms
of the settlement of this action subject to court approval.

Each of the defendants has denied and continues to deny having
committed or attempted to commit any violations of law or
breaches of fiduciary duty of any kind.

Defendants state that they entered into the Stipulation solely
because the proposed settlement would eliminate the burden, risk
and expense of further litigation, and is in the best interests
of North Fork and all of its shareholders.

Plaintiffs state that they brought this action in good faith,
have believed at all times in the merit of their claim, and do
not admit or concede a lack of merit by entering into the
Stipulation.

Upon final court approval, the action shall be dismissed on the
merits with prejudice and without costs, except as set forth in
the Stipulation.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d1f

Representing plaintiffs are Mark Levine, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-
7230; and Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. of Vianale & Vianale LLP,
2499 Glades Road, Suite 112, Boca Raton FL 33431, Phone: (561)
392-4750.

Representing defendants is William Savitt, Esq. of Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019.


PACIFIC OAKS: Suit Alleges School Scams Latinos in ECE Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nine students claim in a class action filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court that Pacific Oaks College targeted Hispanic
students in its misleading advertisement of its early childhood
education (ECE program), CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiffs claim that since 2004 Pacific Oaks has targeted
Latinos, sending them bilingual promotions touting the school's
ECE program, specifically claiming, "we offer fully transferable
academic credits."

The complaint alleges the school took more than $770,000 from
plaintiffs by falsely claiming they could earn transferable
college credits in the school's ECE program.

Plaintiffs claim at least 154 students have been deceived by
these misrepresentations.  They demand punitive damages.

Plaintiffs' counsel:

          Hawkins Prata & Daley LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1825
          Los Angeles, California 90017
          Phone: 213-622-5600
          Fax: 213-622-5623
          E-mail: tdaley@hpdlegal.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Restaurateur Mulls Suit Over Train Station Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
An owner of a restaurant near Philadelphia's Market Frankford
El, which is being reconstructed, has started a petition for a
class action against Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) and the city over troubles that the work has
allegedly caused him, Rod L. Wilson of Philadelphia
citypaper.net reports.

Mohamed Ali, an immigrant from Sudan, opened a restaurant and
meat market at the corner of 51st and Market in November 2004 in
anticipation of a business opportunity upon completion of a
project to reconstruct the Blue Line between 46th and 63rd
streets.

But the project did not close as expected in 2005 and Mr. Ali
started losing money.  The project is now slated for completion
in 2009.  SEPTA spokesman Richard Maloney says the agency has
done "everything within its legal and community-devotion powers"
to help those affected.

Mr. Ali claims SEPTA continued to periodically shut him down and
block the street, making it difficult for customers to get
there.  The spot directly in front of his restaurant also
allegedly ended up as a trash site because of the blockade.  Mr.
Ali further claims that sandblasting in the project soiled the
air with dust, debris and unknown, potentially hazardous
substances.

According to the report, since no law firm has taken Mr. Ali's
case against SEPTA and the city, Mr. Ali has started a petition
for a class action asking for compensation, and for medical
attention.


REFCO INC: June 29 Hearing Set for BAWAG's $108M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on June 29, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $108 million partial settlement by BAWAG P.S.K.
Bank Fuer Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Osterreichische
Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft, a defendant in the class
action, "In re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL)."

The hearing will be held before Judge Gerard E. Lynch in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY, 10007.

The settlement covers persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Refco Group Ltd., LLC/ Refco Finance Inc. 9%
Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012 (CUSIP Nos. 75866HAA5 and/or
75866HAC1) and/or Refco, Inc. common stock (CUSIP No. 75866G109)
between Aug. 5, 2004 and Oct. 17, 2005.


Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before, May 26 and 30, respectively.

                        Case Background

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, was consolidated in April 2006 (Class
Action Reporter, April 7, 2006).  It claimed the collapsed
commodity brokerage hid more than $5 billion off its books, far
more than previously thought.  It also accuses company
executives, company auditors, and investment bankers of
negligence.

This discovery of the bad debts caused the collapse of the
company a mere two months after its Aug. 10, 2005 initial public
offering of common stock, and only 14 months after its issuance
of 9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012.  The company filed the
fourth largest bankruptcy in U.S. history as a result.

The suit is "In re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL)," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard E.
Lynch.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Max W. Berger (MB-5010), John P. Coffey  (JC-3832),
         John C. Browne (JB-0391) and Noam N. Mandel (NM-0203)
         of Bernstein Litowitz Berg & Grossmann, LLP, 1285
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
         (212) 554-1400, Fax: (212) 554-1444; and

     (2) Stuart M. Grant (SG-8157), James J. Sabella (JS-5454),
         Megan D. McIntyre, Jeff A. Almeida, Christine M.
         Mackintosh and Jill Agro of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.,
         Phone: (646) 722-8500 and (302) 622-7000, Fax: (646)
         722-8501 and (302) 622-7100

For more details, contact Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., PO Box 9087, Dublin, OH 43017-
0987, Web site: http://www.refcosecuritieslitigation.com.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Discovery Continues in Tex. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in a purported securities fraud class
action filed against Rent-A-Center, Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Filed on Jan. 4, 2002, the putative class action, "Terry Walker,
et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.," alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and
omitting material facts regarding the company's financial
performance and prospects for the third and fourth quarters of
2001.

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's common stock from April 25, 2001
through Oct. 8, 2001 and sought damages in unspecified amounts.
The court later consolidated similar complaints with the
"Walker" suit in October 2002.

On Nov. 25, 2002, the lead plaintiffs in the "Walker" suit filed
an amended consolidated complaint, which added certain of the
company's outside directors as defendants to the Exchange Act
claims.

The amended complaint also added additional claims that the
company, and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, violated various provisions of the Securities Act as
a result of alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with an offering in May 2001 and also added the
managing underwriters in that offering as defendants.

On Feb. 7, 2003, the company, along with certain officer and
director defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the matter as
well as a motion to transfer venue.

In addition, the company's outside directors named in the matter
separately filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims
on statute of limitations grounds.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the underwriter defendants also filed a motion
to dismiss the matter.  The plaintiffs filed response briefs to
these motions, to which the company replied on May 21, 2003.  A
hearing was held by the court on June 26, 2003 to hear each of
these motions.

On Sept. 30, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss without prejudice, dismissed without prejudice the
outside directors' and underwriters' separate motions to dismiss
and denied the company's motion to transfer venue.

In its order on the motions to dismiss, the Court granted the
lead plaintiffs leave to replead the case within certain
parameters.

On July 7, 2004, the plaintiffs again repled their claims by
filing a third amended consolidated complaint, raising
allegations of similar violations against the same parties
generally based upon alleged facts not previously asserted.

The company, along with certain officer and director defendants
and the underwriter defendants, filed motions to dismiss the
third amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 23, 2004.  A
hearing on the motions was held on April 14, 2005.

On July 25, 2005, the court ruled on these motions, dismissing
with prejudice the claims against the outside directors as well
as the underwriter defendants, but denying the company's motion
to dismiss.

In evaluating this motion to dismiss, the court was required to
view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs
and to take the plaintiffs' allegations as true.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the company filed a motion to certify the
dismissal order for an interlocutory appeal, which was denied on
Nov. 14, 2005.

A hearing on class certification was held on June 22, 2006.  The
court has made no ruling on the motion for class certification.

Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's May 4, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Walker, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, et al., Case No.
5:02-cv-00003-DF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bradley Earl Beckworth, Esq.
         Nix Patterson & Roach
         205 Linda Drive
         Daingerfield, TX 75638,
         Phone: 903-645-7333
         Fax: 19036454415
         E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlawfirm.com

              - and -

         Thomas Emerson Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner & Bilek, LLP
         1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 17132279404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Anne Marie Rodgers, Esq.
         Darryl Wade Anderson, Esq.
         Fulbright & Jaworski, 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100,
         Houston, TX 77010-3095
         Phone: 713/651-5473
         Fax: 713-651-6652 and 17136515246
         E-mail: arodgers@fulbright.com
                 danderson@fulbright.com


RUBBER COS: Sued in Fla. for Allegedly Fixing Marine Hose Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shipyard Supply LLC lodged a class-action complaint on May 17,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
accusing several companies in the rubber industry of "conspiring
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices of Marine Hose."

Named defendants in the complaint are:

          -- Bridgestone Corp.
          -- Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd.,
          -- Parker ITR SLR,
          -- Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A.,
          -- Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.,
          -- Peter Whittle,
          -- Trelleborg Industrie S.A.,
          -- PW Consulting (Oil and Marine) Ltd.

Marine Hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transport oil
between ships, terminals, buoys and tanks.

Shipyard Supply brings this action pursuant to Sections 4 and 16
of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26, to recover
treble damages and the costs of this suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, for injuries sustained.

The complaint alleges that during this period, defendants and
their co-conspirators manufactured and/or sold Marine Hose, and
entered into and implemented a continuing contract, combination
or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices, rig
bids and allocate markets and customers for Marine Hose sold to
purchasers in the U.S.

Because of this unlawful conduct, plaintiff paid artificially
inflated prices for Marine Hose and as a result have suffered
antitrust injury to their business or property.

This suit is brought on behalf of "Marine Hose" purchasers in
the U.S. (other than the U.S. Department of Defense) directly
from defendants, their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, or
affiliates from Jan. 1, 1999 to May 2, 2007.

Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises,
include:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contract, combination, or conspiracy among themselves
         to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of Marine
         Hose, to rig bids or to allocate markets or customers
         for Marine Hose;

     (b) whether defendants' contract, combination or conspiracy
         as alleged, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
         U.S.C. Section 1;

     (c) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators caused injury to the business or property
         of plaintiff and the other members of the class;

     (d) the effect of  defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         Marine Hose sold to purchasers in the U.S.
         during the class period; and

     (e) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiff and other members of the class.

Plaintiff requests:

     -- that the court certify the class pursuant to Fed. R.
        Civ. P. 23(a),(b)(2) and (b)(3) and adjudge plaintiff to
        be an adequate representative thereof;

     -- that defendants' unlawful combination, contract, or
        conspiracy as alleged in the complaint be adjudicated
        and decreed a per se violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- that plaintiff and the class recover damages against
        defendants and their co-conspirators, jointly and
        severally, in an amount to be trebled in accordance with
        the antitrust laws pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 15(a);

     -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner:

          (i) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract,
              combination of conspiracy alleged, or from
              engaging in any other contract, combination or
              conspiracy having a similar purpose or effect, and
              from adopting or following any practice, plan,
              program or device having a similar purpose or
              effect; and

          (b) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
              other person engaged in the manufacture,
              distribution or sale of Marine Hose information
              concerning prices, refraining from selling,
              customers, markets or other terms or conditions of
              sale of any such product except to the extent
              necessary in connection with bona fide sales
              transactions between the parties to such
              communication.

     -- the plaintiff and the class be awarded expenses and
        costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to
        the extent provided by law;

     -- that plaintiff and the class be awarded pre-judgment and
        post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate to the
        extent provided by law; and

     -- that plaintiff be awarded such additional relief as the
        court may deem proper.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1fc0

The suit is "Shipyard Supply LLC v. Bridgestone Corp. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-21282-DLG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Donald L.
Graham.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Katherine Warthen Ezell, Esq.
          Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
          Alexander Rundlet, Esq.
          Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al
          City National Bank Building
          25 W Flagler Street, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130-1780
          Phone: 305-358-2800
          Fax: 305-358-2382
          E-mail: KEzell@podhurst.com or
                  rjosefsberg@podhurst.com or
                  arundlet@podhurst.com


SERACARE LIFE: Completes Reorganization; Settles Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc.'s joint plan of reorganization has
become effective and SeraCare has emerged from its Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceeding.

The Plan, which was previously approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of California, allows SeraCare
to pay off all its creditors in full and exit bankruptcy under
the ownership of its existing shareholders.  The Plan also
provides for the settlement of SeraCare's alleged liabilities in
the previously filed shareholders' class action.

In accordance with the Plan, SeraCare reincorporated in the
State of Delaware, and all existing shareholders will receive
one share of reorganized SeraCare common stock in exchange for
each share of SeraCare they previously owned.  In addition,
those shareholders who elected to participate in the January
rights offering will receive those shares.  This rights offering
entitled SeraCare's existing shareholders to purchase their pro
rata share of 4,250,000 newly issued shares of reorganized
SeraCare common stock at a price of $4.75 per share and raised a
total of $20,187,500 for SeraCare.

The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on March 22, 2006
(Bankr. S.D. Calif. Case No. 06-00510).

A consolidated securities fraud class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California alleged
the company issued false and misleading financial statements
between 2003 and 2006.

Defendants in the suit are certain of SeraCare's current and
former officers and directors, its former auditor, and its
controlling shareholders and investment bankers, including the
company due to the firm having been a co-manager of SeraCare's
2005 secondary offering of common stock.

Based in Oceanside, California, SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. --
http://www.seracare.com/-- develops and manufactures biological
based materials and services for diagnostic tests, commercial
bioproduction of therapeutic drugs, and medical research.

The suit is "In Re: SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-02335," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California under Judge
Marilyn L. Huff.

Plaintiff firms named in complaint:

     (1) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
         DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
         Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
         202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com; and

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


SOURCEFIRE INC: Investor Files Suit to Recover Losses in IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
Sourcefire Inc. investor Howard Katz of Pennsylvania filed a
lawsuit seeking class-action status on May 8 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, Rachel Sams of the
Baltimore Business Journal reports.

Mr. Katz claims Sourcefire's March 9, 2007 initial public
offering materials were false and misleading.

According to the complaint, Sourcefire's IPO materials said
delays in large orders beyond the end of a quarter could have a
major impact on the quarter's revenue, and could "cause us to
fail to meet the financial performance expectations of
securities industry research analysts or investors."

A similar complaint filed by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP alleges
that on March 9, 2007, Sourcefire accomplished its IPO of
5,770,000 shares at $15.00 per share for estimated net proceeds
of $71.8 million to Sourcefire pursuant to the Registration
Statement that represented that Sourcefire's revenues, gross
profits and earnings were materially increasing, reporting
positive financial results for the quarter and year ended
December 31, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2007).

The Complaint further alleges that on April 9, 2007, Sourcefire
issued a press release announcing its preliminary results for
the quarter ended March 31, 2007 that disclosed, in part, that
"Historically, the first calendar quarter has been the slowest
quarter of the year for us due to seasonal factors.

"This year, we saw an exaggeration of that trend due to a
smaller than expected initial order from a substantial and
strategic new account and an unusual number of transactions
delayed or deferred very late in the quarter.  This was
particularly dramatic in the Federal sector where we saw a
number of delays in the processing of awarded procurement
transactions..."

The Complaint alleges that on this news, Sourcefire's stock
price declined from $17.35 per share on April 5, 2007 to close
at $12.28 per share on April 9, 2007, the next trading day, on
volume of approximately 1.6 million shares.

It contends that the Registration Statement was materially false
and misleading in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 because it did not disclose that revenues
from the Federal government component of Sourcefire's business
had materially slowed due to materially lower spending by the
federal government.

The suit is "Katz v. Sourcefire, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
01210-WMN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, under Judge William M. Nickerson.

Representing Mr. Katz are:

          John Bucher Isbister, Esq.
          Jaime Walker Luse, Esq.
          Tydings and Rosenberg LLP
          100 E Pratt St., 26th Fl
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 14107529714
          Fax: 14107275460
          E-mail: jisbister@tydingslaw.com or
                  jluse@tydingslaw.com


SPECTRUM LABORATORY: Recalls Caffeine Citrated from Pharmacies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Laboratory Products, Inc. of Gardena, California, is
initiating a voluntary nationwide recall of Caffeine Citrated,
Powder, Purified, after receiving a complaint about potential
sub potency.

Caffeine Citrated is a cerebral and respiratory stimulant used
primarily to treat idiopathic apnea of prematurity.  Blood
levels of caffeine in patients were determined to be
significantly lower than would be expected.

The use of sub-potent compounded preparations made may lead to
sub-therapeutic caffeine blood levels and an unacceptable risk
of respiratory depression.  The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration has been apprised of this action.

Caffeine Citrated, Powder, Purified, is identified as Catalog
Number CA110.  Recalled lots include the following: TS0225,
UK0821 and VI1203.

Pharmacies that have used the above lots of Caffeine Citrated,
Powder, Purified, should stop using it and contact Spectrum to
make arrangements to return it.

Caffeine Citrated, Powder, Purified, was distributed to
pharmacies, hospitals, two universities, laboratories, and
pharmacy distributors.  It can be identified by catalog number
CA110 and the name "Caffeine Citrated, Powder, Purified" on the
label.

No illnesses or injuries related to this product have been
reported to date.

Spectrum is notifying its distributors and customers by
telephone and recall letter and is arranging for return of all
recalled products.

Consumers with questions may contact Stephen Newton at 1-800-
791-3210, Ext. 349.

Pharmacies are urged to examine their supplies for any of the
recalled Caffeine Citrated, Powder, Purified, and immediately
discontinue its use.

Patients and consumers who suspect that they have received
medications in any dosage form made from the three lot numbers
of Caffeine Citrated, Powder, Purified, that are being recalled,
should contact their pharmacy or physician.  Users should also
notify FDA of any complaints or problems associated with these
products.

Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product
should also be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by phone:
1-800-FDA-1088 or Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178, Web Site:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatchor by mail:

          MedWatch
          HF-410, FDA
          5600 Fishers Lane
          Rockville, MD 20852-9787


TOILET TAXI: Employee Files Suit in Fla. Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toilet Taxi Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed May 2
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiffs John Mortimer, Antonio Mortimer, David Leconte Sr.,
Christopher M. Harvey, Jonathan Riley, II, Tamika Ward and David
J. Gadson bring this action to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C
Sections 201 et. seq.

They bring this action on behalf of all other former and current
non-exempt salaried laborers of Toilet Taxi -- which is engaged
in the solid waste disposal and portable sanitation industry --
who have worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more work
weeks on or after May 2004 and have not received time and half
their regular rate of pay for all of their hours worked for over
40 in one or more work weeks.

Plaintiffs demand judgment for damages against Toilet Taxi
together with interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1fd5

The suit is "Mortimer et al. v. Toilet Taxi Corp. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-21158-DLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Judge Donald L. Graham.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey Ira Jacobs, Esq.
          Malca & Jacobs
          Sunset Station Plaza
          5975 Sunset Drive, Suite 801
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Phone: 305-662-5500
          Fax: 666-7512
          E-mail: jjacobs@malcaandjacobs.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Supreme Court Throws Out Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an antitrust case filed by
class action plaintiffs William Twombly and Lawrence Marcus
against Bell Atlantic Corp. -- which merged with GTE Corp. in
2000 to form Verizon Communications Inc. -- and several other
large telephone companies.

Messrs. Twombly and Marcus, representatives of a purported class
of virtually everyone who uses landline telephones in the U.S.,
in 2002 sued the major telephone companies for allegedly
"conspiring" to suppress competition.

The complaint filed by the Milberg, Weiss law firm made two sets
of allegations:

     -- plaintiffs alleged that defendants had refused to render
        sufficient assistance to new competitors under expansive
        regulatory obligations that were imposed by the Federal
        Communications Commission and later vacated by the
        courts; and

     -- plaintiffs alleged that defendants had refrained from
        "meaningful," but not total, competition in one
        another's traditional telephone service territories,
        based on the theory that such entries were supposedly
        attractive business opportunities.

The federal trial court dismissed the case because the
allegations were too flimsy to state a claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd reinstated the case.  It
held that allegations of companies acting similarly or "in
parallel," combined with a conclusory allegation of
"conspiracy," almost always suffice to state an antitrust claim.

The 2nd Circuit decision noted, "To rule that allegations of
parallel anti-competitive conduct fail to support a plausible
conspiracy claim, a court would have to conclude that there is
no set of facts that would permit a plaintiff to demonstrate
that the particular parallelism asserted was the product of
collusion rather than coincidence."

That standard, which relies not on the facts alleged but on un-
alleged facts that might be proved, would allow virtually any
allegation of parallel conduct to proceed.

The Supreme Court reversed the 2nd Circuit's decision, holding
that it distorted basic antitrust policies.

The following should be attributed to John Thorne, senior vice
president and deputy general counsel of Verizon Communications:

"The Supreme Court's decision embraces an important principle
about protecting the freedom of firms to make unilateral
decisions on what markets to enter or not enter.  [Mon]day's
decision is the fifth in a series of Supreme Court decisions
establishing that firms will not be challenged under antitrust
for making independent choices that benefit consumers.  The
court's decision in Brooke Group affirmed the freedom to lower
prices.

"The court's decision in Discon (in which Verizon's predecessor
NYNEX was the petitioner) affirmed the freedom to choose
suppliers.  The court's decision in Trinko (in which Verizon was
the petitioner) affirmed the freedom to invest.  The court's
decision in Weyerhauser affirmed the freedom to expand output.
[Mon]day's decision affirms the freedom to decide when and how
to enter new markets.

"Consumers benefit when companies of every size have the right
to lower prices, choose suppliers, invest, expand output, and
enter new markets freely."

Other defendants in the suit are BellSouth Corp., AT&T, formerly
known as SBC, and Qwest Corp.

The suit is "Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-
10220-GEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch.

Plaintiffs' lawyer contact information:

          Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP
          Attn: Shareholder Services
          One Pennsylvania Plaza 49th Floor
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone at 1-877-692-1965
          E-mail: ContactUs@milbergweiss.com


WOODWARD GOVERNOR: Ill. Court Approves $5M Labor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has given final approval to a $5 million settlement resolving a
consolidated class action against Woodward Governor Co.,
according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

The company was named a defendant in a class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois regarding
alleged discrimination on the basis of race, national origin,
and gender in our Winnebago County, Illinois, facilities.

On April 17, 2007, a U.S. District Court Judge granted final
approval of a Consent Decree that included a $5,000,000
settlement of the class action.

Essentially, the settlement calls for the establishment of a
$2.4 million fund for minority employees who worked at the two
plants any time since May 1999, and a $2.6 million fund for
female employees who worked at the plants since June 2002 (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2007).

It will also require the company utilize a psychologist to
perform an analysis of production jobs that were at issue in the
case and develop written job descriptions for those jobs as well
as a performance appraisal and compensation review process.

Upon completion of the job analysis, the company is required to
review the job assignments of its current production employees
and adjust them as necessary based on the new job descriptions.

The deal will also include "process enhancements" to the
company's human resources program.  Specifically, Woodward
Governor will be required to implement a procedure for
investigating complaints of discrimination.

In addition, the company will be required to provide training to
employees regarding its anti-discrimination policy and complaint
procedure.

The suit is "Bell, et al. v. Woodward Gov Co., et al., Case No.
3:03-cv-50190," filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Philip G. Reinhard with
referral to Judge P. Michael Mahoney.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jennifer Kay Soule, Esq.
         Soule, Bradtke & Lambert
         155 N. Michigan Ave. 500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 616-4422
         Fax: (312) 616-4422
         E-mail: jenksoule@aol.com

              - and -

         Robert D. Allison Esq.
         Robert D. Allison & Associates
         122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1850
         Chicago, IL 60603,
         Phone: 427-4500
         E-mail: rdalaw@ix.netcom.com

Representing the defendant are:

         Thomas F. Hurka, Esq.
         Keenan Jakarta Saulter, Esq.
         Baker & McKenzie, LLP
         One Prudential Plaza, 130 East Randolph Dr., Ste. 3500
         Chicago, IL 60601,
         Phone: (312) 861-8000 and (312) 861-8035
         E-mail: thomas.f.hurka@bakernet.com
                 keenan.j.saulter@bakernet.com

              - and -

         Dax Lopez, Esq.
         Nancy E. Rafuse, Esq.
         Daniel E. Turner, Esq.
         Ashe, Rafuse & Hill, LLP
         1355 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 500
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3232
         Phone: 404-253-6009 and 404-253-6000
         E-mail: daxlopez@asherafuse.com
                 danturner@asherafuse.com


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars




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

June 4-5, 2007
MEALEY'S BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 5, 2007
MEALEY'S MTBE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 5-6, 2007
CONSUMER CREDIT LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 6, 2007
MEALEY'S GLOBAL WARMING LITIGATION CONFERENCE: ARE YOU READY?
Mealeys Seminars
The Hotel Monaco, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 6-7, 2007
DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS & LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Boston
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 7-8, 2007
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Intercontinental Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 18-19, 2007
OBSTETRIC MALPRACTICE
American Conference Institute
Philadephia
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 21-22, 2007
ASBESTOS CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Las Vegas
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

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

October 11-12, 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 8-9, 2007
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


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

May 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 1-31, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 1-31, 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

May 1-31, 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

May 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 5, 2007
RELEASES IN THE SETTLEMENT OF MULTI-PARTY TORT CASES: LEGAL,
TACTICAL, AND ETHICAL ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 19, 2007
MEALEY'S PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
NAVIGATING A FEDERAL MDL
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 20, 2007
MEALEY'S ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ETHICS AND SETTLEMENTS-
THE ETHICAL PITFALLS IN MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 20, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: FOOD LIABILITY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 21, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: IDENTIFYING AND PROVING INFRINGEMENT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 26, 2007
MEALEY'S TOXIC TORT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: NATURAL RESOURCE
DAMAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 27, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE SERIES: REINSURANCE
ARBITRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE SERIES: INSURANCE ISSUES REGARDING
SUBPRIME MORTGAGES
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.


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *