CAR_Public/070606.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, June 6, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 111

                           Headlines      


ALABAMA CONTRACTORS: Council Pres. Files Suit Over Sewer Scandal
ALABAMA: SC Judge Reverses Trial Court’s Ruling on Felon Voting
ALAMO RENT-A-CAR: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Overcharging of Consumers
AMERICAN MATTRESS: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
BEST BUY: Outside Attorney Moves to Withdraw from MSN Lawsuit

CALIFORNIA: Trial of Convicted Child Molester to Start June 11
CANADA: Ontario Students to Announce Groundbreaking Suit Today
CATALINA MARKETING: Fla. Court Approves $8.5M Suit Settlement
CATALINA MARKETING: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in Fla.
CDW CORP: Shareholder Sues in Ill. to Block Sale to Madison

CHECK CASHING: Settles Fla. “Payday Loans” Lawsuit for $7M
ECOLLEGE.COM: Shareholder Sues Over Pearson Education Takeover
EDISON MISSION: Faces Price-Fixing Suits in Ill. Federal Court
ESCHELON TELECOM: Faces Minn. Investors’ Suit Over Integra Deal
GENERAL MOTORS: To Appeal Ruling in Canadian Export Litigation

GENERAL MOTORS: Dismissal of GMAC Debt Securities Suit Appealed
GENZYME CORP: Trial in Suits Over Share Exchanges Set August
GILAT SATELLITE: July Hearing Set for $20M Securities Suit Deal
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Conference on Avandia Complaints Set July
ISRAELI GAS COMPANIES: Woman Files $120M Suit Over Extra Charges

LCD ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Mass. Suit Alleges LCD Price-Fixing
NISSAN NORTH: Faces N.J. Suit Over Defective 2005 Infiniti G35s
PHILIPPINES: Coconut Farmers Seek Review of Levy Funds Rulings
SPANISH VIEW: Faces Lawsuits Over Failed Nev. Condominium Plan
TD AMERITRADE: Cal. Suit Alleges Illegal Sale of Email Addresses

TD BANKNORTH: June 27 Hearing Set in Securities Suit Settlement
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Federal Court Certifies Backdating Lawsuit
US AIRWAYS: Former Pilot Sues in D.C. Court Over Age 60 Rule
WHITNEY EDUCATION: Suit Alleges Calif. Education Code Violations
WILD OATS: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Employee Classification

WORLD POKER: Poker Professionals Denied Summary Judgment
XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
ZEIGLER BROS: Recalls Shrimp Feeds Found to Contain Melamine

* Howrey Hires Lovells Partner to Launch U.K. Antitrust Practice
* China Toothpaste Banned Due To Toxic Chemical, Poison Hazard


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MACY’S INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ALABAMA CONTRACTORS: Council Pres. Files Suit Over Sewer Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Birmingham city council president has sued individuals and companies
convicted in the Jefferson County sewer scandal, Joseph D. Bryant of The
Birmingham News reports.

Carole Smitherman filed the class-action complaint in Jefferson County
Circuit Court naming 19 individuals and companies excluding former Jefferson
County Commissioner Chris McNair, the most famous defendant who was also
convicted in the sewer scandal.

The defendants who include seven county employees and 14 contractors were
found guilty on conspiracy in the county’s $3 billion project to rebuild its
old sewer system in 1996.

The project was aimed to meet the clean-water requirements under a federal
consent decree.  It was expected to cost $1 billion but it surprisingly blew
up to $3 billion.  Hence, the county customers’ sewer rates rose to $297
percent since 1996.

Ms. Smitherman’s legal team wants Mr. McNair, who managed the sewer
department, to testify on their behalf.  He was convicted in 2006 and on a
separate case, he pleaded guilty of bribery.  

Ken Gomany, representing retired county construction supervisor Clarence R.
Barber who also pleaded guilty in the same case, said Mr. McNair should also
be indicted because he is more culpable than all defendants put together.

Attorney Steve Salter represents F.W. “Pat” Dougherty and Dougherty
Engineering, another defendant in the suit.

According to Ms. Smitherman, the suit was filed on behalf of Jefferson County
residents who were billed excessively for a project bloated by excess and
dishonesty.  She said the suit seeks to have the defendants pay in millions
of dollars to compensate the sewer customers.

Representing Ms. Smitherman and the county residents is:

          Campbell, Waller and Poer, LLC
          2100 Southbridge Pkwy Suite 450
          Birmingham, AL 35209  
          Phone: 205-803-0051
          Fax: 205-803-0053

Clarence R. Barber, one of the defendants, is represented by:

          Kenneth Gomany, Esq.
          2001 Park Pl Ste 300
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 322-1904


ALABAMA: SC Judge Reverses Trial Court’s Ruling on Felon Voting
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that the trial court exceeded its
authority in recasting a case on felon voting, The Associated Press reports.

The Supreme Court reversed Circuit Court Judge Robert Vance Jr.’s decision,
saying it was "undisputed" that the plaintiffs had been denied the right to
register without any concern as to the specific nature of their felonies.  It
also said there was "no evidence indicating that anyone (in this case) has
been disfranchised as the result of a decision on the merits applying the
definition of moral turpitude."

The issue stemmed from an order released by Nancy Worley, former state
secretary, excluding all felons from voting, regardless of their convictions.

In August, Judge Vance issued a ruling permitting felons to vote until the
Alabama Legislature clarifies crimes of "moral turpitude."  At a Sept. 1
hearing, Judge Vance agreed to stay much of his order until after the Nov. 7
general election and until the Supreme Court could rule on an appeal on the
ruling.  However, he allowed felons convicted of a crime that past attorney
general opinions or court decisions have said do not involve moral turpitude
to register to vote.

Judge Vance's ruling came in a class action filed by former felon Richard
Gooden.  Mr. Gooden lost his right to vote in 2000 when he was convicted of
felony driving under the influence of illegal drug.  When he completed his
sentence and tried to have his voting rights restored, he was denied pending
an the release of an opinion by the attorney general on what crimes do not
involve moral turpitude (Class Action Reporter, Sep 19, 2006).

In 1996, the state Legislature came up with a law restoring ex-convicts’
right to vote if their crimes did not involve moral turpitude.

In 2003, another bill was passed that proposes to restore the rights of those
ex-felons who were also convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude.

Based on the report, those convicted of murder, rape, robbery and the sale of
controlled substances are disenfranchised because those crimes involve moral
turpitude.

Both parties were satisfied with the court’s ruling.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ryan Haygood, Esq.
          NAACP Legal Defense Fund  
          99 Hudson St. 16Th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Phone:  (212) 965-2200
          Web Site:  http://www.naacpldf.org

               -  and  -

          Edward Still, Esq.
          2112 11th Avenue S., Suite 201
          Birmingham, Alabama 35205-2844
          Phone: 205-320-2882
          Fax: 877-264-5513


ALAMO RENT-A-CAR: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Overcharging of Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Rent-A-Car is facing a lawsuit seeking class-action status in Palm
Beach County Circuit Court over allegations the company gouges Florida
consumers with its 44-cents-a-day fees for batteries, tires and vehicle
licensing, Jeff Ostrowski of the Palm Beach Post reports.

The suit accuses Alamo of hiding the fees "under the guise of official and
mandatory items imposed by the state" and said the rental car
company "overcharges consumers."

According to the complaint, Alamo charges 5 cents a day for the tire and
battery fee and 39 cents for licensing. At 5 cents a day, it would take only
110 days of rentals to cover the $5.50 in fees, but tires and batteries last
longer than that.

New York resident Alison Esposito claims she rented a car from Alamo's Palm
Beach International Airport location in March. The bill for her nine-day
rental included $3.96 for a "waste tire fee," a "lead acid battery fee" and
a "state of Florida vehicle licensing fee."

The suit stated that some charge for tires, batteries and licensing is
legitimate, but it questioned the amount of the fees. State law requires a $1-
per-tire fee on each tire sold in the state, and $1.50 for each battery, so
Alamo would pay $5.50 in fees for four new tires and a new battery for each
car, Mr. Ostrowski states.

According to Marc Wites, the Lighthouse Point attorney who filed the suit,
similar fees for tires, batteries and licenses are collected by other rental-
car companies that do business in Florida.

The overcharges total "hundreds of thousands of dollars" over the past few
years, Mr. Wites said.

"It's certainly a very small amount per consumer," he said.

Consumer advocate Clarence Ditlow said the fees seem suspect, although he
acknowledged that he's not familiar with Florida's fees.

"It sounds like an outrageous way to raise the rental-car fee," said Mr.
Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety in Washington. "The
hope is that by charging small amounts, no one will notice."

Plaintiffs’ attorney, Marc Wites, can be contacted:

          Marc Wites, Esq.
          Wites & Kapetan, P.A.
          Lighthouse Point, FL
          Phone: (954) 570-8989
          Website: http://www.wklawyers.com


AMERICAN MATTRESS: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Mattress is facing a class-action complaint filed May 31 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging Labor Code
violations.

Named plaintiffs Roger Eigenbauer and John Leimert -- former managers of
American Mattress -- brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 251 et seq., the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq.,
and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820, ILCS Section 115/1,
et. seq.

Pursuant to the FLSA, plaintiffs maintain this complaint as an opt-in
representative action, for and on behalf themselves and other plaintiffs
similarly situated, who have been or will in the future be damaged by
defendants' failure to comply with 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. and Section
251 et. seq.

Plaintiffs bring this action, pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820
ILCS Section 105/1 et. seq., as an opt-in class action pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated.  Plaintiffs represent all persons who have been or will
be employed by defendant working as a salaried employee on or after the date
three years prior to the filing of this action.

Pursuant to the Illinois Wage payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS Section
115/1 et. seq., plaintiffs bring this action as an opt-out class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated. The class represented by plaintiffs
consists of all persons who have been or will be employed by defendants
working as a salaried employee on or after the date five years prior to the
filing of this complaint.

Plaintiffs claim they were employed on a "salary" basis with
certain "commissions" and classified them as "inside sales" for purposes of
wage and hour compliance when, in fact, the job duties of plaintiffs did not
and do not qualify for the exemption claimed.  As such, plaintiffs were
required to work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, without pay for those
hours worked over 40 at a rate of time and one-half their regular hourly
rate, pursuant to the requirements of the federal and state statutes.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter an order as follows:

     -- declaring and decreeing defendants' compensation
        practices as described, such other violations which may
        come to light during the prosecution of this matter, in
        violation of the provisions of the Illinois Minimum Wage
        Law;

     -- awarding back pay equal to the amount of all unpaid
        compensation for the two years preceding the filing of
        this complaint, according to the applicable statute of
        limitations;

     -- awarding prejudgment interest with respect to the total
        amount of unpaid compensation for one additional year,
        totaling three years preceding the filing of this
        complaint;

     -- awarding liquidated damages equal to the amount of all
        unpaid compensation;

     -- awarding plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees and
        costs incurred as a result of defendants' violations of
        the Fair Labor Standards Act;

     -- for such additional relief as the court deems
        appropriate under the circumstances;

     -- the court retain jurisdiction of the case until such
        time as it is assured that defendants have remedied the
        compensation policies and practices complained of and
        are determined to be in full compliance with the law;

     -- the court order defendants' to pay to plaintiffs'
        reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and litigation
        expenses, as provided by statute;

     -- the court approve this action to proceed pursuant to the
        provisions of F.R.C.P. 23; and

     -- the court award whatever additional relief it deems just
        and appropriate under the circumstances.

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

                 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2099

The suit is “Eigenbauer et al. v. American Mattress et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
03032,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          Billhorn Law Firm
          515 N. State Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Phone: (312) 464-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


BEST BUY: Outside Attorney Moves to Withdraw from MSN Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
An outside counsel for Best Buy filed a motion to withdraw from a consumer
class action against the company after one of the firm's lawyers admitted to
altering documents given to the plaintiffs, Matthew Hirsch of The Recorder
reports.

Minnesota-based Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Cerisi stated in a May 24 motion
that partner Timothy Block had been placed on an indefinite medical leave.  
Mr. Block admitted to the company "that he had redacted and altered documents
that he later produced to plaintiffs in this matter."

The motion adds that the defense firm had been informed by Mr. Block's
attorney that he had self-reported his actions to the Minnesota Board of
Professional Responsibility.

The motion will be heard on June 22, according to plaintiffs’ attorney,
Daniel Girard of San Francisco's Girard Gibbs.  According to Mr. Girard, a
Washington state judge has already granted Best Buy a stay in the litigation.

The class action was filed in 2003 in Washington's King County Superior
Court.  James Odom of Arkansas and Kate Maloney of Nevada are named
plaintiffs on behalf of more than 100,000 individuals with potentially tens
of millions of dollars in claims against Best Buy.

The suit alleges that the consumer electronics retailer improperly charged
consumers for MSN dial-up Internet service from 1999 to 2004.  Consumers
allegedly were charged without their knowledge when Best Buy converted a free
trial offer for the Internet service to a paid subscription.

At the time, Microsoft had invested $200 million in Best Buy and agreed to
promote Best Buy's online store through MSN, Microsoft's Internet portal.  In
return, Best Buy was to promote Microsoft's MSN service and other products.

The suit is “Odom v. Microsoft, 04-2-10618-4.”

Representing plaintiffs is:
        
         Daniel Girard, Esq.
         Girard Gibbs LLP
         Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com
         Phone: 415.981.4800
         E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

Representing the defendant is:      
          
          B. Todd Jones, Esq.
          Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.
          2800 LaSalle Plaza
          800 LaSalle Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612.349.8500
          Toll Free: 1.800.553.9910
          Fax: 612.339.4181


CALIFORNIA: Trial of Convicted Child Molester to Start June 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial that will initiate a series of similar trials against the Archdiocese
of Los Angeles clergy members and Los Angeles Unified School District
teachers that allegedly abused their parishioners or students is to start
this month, Christi Anne Corpus of The Signal reports.

Paul Kreutzer, who was a former teacher at Our Lady of Peace Catholic School
in North Hills, was sentenced to nine life terms after pleading no contest to
11 counts of committing lewd acts on a child in February 2002.  He committed
the crimes between 1968 and 1996.  He is due to be released from prison in
November 2008 because the sentence was reduced after the U.S. Supreme Court
overturned California's criminal statute of limitations law that forced the
dismissal of some of Mr. Kreutzer's crimes.

The trial of Mr. Kreutzer, a convicted child molester and former Canyon
Country resident, will begin on June 11 in a Los Angeles courtroom, according
to Los Angeles Superior Court officials.  It is part of class action against
the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Unified School District.  


CANADA: Ontario Students to Announce Groundbreaking Suit Today
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two Ontario post-secondary students, acting on behalf of thousands of other
students across Ontario, will announce the commencement of an unprecedented
multi-million dollar class action lawsuit.

Represented by Doug Elliott of the firm Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor, both of the
student representative plaintiffs who are initiating the legal proceedings
will present their statement of claim and explain the particulars of the case.

Representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students will also be on hand
to explain their role supporting the legal action.

    DATE:   Wednesday, June 6, 2007
    TIME:   10:00 a.m.
    PLACE:  Media Studio, Main Legislative Building
            Queen's Park, Toronto

The Canadian Federation of Students, Canada's national student organization,
unites more than 500,000 college and university students from coast to coast,
and nearly 300,000 students in Ontario.  The Federation has been fighting for
the rights of college and university students since 1981.

For further information, contact:

          Jesse Greener,
          Ontario Chairperson
          Phone: (416) 925-3825 or (416) 301-5747 (cell)

          Doug Elliott, Esq.
          Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor LLP
          Phone: (416) 350-2470


CATALINA MARKETING: Fla. Court Approves $8.5M Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the Middle District of Florida gave final approval to
the proposed $8,500,000.00 settlement in the matter, "In Re Catalina
Marketing Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03-CV-1582-T-27TBM."

Initially, numerous complaints purporting to be class actions were filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The actions were originally brought on behalf of those who purchased the
company's common stock between Jan. 17, 2002 and   Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.  

The complaints contain various allegations, including that, during the
alleged class period, the defendants issued false and misleading statements
concerning the company's business and operations with the result of
artificially inflating the company's share price and maintained inadequate
internal controls.  It seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.   

In October 2003, the complaints were consolidated in the U.S.  
District Court for the Middle District of Florida as, "In re  
Catalina Marketing Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03-
CV-1582-T-27TBM."    

Named as co-lead plaintiffs in December 2003 are:

     -- Virginia P. Anderson, and  
     -- the Alaska Electric Pension Fund  

On June 21, 2004, they served their consolidated amended class action
complaint on behalf of those who purchased the company's stock between Aug.
14, 1999 and Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.   

The company and other defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint which motion was denied by the
court on March 31, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
in May 2005, which was subsequently granted, by the court on Feb. 16, 2006.   

On April 26, 2007, the court granted final approval of the settlement reached
by the parties in the consolidated class action, according to the company’s
May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Corwin, et al. v. Catalina Marketing, et al., Case
No. 8:03-CV-1582-T-27TBM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge James D. Whittemore.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Elizabeth J. Arleo, Esq.
         Andrew Brown, Esq.
         William S. Lerach, Esq.
         Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP
         401 B St., Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619/231-1058
         E-mail: AndrewB@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
         Fruchter & Twersky
         One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 212/279-5050

Representing the company are:

         Michael L. Chapman, Esq.
         Tracy A. Nichols, Esq.
         Holland & Knight, LLP
         100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100, P.O. Box 1288
         Tampa, FL 33601-1288
         Phone: 813/227-8500
         Fax: 813/229-0134
         E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com
                 tracy.nichols@hklaw.com


CATALINA MARKETING: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catalina Marketing Corp., its board of directors and ValueAct Capital, were
named as defendants in a complaint purporting to be a class action
captioned, “Brad Wind, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Catalina Marketing Corp., et al.”

Also named as defendants are Frederick W. Beinecke, Eugene P. Beard, Robert
Gray Tobin, Evelyn V. Follit, Jeffrey W. Ubben, Edward S. Dunn, Jr., Peter T.
Tattle, L. Dick Buell, and ValueAct Capital.  The suit was filed in The 3rd
Court of the Sixth Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida on March 2007.

The suit is alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty of due care, loyalty
and good faith and breach of the duty of candor against the members of the
company’s board of directors and ValueAct, and a claim against the Company
for aiding and abetting the board members’ breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of the merger and reimbursement of the plaintiff’s attorneys’
fees and expenses, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

Catalina Marketing Corp. -- http://www.catalinamarketing.com/-- provides  
behavior-based communications, developed and distributed for consumer
packaged goods manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and marketers and
retailers.  


CDW CORP: Shareholder Sues in Ill. to Block Sale to Madison
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lou Ann Murphy, a shareholder of CDW Corp., filed a lawsuit on May 31 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois claiming the
purchase price offered by Madison Dearborn Partners LLC for the Vernon Hills-
based computer and software resale firm is too low, The Chicago Business News
reports.

CDW chief executive John Edwardson and company director and founder Michael
Krasny are also named in the suit.

Ms. Murphy is seeking class-action status and a court order barring the sale,
valued at $87.75 per share, which is 16% higher than the stock price the day
before the deal was announced.

According to the report, CDW shares were trading at $85.15 Monday and the
stock closed at $75.56 on May 25, the day before CDW announced it agreed to
be bought by Chicago-based Madison Dearborn for a total of $7.3 billion.

“The purchase price is grossly unfair and far below the maximum value
realizable for shares of CDW common stock,” the complaint says.

A CDW spokesman declined to comment; the company has yet to answer the
complaint.

Madison Dearborn, which manages a $6.5-billion buyout fund, and CDW have not
disclosed the terms of the transaction.

The suit is “Murphy v. CDW Corporation et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03033,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge
George W. Lindberg.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Lori Ann Fanning
          Marvin Alan Miller
          Miller Law LLC
          101 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2010
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 525-8318 or (312) 525-8316
          Fax: (312) 525 -8231
          E-mail: LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com or
                  Mmiller@millerlawllc.com


CHECK CASHING: Settles Fla. “Payday Loans” Lawsuit for $7M
----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a lawsuit accusing The Check Cashing Store of violating Florida
laws by charging more than the legally permitted maximum interest rate
on “payday loans,” reached an agreement to settle the suit for $7 million.

Under the settlement, an estimated 70,000 people will share some $4.9
million.  The remaining $2.1 million will go towards paying attorney’s fees,
costs and expenses.

The class includes those entered into the deferred presentment transactions
prior to Oct. 1, 2001, when there was no law allowing such transactions.  In
October 2001, the state Legislature amended the Money Transmitters Act,
licensing check-cashing operations to charge a fee and engage in payday loans.

John Cardegna, a Check Cashing Store customer, filed the lawsuit in the
Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, located in West Palm Beach in
May 2000 under Case No. CL00-5099AG

A Deferred Presentment Transaction takes place when an individual writes a
check and receives in return cash, in an amount equal to the face amount of
the check less the fees charge in connection with the transaction. The holder
of the check agrees to wait an agreed period of time before depositing the
check, usually two weeks. The individual also has the option to "buy back"
the check before the check is deposited by paying cash to the holder of the
check in the amount of the full face amount of the check.

The Check Cashing Store is now known as CCS Financial Services, Inc. It does
business under the trade names "The Check Cashing Store" and "The CCS Payment
Store".

The Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on May 7, 2007 and the
arbitrator on May 10, 2007.  The hearing before the arbitrator for final
approval of the Settlement is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on July 16, 2007 at
9:00 a.m.  The hearing before the judge for final approval of the Settlement
will be held at 8:00 a.m. on July 25, 2007 in Courtroom 9-C of the Palm Beach
County Courthouse.

Deadline to file claims is Sept. 30, 2007.  The deadline to opt out is July
2, 2007.  The deadline to object to the Settlement is July 2, 2007.

Representing the plaintiffs is Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.

For more information, call 1-800-466-8904, or visit
http://www.ccssettlement.com.


ECOLLEGE.COM: Shareholder Sues Over Pearson Education Takeover
--------------------------------------------------------------
eCollege.com, a for-profit education company, is facing a class-action
complaint in relation to a takeover deal with Pearson Education Inc., Lorene
Yue of Crain's Chicago Business reports.

The suit was filed by shareholder Martin Gaynor in Cook County (Ill.) Circuit
Court against Oakleigh Blakeman Thorne III, eCollege.com’s chairman and chief
executive, and the company’s five directors.  Pearson is not named in the
suit.

Mr. Gaynor wants a judge to declare the termination fee in the transaction
unfair.  He wants to prevent the sale from going through until eCollege.com
executives have considered all options.  

Pearson is offering $22.45 for each eCollege share.  The acquisition
agreement includes a $15.1-million termination fee and its terms “expressly
forbid” the company from seeking higher offers, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Gaynor claims the $271,786 to $573,560 bonuses that certain executives
will receive in the offer shows that the officials put “their personal
interests ahead of the interests of eCollege.com’s shareholders.”


EDISON MISSION: Faces Price-Fixing Suits in Ill. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc., (EMMT), a subsidiary of Edison
Mission Energy, is a defendant in two purported price-fixing class actions
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

                      Wexler Litigation

On April 4, 2007, EMMT was served with a complaint filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, by Saul R. Wexler, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated electric ratepayers in Illinois, against
Commonwealth Edison, Ameren, and all of the successful participants in the
Illinois auction, including EMMT.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants, including EMMT, colluded and
conspired to manipulate the auction results by price-fixing. It seeks
unspecified damages.  

                      Schafer Litigation

On March 30, 2007, David Schafer, Tim Perry, Pat Martin and Michael Murray,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated electric
ratepayers in Illinois, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, against Commonwealth Edison, Ameren, and all of the
successful participants in the Illinois auction, including EMMT.

EMMT has not been formally served in the case.  The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants, including EMMT, colluded and conspired to manipulate the auction
results by price-fixing.  It seeks unspecified damages.

On April 26, 2007, the defendants transferred the complaints to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Edison Mission Energy (EME)  -- http://www.edison.com/-- is an independent  
power producer engaged in the business of developing, acquiring, owning or
leasing, operating and selling energy and capacity from independent power
generation facilities.  EME also conducts hedging and energy trading
activities in power markets open to competition


ESCHELON TELECOM: Faces Minn. Investors’ Suit Over Integra Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eschelon Telecom, Inc. is a defendant in a stockholder complaint that was
filed as a purported class action on behalf of all public stockholders
against the company and each of its directors in the District Court of the
Fourth Judicial District in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.  

The suit was with regards to a March 20, 2007 definitive agreement wherein
the company agreed to be acquired by Integra Telecom, Inc.  

Under the terms of the agreement, which was approved by the boards of
directors of both companies, Integra Telecom will acquire the company for
$30.00 a share in cash, which equates to a total equity value of
approximately $566 million on a fully diluted basis.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that our directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction mentioned above
by failing to maximize stockholder value and by approving a transaction that
purportedly benefits certain members of management at the expense of our
public stockholders.

Among other things, the complaint seeks to enjoin the company from proceeding
with or consummating the merger, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Eschelon Telecom, Inc. -- http://www.eschelon.com-- is a competitive local  
exchange carrier.  The Company is a facilities-based provider of integrated
voice and data communications services to small and medium-sized businesses
in 45 markets in the western U.S.  Its voice and data services (network
services) include local dial tone, long distance, enhanced voice features and
Internet access services.  The Company also sells, installs and maintains
business telephone and data systems and equipment (business telephone systems
(BTS)).  It provides these products and services individually or in
customized packages to address customers’ need for an outsourced voice and
data network solution.


GENERAL MOTORS: To Appeal Ruling in Canadian Export Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. is planning to appeal a ruling by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maine to certify 20 separate statewide class
actions alleging that the manufacturers unlawfully conspired to stop export
of cheaper Canadian new vehicles into the U.S. for use or resale.  

Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed the antitrust class
action against major automakers.  It is alleged that the illegal scheme
artificially inflated the prices paid by U.S. consumers for each new vehicle
purchased since
2001.

The consolidated antitrust class action, "In Re: New Motor
Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 03-md-1532," named
most major carmakers as defendants, along with associations representing U.S.
and Canadian dealerships.  

Those named include:

     -- General Motors Corp.,
     -- General Motors Canada,
     -- Ford Motor Co.,
     -- Ford Canada,
     -- Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.,
     -- American Honda Motor Co.,
     -- Honda Canada,
     -- DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
     -- DaimlerChrysler Canada,
     -- Nissan North America, and
     -- Mercedes-Benz USA

According to the complaint, manufacturers maintained higher prices on
virtually every car sold in the U.S. compared to prices of the same vehicles
in Canada, charging 10-30 percent more for their vehicles in the U.S.  

On March 21, 2007, the court ruled that it would certify 20 separate
statewide class actions for damages under various state law theories under
Federal Rule 23(b)(3), covering the period from Jan. 1, 2001 to April 30,
2003.

General Motors plans to appeal the certification of the damages classes
following the entry of the class certification order and anticipates that its
appeal will be consolidated with its pending appeal of a prior order
certifying a nationwide class for injunctive relief only, 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 “New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 2:03-md-01532-DBH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine under Judge D. Brock Hornby with referral to Judge Margaret J. Kravchuk.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
         Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.
         2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Phone: (602) 274-1100
         E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com

              - and -

         Patrick Barrett, Esq.
         Barrett Law Office, P.A.
         One Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 380
         Nashville, TN 37215
         Phone: (615) 665-9990

Representing the defendants is:

         Matthew S. Buckley, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 469-7006
         E-mail: mbuckley@kirkland.com

              - and -  

         Bryan L. Crawford, Esq.
         Heins Mills & Olson PLC
         3550 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: (612) 338-4605


GENERAL MOTORS: Dismissal of GMAC Debt Securities Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action against General Motors Corp.,
General Motors Acceptance Corp. (GMAC) and certain of the company's officers
and directors over GMAC debt securities are appealing the dismissal of their
claims.

Initially, several suits were filed, namely:

      -- "Zielezienski, et al. v. General Motors, et al.," filed
         on Nov. 29, 2005, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach
         County, Florida;

      -- "J&R Marketing, et al. v. General Motors Corporation,
         et al.," filed on Dec. 28, 2005, in the Circuit Court
         for Wayne County, Michigan; and

      -- "Mager v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," filed on
         Feb. 17, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of Michigan.


                   Zielezienski Litigation

Filed by Stanley Zielezienski, the Zielezienski action was filed against the
company, GMAC, the company's chairman and chief executive officer, G. Richard
Wagoner, Jr.; GMAC's chairman, Eric A. Feldstein; and company and GMAC
officers William F. Muir, Linda K. Zukauckas, Richard J.S. Clout, John E.
Gibson, W. Allen Reed, Walter G. Borst, John M. Devine, and Gary L. Cowger.  
The action also names certain underwriters of GMAC debt securities as
defendants.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 11 of the U.S.
Securities Act, and with respect to all defendants except the company,
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.  It also alleges that the company
violated Section 15 of the Securities
Act.  

In particular, the complaint alleges material misrepresentations in certain
GMAC financial statements incorporated by reference with GMAC's 2003 Form S-3
Registration Statement and Prospectus.

More specifically, the complaint alleges material misrepresentations in
connection with the offering for sale of GMAC SmartNotes in certain GMAC
financial statements contained in GMAC's Forms 10-Q for the quarterly periods
ended in March
31, 2004 and June 30, 2004 and the Form 8-K which disclosed financial results
for the quarterly period ended in Sept. 30, 2004, as evidenced by GMAC's 2005
restatement of these quarterly results.

In December 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint making
substantially the same allegations as were in the previous filing, with
respect to additional debt securities issued by GMAC during the period April
23, 2004 to March 14, 2005, and adding approximately 60 additional
underwriters as defendants.

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought and the
defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based
upon the limited information available in the complaint.

On Jan. 6, 2006, defendants named in the original complaint removed this case
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  

On Feb. 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to Florida state
court, which is currently being briefed by the parties.

On March 28, 2006, the parties submitted a proposed stipulated order
withdrawing plaintiff's motion to remand and transferring the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  If this order is
entered, the parties have agreed to seek to have this case consolidated with
the J&R Marketing and Mager cases.


                    J&R Marketing Litigation

Filed by J&R Marketing, the J&R Marketing action was filed against the
company, GMAC, the company's chairman and chief executive officer, G. Richard
Wagoner, Jr.; GMAC's Chairman,
Eric Feldstein; William F. Muir; Linda K. Zukauckas; Richard J.S. Clout; John
E. Gibson; W. Allen Reed; Walter G. Borst; John M. Devine; Gary L. Cowger;
and several underwriters of GMAC debt securities.

Similar to the original complaint filed in the Zielezienski case, the
complaint alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a), and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act based on alleged material misrepresentations or
omissions in the Registration Statements for GMAC SmartNotes purchased
between Sept. 30, 2003 and March 16, 2005, inclusive.

The complaint alleges inadequate disclosure of the company's financial
condition and performance as well as issues arising from GMAC's 2005
restatement of quarterly results for the three quarters ended Sept. 30,
2005.  

It does not specify the amount of damages sought and the defendants have no
means to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited
information available in the complaint.  

On Jan. 13, 2006 defendants removed this case to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.

                        Mager Litigation

Filed by Alex Mager, the Mager action is substantively identical to the J&R
Marketing case.  On Feb. 24, 2006, J&R Marketing filed a motion to
consolidate the Mager case with its case and for appointment as lead
plaintiff and the appointment of lead counsel.  

On March 8, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating the two cases, and
subsequently consolidated those cases with the Zielezienski case described
above.

Lead plaintiffs' counsel has been appointed, and on July 28,
2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, differing mainly
from the initial complaints by asserting claims for GMAC debt securities
purchased during a different time period, of July 28, 2003 through Nov. 9,
2005, and adding additional underwriter defendants.

On Aug. 28, 2006, the underwriter defendants were dismissed without
prejudice.  The GM and GMAC defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  No determination has been made that the case may be maintained as
a class action.

                          Settlement

On Feb. 27, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan issued an opinion granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss and
dismissing the consolidated bondholder class-action complaint with respect to
claims filed by plaintiffs J&R Marketing, Zielezienski and Mager.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in this matter on March 27, 2007,
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.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the  
worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts.


GENZYME CORP: Trial in Suits Over Share Exchanges Set August
------------------------------------------------------------
Genzyme Corp. remains a defendant in four lawsuits with regards to the
exchange of all of the outstanding shares of Biosurgery Stock for shares of
Genzyme Stock in connection with the elimination of the company’s tracking
stocks in July 2003, 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.

Each of the lawsuits is a purported class action on behalf of holders of
Biosurgery Stock.  

The first case, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in May 2003, alleged a
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in our charter
and a breach of our board of directors’ fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff in this case sought an injunction to adjust the exchange ratio
for the tracking stock exchange.  The Court dismissed the complaint in its
entirety in November 2003.

Upon appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the dismissal by the
Superior Court of the fiduciary duty claim, but reversed the earlier decision
to dismiss the implied covenant claim.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has granted our petition for
further appellate review of the Appeals Court decision reversing the
dismissal of the implied covenant claim.

The SJC heard oral arguments on Dec. 4, 2006.  A ruling on the appeal is
anticipated in the first half of 2007.

Two substantially similar cases were filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in
August and October 2003.  These cases were consolidated in January 2004, and
in July 2004, the consolidated case was stayed pending disposition of a
fourth case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in June 2003.

This complaint initially alleged violations of federal securities laws,
common law fraud, and a breach of the merger agreement with Biomatrix, in
addition to the state law claims contained in the other cases.  

The plaintiffs initially sought an adjustment to the exchange ratio, the
rescission of the acquisition of Biomatrix, and unspecified compensatory
damages.

In December 2005, the plaintiffs in this case filed an amended complaint in
which they dropped all of the claims alleged in the initial complaint
relating to the initial issuance of Biosurgery Stock and the acquisition of
Biomatrix, and narrowed the putative class to include only those individuals
who held Biosurgery Stock on May 8, 2003.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and to oppose the
class certification.  The Court denied the motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and certified this case as a class action on behalf of all
shareholders who held Biosurgery Stock on May 8, 2003.

The company filed a petition asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit to review the class certification decision, which has been denied.  

Discovery in this action is currently ongoing.  A trial in this matter is
currently scheduled for August 2007.

Genzyme Corp. -- http://www.genzyme.com-- is a biotechnology company.  The  
Company operates in five segments.  Renal develops, manufactures and
distributes products that treat patients suffering from renal diseases,
including chronic renal failure.  Therapeutics develops, manufactures and
distributes therapeutic products, with a focus on products to treat patients
suffering from genetic diseases and other chronic debilitating diseases.  
Transplant develops, manufactures and distributes therapeutic products that
address pre-transplantation, prevention and treatment of acute rejection in
organ transplantation, as well as other autoimmune disorders. Biosurgery
develops, manufactures and distributes biotherapeutics and biomaterial
products, with an emphasis on products that meet medical needs in
orthopaedics and broader surgical areas.  Genetics provides testing services
for the oncology, prenatal and reproductive markets.


GILAT SATELLITE: July Hearing Set for $20M Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York will hold a
final fairness hearing on July 19, 2007 for the $20,000,000 settlement of the
consolidated securities class action, “In re: Gilat Satellite Networks, Case
No. 1:02-cv-01510-CPS-SMG.”

The hearing will be held before Judge Charles P. Sifton in the U.S.
Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York 11201.

Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on Sept. 3, 2007.

                         Case Background

In the first half of 2002, a number of securities class actions were filed
against the company and certain of the company's officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, and a request to file a class action was filed in the
Tel-Aviv, Israel District Court.

The class actions allege violations of the federal securities laws and claim
that the company issued material misrepresentations to the market.  

The class actions in the U.S. have been consolidated into a single action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and an amended
complaint has been filed In September 2005, the court rendered its decision
to dismiss a number of the claims listed in the complaint.

In June, 2006, following a successful mediation, the parties reached a
settlement in the consolidated class action filed in the U.S.  The entire
amount due would be covered by the
company's insurance carriers.

For more details, contact:

         In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd.
         c/o Garden City Group, Inc.
         Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 9090
         Dublin, OH 43017-9090
         Phone: 1-800-256-5848
         Fax: (631) 470-5100
         Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com

         Steven J. Toll, Esq.
         Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W., West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, D.C. 20005
         Phone (202) 408-4600
      
         Jeffrey M. Haber, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
         10 East 40th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone (212) 779-1414

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         Marc L. Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: (310) 201-9150

             - and –

         Jacob Sabo
         Law Office of Jacob Sabo
         The Tower - 15th floor, #3 Daniel Frisch St.
         Tel-Aviv, Israel
         Phone: (972)(03) 736-2359
         Fax: (972) 36078889
         E-mail: sabolaw@inter.net.il


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Conference on Avandia Complaints Set July
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Boyle of The Business learned that a conference is set for July 13
to coordinate the work of lawyers planning to sue GlaxoSmithKine over its
diabetes drug Avandia.

The one-day conference will be held in Chicago.  It is organized by the legal
conferences department of LexisNexis.  It will be chaired by lawyer Vance
Andrus.  Tickets are sold at $675 each.

The conference is being organized as a precursor to what is expected to be a
series of class actions, according to Ms. Boyle.  She wrote that analysts
have already predicted that legal claims over Avandia could cost the company
as much as $5 billion.

Avandia, created and marketed by Glaxo, is designed to treat persons with
Type 2 diabetes by helping sensitize cells to insulin, thereby greatly
assisting in blood-sugar control.  It
also is combined with metformin and sold as Avandamet.

GlaxoSmithKline Plc is facing a class-action complaint filed May
22 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York alleging violations of Section 49 of the New York General Business Law,
common law fraud, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation.

Named plaintiff Shiela E. Schrank, alleges Glaxo is fraudulently creating,
marketing, distributing and selling its diabetes drug Avandia
(rosiglitazone), even after trials showed that patients suffered a 43 percent
increased chance of heart attacks after using it.

The suit is "Schrank v. Glaxosmithkline Plc, Case No. 1:07-cv-04006-BSJ,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Barbara S. Jones.


ISRAELI GAS COMPANIES: Woman Files $120M Suit Over Extra Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Tel Aviv, Israel resident filed an LIS491 million ($120 million) suit in
Haifa District Court against gas companies last week.

The suit accuses gas stations of hiding service fees and of charging beyond
the base price of gasoline, which violates the consumer-protection laws, Avi
Bar-Eli of Haaretz.com reports.

Defendants in the suit are Delek, Paz, Sonol and Sprint Motors.

The complaint further claims that the extra charge varies daily and demands
reimbursement.

She said that in order to legally add a service charge, gas companies must
mark it on the fuel pumps.  Otherwise, it’s a violation of the consumer laws
amended in June 2002.

The gas companies on the other hand, are confident the case will be rejected.


LCD ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Mass. Suit Alleges LCD Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed May 31 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts accuses electronic companies of conspiring to fix
the prices of liquid crystal display products.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- AU Optronics,
     -- CHI MEI Optoelectronics,
     -- Fujitsu, Ltd.,
     -- Idtech USA,
     -- Hitachi, Ltd.,
     -- Sharp, Corp.,
     -- Epson Imaging Devices,
     -- Sieko Epsom,
     -- Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology,
     -- Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd.,
     -- Hannstar Display Corp.,
     -- IPSA Alpha Technology Ltd.,
     -- LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.,
     -- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.,
     -- Panasonic Corp. of North America,
     -- Mitsubishi Electric Corp.,
     -- NEC Electronics Corp.,
     -- Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and
     -- Sanyo North America Corp.

Named plaintiff Eleanor Giusti, brings this action on behalf of a class
of "indirect purchasers" of Thin-Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays
(LCD) and products containing LCD covering a period beginning no later than
Jan. 1, 2002 and continuing until at least Dec. 31, 2005.

Plaintiff seeks federal injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 26 for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1 and damages and other relief for defendants' violations of
Massachusetts' Consumer Protection Act G.L.c. 934 Section 1, et. seq. and
Massachusetts' state common law.

This case arises out of a long-running conspiracy extending from Jan. 1, 2002
and continuing until at least Dec. 31, 2005, among defendants and their co-
conspirators, with the purpose and effect of fixing prices, allocating market
share, and committing other unlawful practices designed to inflate the prices
of LCD and products containing LCD sold indirectly to plaintiff and other
purchasers in Massachusetts.  

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to G.L.c. 93A, Section 9(2) and Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as representative of a class of all
persons residing in Massachusetts who indirectly purchased LCD or products
containing LCD manufactured and sold by one or more of the defendants during
the class period.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     -- whether defendants conspired with each other and others
        to fix, raise, stabilize or maintain the prices of LCD;

     -- whether defendants' acts were unfair or deceptive;

     -- whether the combination or conspiracy caused the prices
        of LCD and products containing LCD to be higher than
        they would have been in the absence of defendants'
        conduct;

     -- the operative time period for the conspiracy;

     -- whether defendants' conduct caused injury to the
        property of plaintiff and the class, and if so, the
        appropriate measure of damages;

     -- whether defendants' conduct violated Massachusetts'
        unfair and deceptive trade practices law as provided for
        under Chapter 93A;

     -- whether defendants actively concealed the violation
        alleged; and

     -- the appropriate nature of the class-wide equitable
        relief.

Plaintiff requests that the court:

     -- certify this action to proceed as a class action
        pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure and direct that reasonable notice be given to
        class members;

     -- that the unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy or
        combination alleged be adjudged and decreed to be:

        (a) an unlawful combination, trust, agreement,
            understanding, and/or concert of action in violation
            of Massachusetts' consumer protection laws as set
            forth;

        (b) acts of unjust enrichment as set forth;

        (c) in violation of Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15
            U.S.C. Section 26 for violations of Section 1 of the
            Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- award plaintiff and the class members treble damages and
        costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
        filing fees and reasonable costs of the action pursuant
        to Massachusetts statute G.L.c. 93A, Section 9;

     -- award plaintiff and the class members restitution from
        these defendants for acts, as alleged, that violate
        Massachusetts' antitrust and common laws;

     -- award plaintiff and the class members restitution and
        disgorgement of profits obtained by defendants as a
        result of their violation of common law principles
        prohibiting their acts of unfair competition and acts of
        unjust enrichment;

     -- award plaintiff and the class members as a permanent
        injunction under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15
        U.S.C. Section 26, enjoining defendants, and their
        officers, agents, employees, or representatives from
        engaging in this unlawful contract, combination, and
        conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce;

     -- award plaintiff and the class members pre-judgment and
        post-judgment interest on the above sums at the highest
        rate allowed by law; and

     -- grant such other, further or different relief as the
        court deems meet and proper.

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

                 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?20a1

The suit is “Giusti v. AU Optronics Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-11025-
NMG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
under Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Michael S. Bearse, Esq.
          Finnegan & Bearse
          50 Milk Street, 19th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-426-7655


NISSAN NORTH: Faces N.J. Suit Over Defective 2005 Infiniti G35s
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan North America, Inc. is facing a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey accusing it of selling 2005 Model
Infiniti G35s with defective front brakes.

Named plaintiff Dr. Steven Sheris brings this complaint on May 29, 2007 on
behalf of all persons in the State of New Jersey who purchased and/or leased
a model year 2005 Infiniti G35 and which vehicle had or currently has a
defective rotor/caliper from brake assembly.

The complaint alleges that due to the defective parts, G35s manifest
significant squealing and grinding when the brake pedal is applied if the
defect is not corrected by replacement of brae pads, rotors and calipers.  
These defects are unreasonable dangerous, as they can cause the braking
system components to become severely worn and damaged, and may lead to a
complete failure of the braking system.

It further alleges that by complaints of its customers, Nissan was on notice
that the G35's front brake assemblies were defective and not fit for their
intended purpose of properly and effectively bringing the automobile to a
stop.  Nissan actively concealed the existence and nature of said defects
from plaintiff and the class members at the time of purchase and thereafter.  
Nissan has not recalled the G35 to repair the defects, nor has it offered to
repair the defects to its customers free of charge, nor has it offered to
reimburse Nissan owners, present or past, who incurred costs relating to
braking system repairs.

Pursuant to the new vehicle "bumper to bumper" express warranty given to all
purchasers of the G35, Nissan is responsible for all repair and labor
associated with the repair and service of defective parts.  That warranty was
effectively for 60,000 miles or 48 months, whichever came first.  The Basic
Warranty covers certain braking system components such as pads, rotors and
calipers as limited to only 48 months or 60,000 miles.  No braking components
are listed under excluded items, however, normal wear and tear are excluded.

Nissan claims the defect's signature symptoms are exempted from warranty
coverage by the "normal wear and tear" exception, thereby avoiding any
obligation to remedy this problem.  Further, if the defect has occurred after
the warranty expires, Nissan claims that the warranty on the entire braking
system is inapplicable.  Consequently, plaintiff and the class members have
been required to pay for the repairs of the front brake assemblies themselves.

Plaintiff alleges that Nissan is responsible and reliable for the costs of
replacing the defective front brake assemblies including reimbursement to him
and members of the class for needed repairs already performed and attorneys'
fees.

Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23
(a) and (b)(3), on behalf of all other persons residing in and/or maintaining
their business in New Jersey and who purchased or leased in New Jersey a 2005
G35 vehicle and who satisfy the following requirements:

     (a) whether the rotors used by defendant in their G35s,
         model year 2005, were too thin and/or contained such
         excessive variation in thickness as to fail to conform
         to industry standards or contained other substantial
         defect;

     (b) whether G35s possess the brake system defect or defects
         alleged;

     (c) whether the brake system defects constitute a breach of
         the implied warranty of merchantability and of express
         warranty;

     (d) whether the defendant violated New Jersey's Consumer
         Fraud Act, NJSA 56:8-1, et. seq.;

     (e) whether members of the class are entitled to be
         notified and warned about the brake system defect and
         are entitled to the entry of final and injunctive
         relief compelling defendant to issue a notification and
         warning to all class members concerning such a defect;

     (f) whether class members are entitled to actual damages
         and if so, the appropriate amount thereof;

     (g) whether defendant deliberately misrepresented or failed
         to disclose material facts to plaintiff and the class
         members;

     (h) whether defendant gave an express warranty which was
         limited by time despite defendant's knowledge that the
         braking defect would become apparent after the warranty
         period; and

     (i) whether the durational limits of the Basic Warranty as
         applied to this significant defect are unconscionable  
         and therefore unenforceable.

Plaintiff prays for a judgment against defendants as follows:

     -- for an order certifying the class and/or subclasses,
        pursuant to New Jersey R. 4-32-1(b)(2) and/or (b)(3),
        appointing plaintiff as representative of the class and
        each subclass, and appointing the law firms representing
        plaintiff as counsel for the class;

     -- for a declaration that the remedial work necessary to
        correct the defective brakes is covered by the Basic
        Warranty;

     -- for compensatory damages and/or restitution or refund of
        all funds acquired by defendant from plaintiff, the
        damages subclass, and the general public as a result of
        defendant's unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, deceptive and
        unconscionable practices described in the Consumer Fraud
        Act claim;

     -- under the Consumer Fraud Act, the trebling of damages
        suffered by the class and/or appropriate subclass;

     -- for payment of costs of suit incurred;

     -- for both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
        awarded;

     -- for payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and expert
        fees; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        proper.

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

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

The suit is “Sheris v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-02516-WHW-
MF,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under
Judge William H. Walls with referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, Esqs.
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Phone: (201) 391-7000
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com


PHILIPPINES: Coconut Farmers Seek Review of Levy Funds Rulings
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Philippine Coconut Producers Federation filed a class action petition for
review of rulings regarding ownership of the contested coconut levy funds,
Rey E. Requejo of The Manila Standard Today reports.

Cocofed, a group composed of more than one million coconut farmers, asked the
nation’s Supreme Court to lift nine sequestration orders issued by the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against the assets of 21
levy-funded companies, including United Coconut Planters Bank; and to reverse
a Sandiganbayan ruling that effectively declared unconstitutional several
laws on the coconut levy.

Among those sequestered are UCPB shares supposedly issued to 1,405,366
coconut farmers, mostly members of Cocofed.  The petitioners are also seeking
the lifting of the sequestration of San Miguel Corp.’s 33.133 million shares
of stock acquired in a sale that transpired on April 1, 1986 from the
shareholdings of Eduardo Cojuangco, a local businessman and a former crony of
deposed Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos.

Cocofed insists that the sequestered assets are not part of the ill-gotten
wealth supposedly amassed by the former president.

The Cocofed said the PCGG failed to establish, and did not even attempt to
prove, the fact that the sequestered assets subject of the ill-gotten wealth
cases are indeed "ill-gotten."  

According to a report by local paper Sun Star, the Sandiganbayan gravely
erred and abused it authority when it repeatedly denied Cocofed the
opportunity to present their evidence.

The Sandiganbayan is a court specially created to eliminate graft and
corruption practices or public offenders in the branches of government in the
Philippines.  It is handling Civil Case 0033, which comprises eight ill-
gotten wealth cases.  It declared in certain summary judgments that certain
provisions of the laws putting up the coco levy laws and their implementing
regulations are unconstitutional.

The petitioners claim partial summary judgments regarding Cocofed’s ownership
of the sequestered assets are erroneous because they rely solely on the
government’s theory that the coconut levy laws and its implementing
regulations are unconstitutional.

The petitioners are Cocofed president Manuel del Rosario, and officers
Domingo Spine, Salvador Ballares, Joselito Moraleda, Paz Yason,Vicente Cadiz,
Cesaria de Luna Titular and Raymundo de Villa del Rosario and Domingo Spine.  

The petitioners are represented by Angara, Abello, Conception, Regala and
Cruz Law Office (http://www.accralaw.com).


SPANISH VIEW: Faces Lawsuits Over Failed Nev. Condominium Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Spanish View Towers, a luxury condominium project in Las Vegas, Nevada,
are facing lawsuits and mechanics liens after running out of funds, according
to Tony Illia of the Las Vegas Business Press.

The law firm of Marquis & Aurbach filed a suit on May 23 in Clark County
District Court on behalf of three people who placed deposits on the project.  
The suit seeks deposit returns plus $1,500 in damages.  Roughly 91 people
have placed deposits with the project, according to the report.

"This project is more than 18 months behind schedule," said Terry Coffing,
Marquis & Aurbach's managing member.

"Construction ceased long ago and we have learned there is no financing in
place to move the project along," said Coffing.

"The developer is currently a defendant in at least nine lawsuits and faces
more than $30 million in mechanics liens," according to Ms. Coffing.

Yet contract language could make it difficult to recover funds because buyers
have agreed in their contacts to let Spanish View pledge their deposits as
security for another loan.

"Ultimately, this class action is going to be fighting with the bank," Ms.
Coffing said.


TD AMERITRADE: Cal. Suit Alleges Illegal Sale of Email Addresses
----------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade, Inc. is facing a class-action filed May 31 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing it of
illegally selling email addresses to spammers.

Named plaintiff Matthew Elvey alleges TD Ameritrade provides spammers with
its accountholders' private email addresses, which sent and continue and to
send unsolicited commercial email (particularly email promoting certain penny
stocks or stock spam) to these private email addresses.  The exposure of its
accountholders' email addresses violated and breached TD Ameritrade's privacy
policy.

Mr. Elvey brings this class action on behalf of two classes:

     -- TD AmeriTrade accountholders residing in California
        (California Resident Class); and

     -- Internet access services which received spam sent to TD
        AmeriTrade accountholder's email addresses which is
        traceable to TD AmeriTrade's breach of its privacy
        policy (CAN SPAM Class).

The complaint alleges that TD AmeriTrade's provision of its accountholder's
email addresses not only facilitated the transmission of spam to its
accountholder's email addresses, it did so in violation of express
representations in it privacy policy that it would not share its
accountholder's personal information with third parties.  

On behalf of the California Resident Class, Mr. Elvey seeks injunctive relief
under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, equitable relief under
California's Unfair Competition Law, and damages and equitable relief for
breach of fiduciary duty.

Further, TD AmeriTrade's provision of its accountholder's emails facilitated
and initiated the transmission of various stock spam to their Internet
facilities, in violation of the CAN SPAM Act of 2003.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether TD AmeriTrade expose or provided email
         addresses of the California Resident Class members to
         spammers;

     (b) whether such exposure violated TD AmeriTrade's Privacy
         Statement;

     (c) whether such exposure was intentional or unintentional
         on TD AmeriTrade's part;

     (d) whether TD AmeriTrade's Privacy Statement represented
         that TD AmeriTrade's services have characteristics,
         uses and benefits, or quantities which they do not
         have, in violation of Cal. Civ. Code Section
         1770(a)(14);

     (e) whether TD AmeriTrade's Privacy Statement represented
         that TD AmeriTrade's services confer or involves
         rights, remedies, obligations which they do not confer
         or involve, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
         Section 17200;

     (f) whether, in light of the exposure and provision of
         California Resident Class members' email addresses to
         spammers, TD AmeriTrade's Privacy Statement was
         deceptive under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200;

     (g) whether TD AmeriTrade owed California Class members
         fiduciary duty as their broker;

     (h) whether TD AmeriTrade owed the California class members
         a fiduciary duty by dint of its collection of personal
         information under the Privacy Statement;

     (i) whether TD AmeriTrade breached such fiduciary duties
         through the violation of its Privacy Statement;

     (j) whether TD AmeriTrade failed to fully and accurately
         disclose the exposure and provision of California
         Resident Class members' email addresses to spammers and
         any underlying security breach;

     (k) whether, in light of Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.82, TD
         AmeriTrade's failure to disclose any security breach
         violated its fiduciary duties to the California
         Resident Class members;

     (l) whether, in light of its fiduciary duties, TD
         AmeriTrade's failure to disclose any security brach
         violated its fiduciary duties to the California
         Resident Class members;

     (m) whether TD AmeriTrade violated the CLRA;

     (n) whether TD AmeriTrade violated the UCL; and

     (o) whether plaintiff and the California Resident Class are
         entitled to relief, and the nature of such relief.

Plaintiff prays that court enter judgment and orders in their favor and
against defendants as follows:

     -- certifying the action as a class action and designating
        plaintiff and his counsel as representatives of the
        California Resident Class, the CAN SPAM Class;

     -- with respect to Counts I, II, and III, equitable relief
        for the California Resident Class, including an order
        for accounting, an order enjoining the misconduct
        alleged, restitution of property gained by this
        misconduct and disgorgement of profits obtained while
        the breach of fiduciary duty was on going, such as
        commissions on trades;

     -- with respect to Count III, damages in an amount to be
        determined at trial for the California Resident Class;

     -- with respect to Count IV, an injunction against further
        violations of CAN SPAM, statutory damages for each
        Traced Spam to each CAN SPAM class member, and
        reasonable costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees
        under the CAN SPAM Act, for the CAN SPAM Class;

     -- awarding pre- and post-judgment interest; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as the court may
        deem just and proper.

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

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

The suit is “Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-02852-BZ,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Bernard Zimmerman.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb
          2757 Leonis Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90058
          Phone: (323) 585-8696
          Fax: (323) 585-8198
          E-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 920-3072
          Fax: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kolaw.com

          - and -

          Ethan Mark Preston, Esq.
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 920-3072
          Fax: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: ep@eplaw.us


TD BANKNORTH: June 27 Hearing Set in Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A June 27, 2007 fairness hearing is slated for the $2.95 million settlement
of a consolidated stockholder class action TD Banknorth, Inc., which arose
out of a proposed merger with The Toronto-Dominion Bank.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the day the merger agreement between TD Banknorth and The
Toronto-Dominion Bank was announced, five complaints were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against
TD Banknorth, TD Banknorth's Board of Directors, and with the exception of
one complaint, The Toronto-Dominion Bank.  

A sixth complaint was filed on Nov. 21, 2006.  One week later, two complaints
were filed in the Supreme Court of New York on Nov. 28 and 30, 2006,
respectively.  Finally, a Maine action was filed on Dec. 8, 2006 in Superior
Court.

All nine complaints are putative class actions filed on behalf of TD
Banknorth’s former public stockholders, which sought to enjoin the recently
completed transaction or collect damages on the grounds that disclosure has
been inadequate and that the consideration offered by The Toronto-Dominion
Bank is inadequate.

They all allege that TD Banknorth’s directors and its majority shareholder,
The Toronto-Dominion Bank, have breached fiduciary duties to the public
shareholders by allowing The Toronto-Dominion Bank to exert undue control
over TD Banknorth within the merger process.

In an order issued on Nov. 29, 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved
the Delaware plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the six Delaware cases into
one comprehensive action within that court.

On or about Feb. 21, 2007, the parties to the consolidated action, “In re TD
Banknorth Shareholders Litigation,” entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of the six lawsuits comprising
this consolidated action, without admission of any wrongdoing by any of the
defendants.

The memorandum of understanding provides for, among other things, the
establishment by The Toronto-Dominion Bank of a settlement fund for the
benefit of public TD Banknorth stockholders in an aggregate amount of
approximately $2.95 million.

While TD Banknorth and The Toronto-Dominion Bank believe that these lawsuits
are without merit, they sought a settlement in order to avoid the burdens and
expense of further litigation.

Notice is being provided to all qualified stockholders of a “fairness
hearing” in the Delaware Chancery Court for Newcastle County to be held on
the proposed settlement on June 27, 2007, 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.

Voluntary stays of the New York and Maine actions have been filed with the
respective courts.

TD Banknorth, Inc. -- http://www.tdbanknorth.com/-- is a bank holding  
company that conducts business through TD Banknorth, National Association (TD
Banknorth, NA or the Bank) and various non-banking subsidiaries.  Through TD
Banknorth, NA and its subsidiaries, the Company offers a range of banking
services and products to individuals, businesses and governments. TD
Banknorth is a majority-owned subsidiary of The Toronto-Dominion Bank.  The
privatization of TD Banknorth was completed on April 20, 2007.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Federal Court Certifies Backdating Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge ruled Monday that a shareholder class action against
UnitedHealth Group Inc. can proceed, The Associated Press reports.

According to U.S. District Judge James M. Rosenbaum, lead plaintiff
California Public Employees Retirement System, has a valid and
straightforward claim that deserves a closer look.

The complaint, filed in July 2006, alleges the defendants illegally misled
investors about UnitedHealth's financial prospects and that the
company "spring-loaded" options - granting stock options just ahead of
positive news, helping lock in a profit for the recipient of the options
(Class Action Reporter, Sep. 19, 2006).

Defendant Unitedhealth admitted some stock options that were granted to some
executives were most likely backdated.

The company moved for a dismissal of the suit but to no avail.

The suit is "California Public Employees Retirement System v. UnitedHealth
Group, Inc. et al., Case No.: 0:06-cv-02939-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of  
Minnesota presided by Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge
Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.  
          Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
          332 Minnesota St Ste E-1250
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Phone: 651-287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com  

Representing the defendants is:

          Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq.
          Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
          651 Nicollet Mall Ste 501
          Mpls, MN 55402-4123
          Phone: (612) 341-0400
          Fax: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: cga@zimmreed.com               


US AIRWAYS: Former Pilot Sues in D.C. Court Over Age 60 Rule
------------------------------------------------------------
A former US Airways Group, Inc. pilot filed a lawsuit for alleged violation
of Age Discrimination in Employment Act against:

      * Air Line Pilots Association, International;
      * US Airways Group, Inc.; and
      * American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
        Organization.

Named plaintiff Gene H. Carswell also brings this suit under the Railway
Labor Act against ALPA and the AFL-CIO, his exclusive bargaining
representatives, for breach of duty of fair representation.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and
liquidated.  This age discrimination breach of duty of fair representation
case arose out of alleged forced terminations that occurred at US Airways
between 1997 and the present.

US Airways, a corporation headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, but having major
operations in Washington, D.C., allegedly engaged in age discrimination when
it required the Plaintiff and 99.9% of US Airways pilots to retire when they
turned sixty (60) years of age.

US Airways’ policy specified that a pilot’s normal retirement date shall be
the first day of the month coincident with, or next following, the pilot’s
sixtieth (60th) birthday, according to the complaint filed in U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia on April 6, 2007.  The named Plaintiff and
approximately 500 to 1500 other US Airways pilots age 40 and older, who were
and are employed by US Airways since 1997, were and are subject to US
Airways’ companywide, mandatory retirement policy.

This ongoing policy is based solely on age, and does not give consideration
to a pilot’s health, experience, or ability, the complaint states.

The Plaintiff and other former employees learned that their positions were
and would be filled before and after their terminations.  They also learned
that their positions were and would be filled by younger pilots, according to
the complaint.

In the months prior to the Plaintiff’s alleged forced resignation in February
2007, the Defendants knew or should have known that the Age 60 Rule was
discriminatory and no longer a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification.

Plaintiff brings the action for violations of the ADEA on behalf of himself
and as a representative of a class consisting of all US Airways pilots who
worked for USAirways between 1997 and the date of this complaint, and who
were terminated or forced to retire before the age 60 or upon reaching age
60.

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

                 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?20a4


WHITNEY EDUCATION: Suit Alleges Calif. Education Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Education Group and Wealth Education Academy are facing a class-
action complaint filed May 31 in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Diego Central Division alleging violations of the
California Education Code, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint accuses the Whitney Education Group and Wealth Education
Academy of defrauding consumers by advertising and charging thousands of
dollars for illegal and unlicensed real estate “seminars” and “classes.”

Among the defendants’ alleged scams are their trademarked “Millionaire U,”
and other “real estate ‘get rich’ schemes” which they advertise “through
television infomercials, local seminars, telemarketing practices and other
high pressure sales tactics, with promises of high returns and income,” the
complaint states.

The complaint alleges defendants market their programs with the promise of a
better future through such training and education, with promises of high
returns and income.  Plaintiff and members of the class therefore paid
defendants many thousands of dollars for their courses and training in
California.  However, such solicitation for and sales of such training and
seminars, courses and other educational services are illegal in California
because defendants have not been approved by the Bureau of Private
Postsecondary Vocational Education, a division of California's Department of
Consumer Education.

Named plaintiff Gary N. Rogers claims he paid more than $15,000 for these
bogus services, which “are illegal in California because Defendants have not
been approved by the Bureau of Private Postsecondary Vocational Education”.

Mr. Rogers further claims the defendants have been scamming students for
years through their illegal and unlicensed classes.

He brings this action on behalf of all students living in California at the
time of enrolling in defendants' courses, that have paid defendants for the
training including the Real Estate Investment Training and who satisfy the
following requirements:

     (a) whether the defendants committed a breach of contract
         by not obtaining requisite approval to operate in
         compliance with the law;

     (b) whether the defendants were in compliance with the
         requirements for licensing and approval of a private
         postsecondary vocational education institution and
         whether defendants were in fact so approved;

     (c) whether the defendants knowingly, recklessly, or
         negligently failed to comply with the applicable
         sections of the California Education Code set forth
         relating to their obligations owed to the Bureau and to
         defendants' students;

     (d) whether defendants must refund all tuition paid by
         members of the class because of defendants' violations
         of the California Education Code;

     (e) whether such non-compliance with the California
         Education Code was willful, thereby doubling the amount
         of damages owed to the class;

     (f) the determination of the total amount of tuition, fees
         and other funds defendants received from students while
         defendants were not approved and were otherwise in
         violation of the California Education Code;

     (g) whether the defendants obtained the tuition, fees and
         other funds paid by the students through the negligent
         misrepresentation and concealment and/or omission of
         information relating to their compliance with the
         California Education Code; and

     (h) whether the class has been damaged and/or suffered
         irreparable harm and, if so, the extent of such damages
         and/or the nature of the equitable and injunctive
         relief, compensatory and/or statutory damages to which
         each member of the class is entitled.

Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief follows:

     -- an order certifying that the action may be maintained as
        a class action, that the class be certified and that
        defendants pay the cost of notice;

     -- compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
        including any amounts of restitution arising from
        rescission of the contracts, and as otherwise provided
        for by statute;

     -- that defendants pay all sums due to the Bureau as
        assessments under CEC Section 94945(a) for the Student
        Tuition Recovery Fund;

     -- that any damages, including the restitution required by
        statute and awarded by the court, be doubled upon a
        finding that such violations by defendants were willful,
        as provided for by statute;

     -- a preliminary and/or permanent order providing for
        injunctive relief enjoining defendants from pursuing the
        policies, acts and practices complained of;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- costs of this suit;

     -- pre- and post-judgment interest; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court may deem
        necessary or appropriate.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2098

The suit is "Gary N. Rogers et al. v. Whitney Education Group, et al., Case
No. 37-2007-00067632-CU-BT-CTL," filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Diego, Central Division.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
          Law Offices of Douglas J. Campion
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 299-2091
          Fax: (619) 858-0034


WILD OATS: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Employee Classification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Oats Markets, Inc. is a defendant in a purported labor-related class
action, captioned, “Kelvin Massie, Anne Ress-Lemay and Gary Liss,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated and the California
general public v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc. and Does 1 through 100.”

The suit was filed in April 2007 in the Superior Court, County of Los
Angeles, arising from claimed misclassification of certain exempt employees
while such employees were in a training program, according to the company’s
May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Wild Oats Markets, Inc. -- http://www.wildoats.com/-- is a natural foods  
supermarket chain in North America.  As of Feb. 26, 2007, the Company
operated 110 natural foods stores in 24 states and British Columbia, Canada
under several names, including Wild Oats Marketplace (nationwide), Henry’s
Farmers Market (southern California), Sun Harvest (Texas) and Capers
Community Market (British Columbia, Canada).

Wild Oats provides a selection of natural, organic and gourmet foods,
environmentally friendly household products and natural vitamins,
supplements, herbal and homeopathic remedies, and body care products.  Its
selection of natural and organic products include dry grocery, produce, meat,
poultry, seafood, dairy, frozen, prepared foods, bakery, vitamins and
supplements, health and body care, and household items.


WORLD POKER: Poker Professionals Denied Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------
District Court Judge Otis D. Wright II denied a request for summary judgment
filed by seven poker professionals in an antitrust suit against the World
Poker Tour Enterprises Inc., Online-Casinos.com reports.

Former World Champions Chris Ferguson, Greg Raymer and Joseph Hachem, along
with Howard Lederer, Annie Duke, Andy Bloch and Phil Gordon filed the suit
last year, alleging that releases that players are required to sign before
they can play in WPT events infringed on their personal property rights and
prevented them from pursuing their livelihood of professional poker.

In April this year, the plaintiffs asked for summary judgment.  Judge Wright
denied the request saying that in the absence of an agreed settlement between
the players and the WPT, the issue will have to be judicially heard in full.

There is yet no indication of when the issue will be heard in full in court,
and there has thus far been little indication that a settlement might be
achieved, according to the report.

Representing World Poker Tour Enterprises is Adam Pliska.

Representing WPT in the case is:

          Adam Pliska, Esq.
          World Poker Tour , LLC
          1041 N. Formosa Avenue Formosa Building, Suite # 99
          West Hollywood, CA 90046
          Phone:  (323) 850-2870
          Fax:  (323) 850-2888
          Web Site: http://www.worldpokertour.com


XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xerium Technologies, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported securities fraud
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

On June 7, 2006, Parkside Capital Ltd. filed a purported class action
complaint on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated against the
company, the company's chief executive officer and the company's chief
financial officer.  The company was served with the complaint on June 8,
2006.  

The complaint concerns the company's initial public offering of common stock
and alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) and liability under
Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.  

Plaintiff seeks rescission rights, attorneys' fees and other costs and
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's common stock "pursuant and/or traceable to the company's IPO on or
about May 16, 2005 through Nov, 15, 2005."

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 9, 2007 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Parkside Capital Ltd. v. Xerium Technologies Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-10991-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Rya W.
Zobel.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134
         E-mail: ted@shulaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Seth C. Harrington, Esq.
         Ropes & Gray, LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-7226
         Fax: 617-951-7050
         E-mail: seth.harrington@ropesgray.com



ZEIGLER BROS: Recalls Shrimp Feeds Found to Contain Melamine
------------------------------------------------------------
Zeigler Bros., Inc., in cooperation with the U. S. Food and Drug
Administration, is voluntarily recalling its pelleted and crumbled shrimp
feeds.

The recalled products all include the feed ingredient "AquaBond", which has
been found to contain the chemical melamine and related compounds.   AquaBond
is a binding agent purchased in the United States by Zeigler and used in its
production of pelleted and crumbled shrimp feeds.  It is used in a much lower
concentration than similar ingredients used in the recent U. S. pet food
recall.

No other Zeigler products are involved in this voluntary recall.  Only
Zeigler pelleted and crumbled shrimp feeds are formulated with AquaBond.  
Zeigler extruded shrimp feeds and shrimp larval feeds do not contain AquaBond
and are not included in the recall.

Zeigler is working closely with the FDA and with Uniscope, Zeigler's supplier
for AquaBond, to provide timely product information and immediate recall
instructions to its customers to assure product safety.  Zeigler is not aware
of any instances of ill health effects in shrimp fed with Zeigler pelleted
and crumbled shrimp feeds.

The FDA has issued a press release, dated May 30, 2007, indicating that feeds
made with these binding agents are "very unlikely" to pose a human health
risk.  Details from the full FDA press release can be found at
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01643.html. FDA has also issued a  
safety/risk assessment on melamine and analogues at
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/melamra.html.

Zeigler is recommending to customers to immediately stop feeding its pelleted
and crumbled shrimp feed products.  They are in the process of providing the
entire shrimp feed product list on their website:
http://www.zeiglerfeed.com.  

Questions can be directed to Zeigler at 800-841-6800 or via e-mail:
info@zeiglerfeed.com.


* Howrey Hires Lovells Partner to Launch U.K. Antitrust Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howrey LLP, a firm with exceptional record on antitrust, global litigation
and intellectual property rights, has launched an antitrust practice in
London, United Kingdom.

The firm hired Lovells partner Tom McQuail, who has specializations in
European Union and United Kingdom competition law.  He was based in Brussels,
Belgium since 1992.  He became a Lovells partner seven years after and a
managing partner from 2003 to 2006.

The advent of U.S. class actions in London triggered Howrey to follow suit.

Based on the report, U.S. firms Cohen Milstein Hausfield & Toll, DLA Piper
and Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom have already launched London practices
to cope with the expected demand in this area.


* China Toothpaste Banned Due To Toxic Chemical, Poison Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned consumers to avoid using
tubes of toothpaste labeled as made in China, and issued an import alert to
prevent toothpaste containing the poisonous chemical diethylene glycol (DEG)
from entering the United States.

DEG is used in antifreeze and as a solvent.

Consumers should examine toothpaste products for labeling that says the
product is made in China.  Out of an abundance of caution, FDA suggests that
consumers throw away toothpaste with that labeling.  FDA is concerned that
these products may contain "diethylene glycol," also known as "diglycol"
or "diglycol stearate."

FDA is not aware of any U.S. reports of poisonings from toothpaste containing
DEG.  However, the agency is concerned about potential risks from chronic
exposure to DEG and exposure to DEG in certain populations, such as children
and individuals with kidney or liver disease.

DEG in toothpaste has a low but meaningful risk of toxicity and injury to
these populations.  Toothpaste is not intended to be swallowed, but FDA is
concerned about unintentional swallowing or ingestion of toothpaste
containing DEG.

FDA has identified the following brands of toothpaste from China that contain
DEG and are included in the import alert:

     Cooldent Fluoride,          Cooldent Spearmint
     Cooldent ICE,               Dr. Cool, Everfresh Toothpaste
     Superdent Toothpaste,       Clean Rite Toothpaste
     Oralmax Extreme,            Oral Bright Fresh Spearmint            
                                  Flavor
     Bright Max Peppermint Flavor, ShiR Fresh Mint Fluoride  
                                   Paste         
     DentaPro,                    DentaKleen, and
                                  DentaKleen Junior

Manufacturers of these products are: Goldcredit International Enterprises
Limited; Goldcredit International Trading Company Limited; and Suzhou City
Jinmao Daily Chemicals Company Limited.  The products typically are sold at
low-cost, “bargain” retail outlets.

Based on reports of contaminated toothpaste from China found in several
countries, including Panama, FDA increased its scrutiny and began sampling
toothpaste and other dental products manufactured in China that were imported
into the United States.

FDA inspectors identified and detained one shipment of toothpaste at the U.S.
border, containing about 3 percent DEG by weight.  In addition, FDA
inspectors found and tested toothpaste products from China located at a
distribution center and a retail store.  The highest level found was between
3-4 percent by weight.  The product at the retail store was not labeled as
containing DEG but was found to contain the substance.

DEG poisoning is an important public safety issue.  The agency is aware of
reports of patient deaths and injuries in other countries over the past
several years from ingesting DEG-contaminated pharmaceutical preparations,
such as cough syrups and acetaminophen syrup.  FDA recently issued a guidance
document to urge U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers to be vigilant in assuring
that glycerin, a sweetener commonly used worldwide in liquid over-the-counter
and prescription drug products, is not contaminated with DEG.

FDA continues to investigate this problem.  If FDA identifies other brands of
toothpaste products containing DEG, FDA will take appropriate actions,
including adding products and their manufacturers to the import alert to
prevent them from entering the United States.

Consumers can report adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with
the use of these products to FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm,phone: (800) 332-1088.


                 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
------------------------

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.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


MACY’S INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Macy's Inc. (formerly known as Federated Department
Stores, Inc.) publicly traded securities during the period between February
8, 2007 and May 15, 2007.

The complaint charges Macy's and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that between February 8, 2007 and May 15, 2007,
defendants caused Macy's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels by
concealing that the May integration was actually failing, sales growth was
diminishing, the Company's business had deteriorated, and as a result, its
sales projections were grossly overstated. Defendants' positive statements
had their intended effect and the Company's stock price reached a Class
Period high of $46.70 by March 23, 2007.

The complaint further alleges that Macy's stock price plummeted between May
10, 2007 and May 15, 2007, as the Company disclosed that customers of the
former May stores had actually rejected the rapid conversion, that sales at
the Company's new Macy's stores had declined during the first quarter of
2007, and that in particular, the Company's decision to dramatically cut the
number of days coupons could be used at the former May locations had badly
damaged sales. On this news, the Company's stock price plunged to a price
nearly 18% lower than its Class Period high, erasing over $3 billion in
market capitalization.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Macy's
publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

Macy's, the second-largest U.S. department store franchise, operates more
than 850 department stores in 45 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and
Puerto Rico under the names of Macy's and Bloomingdale's. Macy's acquired May
Department Stores Co. ("May") in 2005 for $11 billion.

For more information, contact:

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


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *