CAR_Public/070612.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, June 12, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 115

                            Headlines


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Sued in Calif. Over Contact Lens Solution
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Nov. 26 Trial Slated for Calif. Labor Lawsuit
BLUE RIDGE: Seeks Review of $2M Award in Tenn. Pollution Lawsuit
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: N.J. Securities Suit Deadlines Stayed
BSH HOME: Recalls Ceramic Cooktops Posing Fire Hazard

CANADA: Immigrant Doctors Plan to Sue Over Residency Status
CALIFORNIA: Suit Planned to Return $5.1B in Unclaimed Assets
CONCORD CAMERA: “Underwood” Securities Suit Settlement Approved
CONCORD CAMERA: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Fla.
CONSECO INC: No Ruling Yet in Bid to Junk Ind. Securities Suit

CREATIVE EXPRESSIONS: Recalls Party Hats with Detachable Part
FIJI: Hearing on GCC’s Suit Over VP Nomination Set June 29
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Recalls Faulty Gas Ranges, Posing Fire Hazard
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Paxil Suit Plaintiffs Sue Over Objection
JRA FURNITURE: Defendant in Martha Stewart Table Suit Goes Bust

MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Wisconsin
PHILIP MORRIS: “Watson” Lights Case Remanded to Ark. State Court
PNC FINANCIAL: 3rd Circuit Refuses to Review Junked ERISA Suit
PRICELINE.COM: July 2 Hearing Set for $80M Securities Suit Deal
RESOURCE ENERGY: Reaches Settlement in N.Y. Royalties Litigation

ST. JUDE: Minn. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
TIME WARNER: Objection Delays $2.65M Settlement Distribution
TRISTAR FOOD: Recalls Chocolate Due to Undeclared Peanuts
TYSON FOODS: March 3, 2008 Trial Slated for "Trollinger" Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: Consolidated Del. Shareholder Suit in Discovery

TYSON FOODS: Seeks Dismissal of Certain Claims in Okla. Lawsuit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Seeks Nixing of Minn. PSLRA Litigation
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of Minn. 401(k) Lawsuit
UNITED AMERICAN: Court Grants Summary Judgment Motion in “Moore”
UNITED PARCEL: Calif. Delivery Drivers to Get Part of $87M Deal


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NETLIST INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Cal.
TELIK INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.


                            *********


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Sued in Calif. Over Contact Lens Solution
-----------------------------------------------------------
What is believed to be the first class action brought in the U.S. against the
manufacturer of Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM) contact lens solution was filed
in Orange County Superior Court in Santa Ana, California (Case#07CC01297).

The product was voluntarily recalled on May 25 at the request of the Food &
Drug Administration in the wake of reports of an association between the
solution and serious corneal infections.
The lawsuit, naming ocular products manufacturer Advanced Medical Optics,
Inc. and others as defendants, was brought by Nicole Lazar on behalf of
California consumers who purchased the product but have not alleged physical
injuries.

The case lawsuit seeks reimbursement of money consumers spent to purchase the
product. In addition, the action seeks reimbursement for the cost of
replacing potentially contaminated contact lenses and lens cases as a result
of the FDA's recommendation that these products also be discarded by anyone
who has used them in conjunction with Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM).

The lawsuit alleges that AMO falsely marketed the solution as an effective
contact lens disinfectant against infection-causing microbes.  The complaint
cites CDC data showing that consumers who disinfected their lenses with
Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM) had a seven-fold increased risk of developing a
sight-threatening condition known as Acanthamoeba keratitis as compared with
consumers who used other lens disinfectant products.  

The illness, which usually affects the corneas of contact lens wearers, is
caused by a family of microorganisms most commonly found in soil and water.  
The infection can be chronic, resistant to treatment, and often requires
surgical interventions such as corneal transplantation.  It may lead to
blindness.

Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM) is one of a number of so-called "all-in-one"
or "multipurpose" contact lens solutions developed as "more convenient"
alternatives to hydrogen peroxide disinfectant systems.  According to the
class action complaint, studies published well before the product was
recalled showed that the disinfectant in Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM) was
vastly inferior to hydrogen peroxide as well as other solutions on the market
in eradicating Acanthamoeba.

The class action alleges that AMO was aware of the ineffectiveness of their
product but concealed that information from consumers who were led to believe
that the solution was at least as effective as others on the market.

"Injured consumers will be able to bring their own individual cases, but
there also needs to be a remedy for those who escaped infection, but were
nevertheless persuaded by AMO's marketing campaign to purchase an inferior
product," said noted Newport Beach attorney Mark P. Robinson, whose firm
Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson is acting as co-lead counsel on the case with
Thomas M. Moore of Moore Labriola LLP, also based in Newport Beach.

Mr. Moore's firm along with Schmidt & Clark in Dallas, Texas represent the
plaintiff in the first personal injury case against AMO filed this past
Monday on behalf of a San Diego man who developed Acanthamoeba keratitis and
suffered sight loss after using the now-recalled Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM)
solution.  Mr. Robinson, Mr., Moore, and Schmidt say they are reviewing a
number of potential claims and expect additional personal injury cases to be
filed in the near future.

For more information, contact:

          Schmidt & Clark Robert H Hilley IV
          Phone: 858-688-0923
          E-mail: hilley@schmidtandclark.com
          Web site: http://www.schmidtandclark.com

Plaintiffs’ lawyers can be contacted at:

          Mark P. Robinson Jr.
          Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson  
          620 Newport Center Drive, 7th Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 720-1288 or (888) 701-1288 (Toll Free)
          Fax: (949) 720-1292
          Web site:  http://www.orangecountylaw.com

          - and -

          Thomas M. Moore
          Moore Labriola LLP
          620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1100
          Newport Beach, California 92660
          Phone: (949) 275-0088 or (310) 528-3652
          E-mail: tmoore@moorelabriola.com
          Website: http://www.moorelabriola.com/


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Nov. 26 Trial Slated for Calif. Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 26, 2007 trial is scheduled for a purported class action filed against
Apria Healthcare Group, Inc. in the California Superior Court for the County
of San Francisco.

The suit contains blanket claims of liability under various
California employee protection statutes and regulations relating to:

     -- payment of regular and overtime wages;  

     -- the timeliness of such payments;

     -- the maintenance and provision of access to required  
        payroll records; and  

     -- the provision of meal and rest periods.  

The suit is "Venegas v. Apria Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No.
CGC-06-449669," filed on Feb. 21, 2006.  No class has been certified at this
time but the complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount as well as other relief on behalf of a purported class
consisting of certain hourly employees of the company in the State of
California.

The company has filed an answer to the complaint denying all material
allegations and asserting a number of affirmative defenses.

To date, plaintiff has not filed a motion for class certification.  The court
has set the case for trial beginning Nov. 26, 2007, according to the
company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Apria Healthcare, Inc. -- http://www.apria.com/-- provides a range of home  
healthcare services through approximately 475 branch locations that serve
patients in all 50 states throughout the U.S.  The company has three service
lines: home respiratory therapy, home infusion therapy and home medical
equipment.  


BLUE RIDGE: Seeks Review of $2M Award in Tenn. Pollution Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. is asking the Tennessee Supreme Court to
review a ruling by the Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section to uphold
an award of $2 million in damages to landowners along the Pigeon River who
filed a personal nuisance class action against the company.

Under the verdict, the settlement will be split among the approximately 300
landowners who joined the lawsuit (Clas Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2007).  

The suit was filed in April 2003 on behalf of approximately 300 residents
owning property adjoining the Pigeon River, Cocke County, Tennessee, upon
which Blue Ridge's paper mill in Canton, North Carolina, is located, and into
which the company has a permit to discharge.  

The plaintiffs were seeking damages for private nuisance in the period
commencing June 1, 1999, and thereafter until present.  
The demand for damages totaled approximately $22,500 (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2006).  

The plaintiffs in this action alleged that the discharge of (colored) water
from the Canton Mill resulted in diminution of property value, but it did not
raise health or safety concerns.

On Aug. 17, 2005, a Cocke County Court jury ruled in favor of the Plaintiff
class awarding $2,000 for nuisance damages with no punitive damages being
awarded.  

The company appealed the decision to the Tennessee Court of
Appeals Eastern Section in Knoxville, Tennessee.  In January 2007, the court
ruled in favor of the jury verdict.  

A petition to review the Court of Appeals ruling has been made to the
Tennessee Supreme Court, according to the company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

Blue Ridge Paper on the Net: http://www.blueridgepaper.com.


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: N.J. Securities Suit Deadlines Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of New Jersey issued an order staying deadlines in a
securities fraud class action against Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. pending
the completion of mediation between the parties in the matter.

The company, along with certain of its officers and directors, were named
defendants in 13 federal securities class actions that were consolidated on
May 5, 2005 in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey.   

In the amended consolidated complaint, filed on June 20, 2005, the plaintiffs
allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, arising out of disclosures
that plaintiffs allege were materially false and misleading.

Plaintiffs also allege that the company and the individual defendants falsely
recognized revenue.  Plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.   

The company and the individual defendants filed their initial response on
July 20, 2005 seeking to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint in its
entirety with prejudice.

On March 23, 2006, the Court issued an order denying the Company’s motion to
dismiss the federal securities class action lawsuit.

Pursuant to a June 28, 2006 Scheduling Conference with the Court and the
Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order of that date, discovery in the federal
securities class action lawsuit has begun.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on Jan. 15, 2007.  
Defendants filed their response on April 2, 2007.

On April 20, 2007, the court issued an order staying further deadlines in the
matter pending the completion of mediation between the parties, according to
the company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Esposito v. Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty  
Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Joseph J. Depalma, Esq.
         Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
         Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07102-5003
         Phone: (973) 623-3000
         E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         James P. Flynn of Epstein, Esq.
         Becker & Green, PC
         Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07102-5003
         Phone: (973) 642-1900
         E-mail: jflynn@ebglaw.com


BSH HOME: Recalls Ceramic Cooktops Posing Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
BSH Home Appliances Corp. of Huntington Beach, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall
of about 2,000 Thermador Brand Ceramic Cooktops.

BSH Home said the cooktop can come on by itself when switched off, creating a
potential fire hazard if flammable items are left on the cooktop.

The firm has received neither incident nor injury reports.

The cooktop has electric and induction heating elements with a black ceramic
glass surface.  This recall involves model numbers CIT302DS/01 and
CIT362DS/01 with date codes between 8606 and 8612.  The model number and date
code can be found on the underside of the cooktop.

These cooktops were manufactured in Spain and were sold at appliance and
specialty stores nationwide from October 2006 through March 2007 for between
$1,800 and $2,200.

Consumers should disconnect the cooktop at the circuit breaker when not in
use, and never leave anything on the cooktop when it is unattended.  Contact
BSH Home Appliances for a free in-home repair.

To view the photo of the recalled product, click:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07207.html

For more information, contact BSH Home Appliances at (800) 758-1001 between 7
a.m. and 11 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at
http://www.thermador.com.


CANADA: Immigrant Doctors Plan to Sue Over Residency Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations is planning to file a class
action on behalf of foreign-trained doctors who were refused residency status
in Quebec, Charlie Fidelman of Gazette Health reports.

Fo Niemi, head of the center, said his group will pursue a suit if it was
found that the practice of Quebec’s medical schools of refusing immigrant
candidates for residency positions violates the Quebec Charter of Human
Rights and Freedoms and international conventions on racial discrimination.

The doctors have requested an investigation into the matter with the Quebec
Human Rights Commission last week.  Mr. Niemi believes there exist
an “arbitrary and systematic fashion” to deny immigrant doctors residency
status after some 150 of 200 who passed the Canadian and provincial
qualifying exams were denied the residency status.

The group of doctors is demanding that an independent committee revise the
admissions process and re-evaluate each rejected physician.


CALIFORNIA: Suit Planned to Return $5.1B in Unclaimed Assets
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer William Palmer of Sacramento said he plans to pursue a class action to
return financial assets improperly seized from owners under the state’s
unclaimed property law, Ed Mendel of the Union-Tribune reports.

California has a law that requires banks and businesses holding a wide range
of financial assets to give the property to the state when there has been no
contact with the owner for three years.

Recently, U.S. District Judge William Shubb in Sacramento ordered that the
state stop seizing financial assets until it improves its system of notifying
owners regarding the existence of their bank accounts, insurance policies,
trust funds, or contents of safety deposit boxes.

The state has earned $5.1 billion from the program of sequestering unclaimed
assets in recent decades.  “If the purpose of the law is, as the controller
has reportedly said, to reunite owners with their lost or forgotten property,
its ultimate goal should be to generate little or no revenue at all for the
state,” Judge Shubb wrote in his ruling, according to the report.

Mr. Palmer wants to recover much of the $5.1 billion in unclaimed property
taken by the state for more than 8 million individuals and organizations.

According to the report, the Controller's Office has been unable to notify
more than 80 percent of unclaimed property owners.


CONCORD CAMERA: “Underwood” Securities Suit Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted final
approval to a $1.5 million settlement of the class action, "Underwood, et al.
v. Concord Camera Corp., et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-21154-CMA."

The class consists of all persons who purchased the common stock of Concord
Camera Corp., during the period between Jan. 18, 2001 through and including
June 22, 2001.

In July 2002, individuals purporting to be shareholders of the company filed
a class action complaint against the company and certain of its officers.  

On Aug. 20, 2002, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and in
December 2002, the court granted the company's motion and the complaint was
dismissed.

In January 2003, an amended class action complaint was filed adding certain
of the company's current and former directors as defendants.   

Lead plaintiffs in the amended complaint sought to act as representatives of
a class consisting of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
issued pursuant to the company's Sept. 26, 2000 secondary offering or from
Sept. 26, 2000 to June 22, 2001, inclusive.  

On April 18, 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and on Aug. 27, 2004, the court dismissed all claims against the
defendants related to the secondary offering.  

On Sept. 8, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and certified as plaintiffs all persons who purchased the
common stock between Jan. 18, 2001 and June 22, 2001, inclusive, and who were
allegedly damaged thereby.

The allegations remaining in the amended complaint are centered on claims:  

      -- that the company failed to disclose, in periodic  
         reports it filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange  
         Commission and in press releases it made to the public  
         during the class period regarding its operations and  
         financial results;

      -- that a large portion of its accounts receivable was  
         represented by a delinquent and uncollectible balance  
         due from then customer, KB Gear Interactive, Inc.; and  

      -- that a material portion of its inventory consisted of  
         customized components that had no alternative usage.  

The amended complaint claims that such failures artificially inflated the
price of the common stock.  It seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs of suit and unspecified other and further relief from
the court.


In 2006, the company reached an agreement in principle with th plaintiffs on
the settlement of the lawsuit (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006).

On Jan. 26, 2007, the court issued a final judgment and order of dismissal
approving the settlement set forth in the stipulation of settlement and
dismissing with prejudice the lawsuit based on a class action complaint that
was filed against the company in
July 2002.

The suit is "Underwood, et al. v. Concord Camera Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:02-cv-21154-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Cecilia M.
Altonaga.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Jack Reise, Esq.
         Robert Jeffrey Robbins, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 750-3364
         E-mail: jreise@lerachlaw.com
                 rrobbins@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Maya Susan Saxena, Esq.
         Saxena White PA
         2424 N Federal Highway, Suite 257
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Phone: 561-394-3399
         Fax: 394-3382
         E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com

Representing defendants are:

         Richard Eugene Brodsky, Esq.
         Alvin Bruce Davis, Esq.
         Wendy Susan Leavitt, Esq.
         Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
         Wachovia Financial Ctr., 200 S Biscayne Blvd., 40th Fl.        
         Miami, FL 33131-2398
         Phone: 305-577-7000 or 305-577-2835
         Fax: 577-7001
         E-mail: rbrodsky@ssd.com
                 adavis@ssd.com
                 wleavitt@ssd.com

              - and -

         Catherine Whitfield, Esq.
         Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
         1900 Phillips Point West, 777 S Flagler Drive
         West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6198
         Phone: 561-650-7200
         Fax: 561-655-1509
         E-mail: CWhitfield@ssd.com


CONCORD CAMERA: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Concord Camera Corp. and certain of its officers continue to face a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed on 2004 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, according to the company’s May
10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

In August 2005, plaintiffs who purport to be shareholders of the company
amended their complaint to add a former officer of the company as a
defendant.  

The lead plaintiff in the amended complaint seeks to act as a representative
of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
from Aug. 14, 2003 to Aug. 31, 2004, inclusive, and who were allegedly
damaged thereby.

Allegations in the amended complaint are centered around claims that the
company failed to disclose, in periodic reports it filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission and in press releases it made to the
public during the class period regarding its operations and financial results:

      -- the full extent of the company's excess, obsolete and
         otherwise impaired inventory;

      -- the departure of a former officer from the company
         until several months after his departure; and

      -- that Kodak would cancel its design and manufacturing
         services contracts with the company due to the
         company's alleged infringement of Eastman Kodak Co.'s
         patents.

The amended complaint also alleges that the company improperly recognized
revenue contrary to accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. due
to an inability to reasonably estimate digital camera returns.  It claims
that such failures artificially inflated the price of the common stock.  

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit and unspecified other and further relief from the court.

The suit is “Mazur, et al. v. Lampert, et al., Case No. 0:04-cv-61159-JAL”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under
Judge Joan A. Lenard with referral to Judge Edwin G. Torres.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
         Berger & Montague, P.C.
         1622 Locust Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
         Phone: 215-875-3071
         Fax: 215-875-4604

              - and -

         Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
         Vianale & Vianale
         2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Phone: 561-392-4750
         Fax: 561-392-4775
         E-mail: jvianale@vianalelaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Hilarie Bass, Esq.
         Greenberg Traurig
         1221 Brickell Avenue
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-579-0745
         Fax: 305-579-0717
         E-mail: bassh@gtlaw.com

              - and -

         Richard Eugene Brodsky, Esq.
         Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
         Wachovia Financial Ctr., 200 S Biscayne Blvd., 40th Fl.
         Miami, FL 33131-2398
         Phone: 305-577-7000
         Fax: 305-577-7001
         E-mail: rbrodsky@ssd.com


CONSECO INC: No Ruling Yet in Bid to Junk Ind. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has yet to rule
on a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for the consolidated
securities class action filed against Conseco, Inc., and some of its former
officers.

After the company’s predecessor (Conseco, Inc., incorporated in Indiana)
announced its intention to restructure on Aug. 9, 2002, eight purported
securities fraud class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.  

These suits were filed on behalf of persons or entities that purchased its
Predecessor's common stock on various dates between Oct. 24, 2001 and Aug. 9,
2002.  

The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and allege material omissions and
dissemination of materially misleading statements regarding, among other
things, the liquidity of Conseco and alleged problems in Conseco Finance
Corp.’s manufactured housing division, allegedly resulting in the artificial
inflation of the company's Predecessor's stock price.

On March 13, 2003, all of these cases were consolidated into one case in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, captioned, "Franz
Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel
and James Adams, et al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB."

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint with respect to the individual
defendants on Dec. 8, 2003.

A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Mr. Shea, Mr. Wendt and
Mr. Chokel and on July 14, 2005, this matter was dismissed.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Aug. 24, 2005.  The company
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on Nov. 7, 2005.  The
court has not yet ruled on this motion, 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 "Schleicher, et al. v. Wendt, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-01332-DFH-
TAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
under Judge David Frank Hamilton with referral to Judge Tim A. Baker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kwasi Abraham Asiedu, Esq.
         3858 Carson Street, Suite 204
         Torrance, CA 90503
         Phone: (310) 792-3948
         Fax: (310) 792-0600
         E-mail: laskido@hotmail.com

              - and -

         Brian Joseph Barry, Eqs.
         Law Offices Of Brian Barry
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 307
         Los Angeles, CA 90046
         Phone: (310) 788-0831
         Fax: (310) 788-0841
         E-mail: bribarry1@yahoo.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven Kenneth Huffer, Esq.
         Huffer & Weathers
         151 North Delaware Street, Suite 1850
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Phone: (317) 822-8010
         Fax: (317) 822-8088
         E-mail: steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com

              - and -

         Robert J. Kopecky, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis
         200 East Randolph Drive
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 861-2084
         Fax: (317) 660-0412
         E-mail: rkopecky@kirkland.com


CREATIVE EXPRESSIONS: Recalls Party Hats with Detachable Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
Creative Expressions, of Indianapolis, Ind., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling nearly 43,100
Children’s Party Hats.

The firm said the foil fringe glued to the bottom edge of the party hats can
detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The paper party hats involved in this recall measure 6.5-inches high by 4.5-
inches wide and are cone shaped.  The blue paper hats have “1st” printed on
the front and blue foil fringe glued to the bottom.

The hats were manufactured in China and were sold at party and discount
department stores nationwide from February 2005 through May 2007 for about $4.

Consumers should discard the hats immediately and contact Creative
Expressions to receive a full refund.

To view the photo of the hat subject to recall:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07208.html

For additional information, contact Creative Expressions at (800) 428-5017
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s
Web site at http://www.ceg4party.com.


FIJI: Hearing on GCC’s Suit Over VP Nomination Set June 29
----------------------------------------------------------
Fiju’s High Court will decide on June 29 whether to hear a purported class
action filed by the Great Council Chiefs against the interim regime,
Fijilive.com reports.

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

The suspended chairman of Fiji's GCC and his deputy filed legal action
against the interim minister of Fijian affairs to challenge the legality of
Ratu Epeli Ganilau's decision on the grounds that he is not an elected
minister.

They want the High Court to stop him from appointing new members of the GCC
and to overturn actions taken by him (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2007).

Based on the report, more Fijian chiefs have expressed interest in joining
the class-action before the hearing proper.

GCC lawyer is Savenaca Komaisavai together with Kitione Vuataki.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Recalls Faulty Gas Ranges, Posing Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
GE Consumer & Industrial, of Louisville, Ky., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of
nearly 2,600 units of GE Monogram(R) Professional Gas Ranges.

According to the firm, these ranges have a design flaw that can cause an
electrical arc between the wiring and griddle gas supply tube, posing a fire
hazard.

GE has received reports of six incidents of gas leaking from the griddle gas
supply tube, resulting in five fires under the range top.  One consumer has
reported burns to her hands and two consumers have reported smoke damage.

This recall includes 36-inch and 48-inch stainless steel Monogram Pro ranges
with griddles.  They are fueled either by LP or natural gas and manufactured
from October 2005 through May 16, 2006.  The recall includes the following
ranges: Models ZDP48N6DHSS, ZDP48L6DHSS, ZDP36N4DHSS and ZDP36L4DHSS.  The
recalled range models have a serial letter plus serial number combination as
shown below:

Serial Letter  +   Serial Number
     TH        +   212588 through 213353
     VH        +   123456 through 712240
     ZH        +   210545 through 800064
     AL        +   200002 through 207337
     DL        +   200215 through 980416
     FL        +   202073 through 500677
     GL        +   000468 through 900468
     HL        +   202850 through 203252

To find the manufacture date, and model and serial numbers, look underneath
the top ledge (the “bull nose”) above the range controls.

These gas ranges were manufactured in the U.S. and sold through home builders
and appliance stores nationwide from October 2005 through February 2007 for
between $4,000 and $6,000.

Customers with a recalled range should stop using it immediately and contact
GE for further instructions and to schedule a free, in-home repair.

To view photo of recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07555.html

For more information, call GE Consumer & Industrial toll-free at (877) 546-
0116 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday and between 8 a.m.
and 2 p.m. ET on Saturday, or visit the firm’s Web site at
http://geappliances.com

Firm's media contact is Kim Freeman at (502) 452-7819 or via e-mail:
kim_freeman@ge.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Paxil Suit Plaintiffs Sue Over Objection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs who won a nationwide $63.8 million Paxil class action settlement
filed a suit on June 7 against defendants who objected to the settlement,
Steve Gonzales of The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Teri Hoormann and Mary Kopsie, class representatives in the Paxil litigation,
filed the suit in Madison County Circuit Court against lawyers N. Albert
Bacharach, Jr. and Paul S. Rothstein, and citizen Lillian Rogers.  They claim
the defendants filed frivolous objection that delayed their receipt of their
lawful benefits, thus causing them damage.

"As a result of these illegal activities, defendants are individually liable
for three-times the amount that they have gained," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs are represented by Stephen Swedlow of Chicago, who is also one
of the class attorneys in the Paxil case along with Stephen Tillery.

                  Paxil Litigation Settlement

Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn granted final approval to the
$64 million settlement, The Associated Press reports (Class Action Reporter,
May 25, 2007).

The suit accuses GlaxoSmithKline of promoting the drug for use by children
and adolescents while withholding negative information about the medication's
safety and effectiveness.
The class consists of all U.S. residents who bought Paxil and
Paxil CR, a controlled-release version of the drug.  

Judge Mendelsohn approved on Oct. 6 and unsealed on Oct. 27 the $63.8 million
settlement (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2006).

Under the deal, announced in April and granted final approval in May, parents
with proof that they bought GlaxoSmithKline Paxil and Paxil CR for their
children can recoup out-of-pocket expenses.

Under the new settlement, anyone who purchased Paxil for someone under 18
will get 100 percent of their out-of-pocket expenses reimbursed if they have
proof and file a claim by Aug. 31.

Anyone who does not have proof of purchase is still entitled to receive up to
$100 if the claim is supported by an affidavit swearing that Paxil was
purchased.

Plaintiffs' attorneys can claim more than $16 million in fees, which will be
deducted from the settlement fund, with the remaining money available for
payments to consumers.

Any money left over in the settlement fund is to be returned to
GlaxoSmithKline.

The Settlement on the Net:

         http://www.paxilpediatricsettlement.com  
         http://www.paxilprogress.org
         http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com  

Contact information for class attorney Stephen Tillery Mr. --
http://www.carrkorein.com/-- Belleville, Illinois (St. Clair      
Co.).


JRA FURNITURE: Defendant in Martha Stewart Table Suit Goes Bust
---------------------------------------------------------------
JRA Furniture Industries LLC, a company that is a defendant in a class action
over Martha Stewart-brand glass-top patio tables, has filed for bankruptcy,
reports say.

The company is the supplier of the tables that shatter during normal use.  It
is facing a class action along with Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. and
Kmart Corp.  

JRA Furniture filed a Chapter 7 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Wilmington, Del. last week.  It said it had less than $1 million each in
assets and liabilities, according to an Associated Press report.

The class action was launched in a federal district court in East St. Louis
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12, 2005).  The suit was filed on behalf of
Michelle Ronat, who bought one of the tables, which were sold exclusively by
Kmart, for use in her Bond County, Illinois, home from a local KMart store.
It charges that Martha Stewart Living and KMart violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act and breached the implied warranty that is part of every
retail transaction.

In addition, the suit alleges that substandard parts were used in the
construction of the tables as well as "materials that are inappropriate for
the use for which they are intended" and that the tables have "inherent
design and manufacturing defects" that caused the glass tops to shattered
unexpectedly during ordinary use.

The suit charges that Martha Stewart Living and KMart knew that the tables
had the tendency to shatter during ordinary use and that the company had
received complaints from consumers who had purchased the defective tables and
that it committed fraud by continuing to sell the tables.  

The suit seeks actual and punitive damages on behalf of all consumers who
purchased the tables. Attorney Richard Doherty of Horwitz, Horwitz &
Associates is representing the plaintiffs.
  
For more details, contact Richard Doherty of Horwitz, Horwitz &  
Associates, Phone: 312 372-8822 or 815-723-8822, E-mail:  
cliff@horwitzlaw.com.  


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Technologies, Inc. is facing a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin.

Between March 22, 2006 and April 26, 2006, seven putative securities class
actions were filed on behalf of a class of persons who acquired shares of the
company's common stock between Aug. 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006.

Defendants in the suit include the company, Richard A. Linden, its former
president and chief executive officer; and Scott T. Veech, its former chief
financial officer.  One of the suits also names Brian E. Pedlar, former
president of Cedara Software
Corp. and former senior vice president, who served as interim co-president
and co-chief executive officer from July 2, 2006 to
Aug. 18, 2006.  One case has been voluntarily dismissed.

The cases arise out of the company's March 17, 2006 announcement that the
company would revise its results of operations for the fiscal quarters ended
June 30, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005, as well as its investigation of allegations
made in anonymous letters received by the company.  

The lawsuits allege that the company and individual defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  It seeks damages in unspecified amounts.

The defendant’s deadline to move, answer or otherwise respond to the
remainder of the operative amended complaint was May 21, 2007.

The suit is "Maiden v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-00349-RTR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under
Judge Rudolph T Randam

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Daniel M. Shanley, Esq.
         DeCarlo & Connor
         533 S. Fremont Ave., 9th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1706
         Phone: 213-488-4100
         Fax: 213-488-4180

              - and -

         Paul J. Geller, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants is:

         David H. Kistenbroker, Esq.
         Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
         525 W. Monroe St., Ste. 1900
         Chicago, IL 60661-3693
         Phone: 312-902-5200
         Fax: 312-577-4481
         E-mail: david.kistenbroker@kattenlaw.com


PHILIP MORRIS: “Watson” Lights Case Remanded to Ark. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court reverses rulings by lower federal courts in the Watson
case against Philip Morris USA and remands it to Arkansas state court.

In considering the issue of federal jurisdiction in the Watson case, a three-
judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit earlier had
ruled that because Philip Morris USA tested and marketed its “Lights”
cigarettes under the Federal Trade Commission’s “direct and comprehensive
control,” a federal court should hear the case.  On June 11, 2007 the U.S.
Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the company’s compliance
with federal regulations did not confer exclusive jurisdiction on federal
courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to reverse rulings by lower federal courts
in the Watson case and remand it to state court does not negatively affect
the ultimate outcome of the case or that of other “Lights” cases, Philip
Morris USA said in a statement.

“[The] ruling is narrow and merely determined whether the Watson case should
be heard in federal court or state court.  We have compelling defenses to the
Watson claim that have been advanced in state courts,” said William S.
Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA vice president and associate general counsel.

Mr. Ohlemeyer added that the Watson case will have minimal effect on “Lights”
or other class actions filed against the company after enactment of the Class
Action Fairness Act in 2005, which requires most class actions to be heard in
federal court.

The decision clarified the procedural issue of when defendants, who are
acting under a federal agency like the FTC and sued in state court, can
remove the case to federal court.  While [Mon]day’s decision does not
directly address the issue of whether the federal labeling act or agency
regulation of a defendant's advertising and marketing activities prevents
plaintiffs from suing under state consumer fraud laws, the Court did note
that Philip Morris USA was acting pursuant to “...considerable regulatory
detail and supervision...”

Philip Morris USA has long maintained that Congress and the FTC created a
comprehensive regulatory scheme for marketing "low tar" and "Lights"
cigarettes and, that these types of class actions are pre-empted by federal
law or exempted from state consumer fraud laws.  Many courts have so held and
this recent decision adds further support to those rulings.

The company previously asked that the Watson case be dismissed on the basis
of preemption and the consumer fraud exemption.  The company now looks
forward to presenting its arguments before the Arkansas state court.

The suit was filed by two Little Rock women, Lisa Watson and
Loretta Lawson in 2003 in Pulaski County Circuit Court in
Arkansas.  

The suit is "Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284."  The plaintiffs'
lawyer is:

          Steven E. Cauley, P.A.
          Cypress Plaza
          Suite 218
          2200 Rodney Parham Rd
          Little Rock, AR 72212-4155
          Fax: (501) 312-8505


PNC FINANCIAL: 3rd Circuit Refuses to Review Junked ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition
to review a the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania dismissing a consolidated amended class action filed against
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. over alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  

On April 29, 2005, an amended complaint was filed in the putative class
action against PNC, PNC Bank N.A., the company's
Pension Plan and its Pension Committee in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (originally filed in December
2004).  

The complaint alleges ERISA violations arising out of the Jan.
1, 1999 conversion of the company's Pension Plan from a traditional defined
benefit formula into a "cash balance" formula, the design and continued
operation of the Plan, and other related matters.

The suit seeks to represent a class of all current and former employee-
participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of Dec. 31, 1998 and
thereafter.  

It also seeks to represent a subclass of all current and former employee-
participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of
Dec. 31, 1998 and thereafter who were or would have become eligible for an
early retirement subsidy under the former Plan at some time prior to the date
of the amended complaint.  

Plaintiffs are seeking damages and equitable relief available under ERISA,
including interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 21, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s ruling in
an opinion dated January 30, 2007.

In February 2007, the court of appeals denied plaintiffs’ petition for
rehearing.  Plaintiffs may seek further judicial review of the dismissal of
the complaint, 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 "Register, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-06097-LDD," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge Legrome D. Davis.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Michael S. Tarringer, Esq.
         Miller Faucher and Caferty, LLP
         One Logan Sq., 18th and Cherry Streets, Ste. 1700
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-864-2800
         E-mail: mtarringer@millerfaucher.com

Representing the company is:

         William A. Slaughter, Esq.
         Ballard Spahr Andrews and Ingersoll
         1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-665-8500
         E-mail: slaughter@ballardspahr.com


PRICELINE.COM: July 2 Hearing Set for $80M Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut will hold a fairness
hearing on July 2, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. for the proposed $80,000,000 settlement
in the matter, "In Re: Priceline.com Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-
CV-01884."

The hearing will be held before Judge Alfred V. Covello in the Abraham
Ribicoff Federal Bldg., 450 Main St., Hartford, Conn.  

Objections and exclusions to and from the settlement were due June 8, 2007.  
Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on Aug. 31, 2007.

                        Case Background

Following its announcement on Sept. 27, 2000 that revenues for the third
quarter 2000 would not meet expectations, several suits were filed against
the company (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2006):

      -- "Weingarten v. priceline.com Incorporated and Jay S.  
         Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV 1901;"  

      -- "Twardy v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         1884;"  

      -- "Berdakina v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         1902;"

      -- "Mazzo v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         1924;"

      -- "Fialkov v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         1954"

      -- "Ayach v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         2062;"  

      -- "Zia v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         1968;"

      -- "Mazzo v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         1980;"  

      -- "Bazag v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         2122;"  

      -- "Breier v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         2146;"  

      -- "Farzam et al. v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S.  
         Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case  
         No. 3:00 CV 2176;"  

      -- "Caswell v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         2169;"  

      -- "Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan v. priceline.com,  
         Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay  
         S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV 1917;"

      -- "Cerelli v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         1918;"

      -- "Mayer v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         1923;"

      -- "Anish v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         1948;"

      -- "Atkin v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         1994;"  

      -- "Lyon v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         2066;"  

      -- "Kwan v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         2069;"  

      -- "Krim v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         2083;"  

      -- "Karas v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         2232;" and  

      -- "Michols v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,  
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV  
         2280."  

All of these cases were assigned to Judge Dominic J. Squatrito.  
On Sept. 12, 2001, Judge Squatrito ordered that these cases be consolidated
under the Master File No. 3:00cv1884 (DJS), and he designated lead plaintiffs
and lead plaintiffs' counsel.  

The original complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading information regarding Priceline's financial condition and
prospects.

Specifically, the complaint charges that defendants misrepresented that the
Company would soon be profitable, that the Company's customer loyalty was
accelerating and that the
Company's business model would continue to be effective.

For more details, contact:

         Priceline.com, Inc. Securities Litigation
         c/o Strategic Claims Services
         Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 230, 600 North Jackson St., Suite 3
         Media, PA 19063
         Phone: (866) 274-4004
         Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net

The suit is "In Re: Priceline.com Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-CV-
01884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
under Judge Dominic J. Squatrito.


RESOURCE ENERGY: Reaches Settlement in N.Y. Royalties Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Energy, Inc. settled a purported class action originally filed in
February 2000 in the New York Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, by
individuals, putatively on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, who leased property to the Company.

The complaint alleges that the Company is not paying landowners the proper
amount of royalty revenues from the natural gas produced from the wells on
leased property.  

It seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the alleged difference between
the amount of royalties actually paid and the amount of royalties that
allegedly should have been paid.

In April 2007, the court approved a settlement of this lawsuit, according to
Atlas Energy Resources, LLC’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

An April 25 issue of Class Action Reporter stated that Atlas America, Inc.
tentatively settled in October a class action filed in February 2000 in New
York relating to payment of royalty revenues to landowners.  

Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to pay $300,000,
upgrade certain gathering systems and cap certain transportation expenses
chargeable to the landowners.  Resource Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of Atlas
America, is named defendant in the class action.

Moon Township, Pennsylvania-based Atlas Energy Resources, LLC --
http://www.atlasenergyresources.com/-- is a limited liability company  
focused on the development and production of natural gas and, to a lesser
extent, oil principally in the Appalachian Basin.  The Company sponsors and
manages tax-advantaged investment partnerships, in which it co-invests, to
finance the exploitation and development of its acreage.  Atlas Energy
Resources, LLC operates substantially all of the natural gas and oil assets
and the investment partnership management business of Atlas America, Inc.  
The Company operates two business segments: its gas and oil production
segment, which consists of its interests in oil and gas properties, and its
partnership management segment, which consists of well construction and
completion, administration and oversight, well services and gathering
activities.


ST. JUDE: Minn. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied a motion seeking
the dismissal of the consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
St. Jude Medical, Inc.

In April and May 2006, three shareholders, each purport to act on behalf of a
class of purchasers from Jan. 25 through April 4, 2006, separately sued the
company and certain officers, alleging that the company made materially false
and misleading statements during the class period relating to financial
performance, projected earnings guidance, and projected sales of implantable
cardioverter defibrillators.  

The complaints, which all seek unspecified damages and other relief, as well
as attorneys' fees have been consolidated.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by the district court
in March 2007, 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 “In Re: St. Jude Medical, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-
cv-01379-JMR-FLN,” filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James  
M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jill S. Abrams, Esq.
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
         212 E 39th St., New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-284-5258
         E-mail: jabrams@abbeyspanier.com

         Stuart W. Emmons, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         Fax: 405-239-2112
         E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com

              - and-

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

Representing the defendant is:

         Michelle S. Grant
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-5671
         Fax: 612-340-2807
         E-mail: grant.michelle@dorsey.com


TIME WARNER: Objection Delays $2.65M Settlement Distribution
------------------------------------------------------------
A group called BizProLink LLC has filed a notice of appeal in U.S. District
Court in New York against a $2.65 billion settlement of a class action over
the 2001 merger of America Online Inc. and Time Warner Inc., Associated Press
reports.  

                        Case Background

As of July 31, 2006, 30 shareholder class actions have been filed naming as
defendants the company, certain current and former executives of the company
and, in several instances, AOL.

These lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Courts for the Southern District
of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Eastern District of
Texas.

The complaints purport to be made on behalf of certain shareholders of the
company and allege that the company made material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the company failed to disclose AOL's declining
advertising revenues and that the company and AOL inappropriately inflated
advertising revenues in a series of transactions.

Certain of the lawsuits also allege that certain of the individual defendants
and other insiders at the company improperly sold their personal holdings of
Time Warner stock, that the company failed to disclose that the AOL-Historic
Time Warner Merger was not generating the synergies anticipated at the time
of the announcement of the merger and, further, that the company
inappropriately delayed writing down more than $50 billion of goodwill.

All of these lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings -- along with the federal derivative lawsuits and certain
lawsuits brought under Employee
Retirement Income Security Act -- under the caption, "In re AOL Time Warner
Inc. Securities and 'ERISA' Litigation."

Additional lawsuits brought by individual shareholders have also been filed.

The Minnesota State Board of Investment was designated lead plaintiff for the
consolidated securities actions and filed a consolidated amended complaint on
April 15, 2003, adding additional defendants, including:

      -- additional officers and directors of the
         company,
      -- Morgan Stanley & Co.,
      -- Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,
      -- Citigroup Inc.,
      -- Banc of America Securities LLC, and
      -- JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that the company made
material misrepresentations in its registration statements and joint proxy
statement-prospectus related to the AOL-Historic Time Warner Merger and in
its registration statements pursuant to which debt securities were issued in
April 2001 and April 2002, allegedly in violation of Section 11 and Section
12 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

In July 2005, the company reached an agreement in principle for the
settlement of the case.  The court granted initial approval to the settlement
in September 2005.  On April 6, 2006, the court entered an order granting
final approval of the settlement.

The class consists of those who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired
publicly traded common stock of AOL, and/or bought or sold options on AOL
common stock during the period Jan. 27, 1999 through Jan. 11, 2001, and/or
purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock and
bonds of Time Warner and/or bought or sold options on Time Warner common
stock during the period Jan. 11, 2001 through and including Aug. 27, 2002.

                        Settlement Terms

In exchange for the dismissal of all claims against all defendants, Time
Warner and Ernst & Young have paid $2.4 billion and $100 million,
respectively, into the Settlement Account.  In addition, $150 million set
aside as part of the Time Warner settlement with the U.S. Department of
Justice, has also been placed in the settlement account as part of this
settlement.

The $2.65 billion in settlement monies have been earning interest for the
securities class since Oct. 7, 2005.  Another $300 million Time Warner paid
to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC for distribution
as part of the settlement thereof, may also make a portion available.

In May, U.S. District Judge Shirley Wohl Kram signed an order directing
payment of an initial distribution of the settlement, in an amount equal to
91 percent of the net settlement and accrued interest.

The appeal is holding a plan by claims administrator Gilardi & Co. of San
Rafael, Calif. to make initial distributions to shareholders entitled to a
piece of the settlement within the next two months, according to the report.  

For more details, contact AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
Gilardi & Co., Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 808061, Petaluma, CA 949475-
8061, Phone: (877) 800-7852, E-mail: aoltimewarnersettlement@gilardi.com, Web
site:  
http://www.aoltimewarnersettlement.com/.


TRISTAR FOOD: Recalls Chocolate Due to Undeclared Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------
Tristar Food Wholesale of 115 Amity Street, Jersey City, NJ 07304, is
recalling Ferrari Chocolate because it contains undeclared peanuts.

People who have severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.  The candy also
contains aflatoxins in excess of the Food and Drug Administration's action
level of 20 parts per billion.  Aflatoxins are by products of certain fungi
and, with chronic exposure, are potential carcinogens.

The recalled Ferrari Chocolates, a product of China, is distributed in 280g
and 240g per box.  The Ferrari chocolate was sold in New York City and in New
Jersey.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department
of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis by the
Department's food laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared
peanuts and aflatoxins in the product.

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

Consumers who have purchased Ferrari chocolate should return it to the place
of purchase.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at 201-938-
2590 for Michael.


TYSON FOODS: March 3, 2008 Trial Slated for "Trollinger" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A March 3, 2008 trial is scheduled for the purported class
action, "Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:02-cv-23," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee

On April 2, 2002, four former employees of the company's Shelbyville,
Tennessee chicken-processing plant filed the case. It was filed as a putative
class action against the company, raising allegations under the Racketeer
Influenced and
Corrupt Practices Act.  It specifically alleged that the company, in
conjunction with employment agencies and recruiters, engaged in a scheme to
hire illegal immigrant workers in 15 of its processing plants to depress
wages paid to hourly wage employees at those plants.

On July 16, 2002, the court dismissed the case.  Following appeal, on June 3,
2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit reversed the court's decision and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  Discovery has been ongoing since September
2004.

In June 2005, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  The second
amended complaint included different plaintiffs, narrowed the list of plants
at issue to eight and added the allegation the company conspired with certain
Hispanic civil rights groups to hire illegal immigrant workers.

In addition, the second amended complaint added the following, all of whom
are current or former officers or managers of the company, as defendants in
the case:

      -- John Tyson,  
      -- Richard Bond,  
      -- Greg Lee,  
      -- Archibald Schaffer III,  
      -- Kenneth Kimbro,  
      -- Karen Percival, and
      -- Tim McCoy, and Ahrazue Wilt.
  
On Aug. 5, 2005, plaintiffs sought certification of a putative class of all
hourly wage employees at the eight company plants since 1998 who were legally
authorized to be employed in the U.S., which the defendants opposed.

On Oct. 10, 2006, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification.  On Oct. 24, 2006, defendants filed with the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals a petition for interlocutory review of the District Court’s
class certification decision.  That petition is pending.

Discovery continues in the case, and the Court has set a trial date of March
3, 2008, 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 "Trollinger, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:02-cv-
00023," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee under Judge Curtis L. Collier with referral to Judge William B.
Carter.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Howard W. Foster, Esq.
         Johnson & Bell, Ltd.
         33 East Monroe Street, Suite 2700
         Chicago, IL 60603-5404
         Phone: 312-372-0770
         Fax: 312-372-9818
         E-mail: fosterh@jbltd.com

              - and -

         William G. Colvin, Esq.
         Shumacker, Witt, Gaither & Whitaker, P.C.
         736 Market Street, Suite 1100  
         Chattanooga, TN 37402
         Phone: 423-425-7000
         E-mail: bcolvin@swgwlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Roger W. Dickson, Esq.
         Miller & Martin
         832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000, Volunteer Building
         Chattanooga, TN 37402-2289
         Phone: 423-756-6600
         E-mail: rdickson@millermartin.com

              - and -

         Thomas C. Green, Esq.
         Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP
         1501 K. Street NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-736-8000


TYSON FOODS: Consolidated Del. Shareholder Suit in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. is in the process of responding to plaintiffs’ discovery
requests in a consolidated shareholders’ complaint filed against it in the
Delaware Chancery Court.

On Jan. 12, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated two previously
filed lawsuits, "Amalgamated Bank v. Tyson" and
"Meyer v. Tyson," and captioned the consolidated action "In re
Tyson Foods, Inc. Consolidated Shareholder's Litigation."

The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Tyson Limited Partnership
and certain present and former directors of the company.  The company is also
named as a nominal defendant, with no relief sought against it.

The lawsuit contains five derivative claims alleging the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by:

     -- approving consulting contracts for Don Tyson and Robert
        Peterson in 2001 and for Don Tyson in 2004 (Count I);

     -- approving and inadequately disclosing certain "other
        compensation" paid to Tyson executives from 2001 to
        2003 (Count II);

     -- approving certain option grants to certain officers and
        directors with alleged knowledge the company was about
        to make announcements that would cause the stock price
        to increase (Count III);

     -- approving and not adequately disclosing various related-
        party transactions from 2001 to 2004 that plaintiffs
        allege were unfair to the company (Count IV); and

     -- making inadequate disclosures that resulted in a U.S.
        Securities and Exchange Commission consent decree
        (Count V).

The consolidated complaint asserts three additional derivative claims for:

     -- breach of the 1997 settlement agreement in "Herbets v.
        Tyson, et al., No. 14231 (Del. Ch.)" (Count VI);

     -- civil contempt of the court's order and final judgment
        in "Herbets v. Tyson" (Count VII); and

     -- unjust enrichment regarding the benefits obtained by the
        defendants through the various transactions challenged
        in the consolidated complaint (Count IX).

The consolidated complaint also makes a putative class action claim that the
company's 2004 proxy statement contained misrepresentations regarding certain
executive compensation
(Count VIII).

On March 2, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  Plaintiffs' filed a response on May 8,
2006, and defendants filed a reply brief on June 9, 2006.  

On Feb. 6, 2007, the court entered an order granting in part the defendants'
motion:

      -- dismissing Counts I, VII and VIII in their entirety;
      
      -- dismissing Count III against directors who were not
         members of the company's compensation committee;

      -- dismissing Count IV with respect to plaintiffs' claims
         concerning related party transactions that were
         disclosed prior to Feb. 16, 2002 and related party
         transactions that were reviewed by an independent
         committee; and

      -- dismissing Count V except for plaintiffs' inadequate
         disclosure claims relating to Don Tyson's compensation
         addressed by an SEC consent decree.  

The court, though, declined to dismiss plaintiffs' remaining claims.  The
company is in the process of responding to plaintiffs’ discovery requests,
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.

Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- produces, distributes and  
markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied products.  
Through its wholly owned subsidiary, Cobb-Vantress, Tyson is a breeding stock
supplier.  Tyson's operations consist of breeding and raising chickens, as
well as the processing, further processing and marketing of these food
products and related allied products, including animal and pet food
ingredients.

The Company is also involved in the processing of live fed cattle and hogs,
and fabrication of dressed beef and pork carcasses into primal and sub-primal
meat cuts, case-ready products and fully cooked beef and pork products.  In
addition, Tyson also produces allied products, such as hides and variety
meats for sale to further processors.  The Company produces a wide range of
fresh, value-added, frozen and refrigerated food products.  The Company
operates in five business segments: Chicken, Beef, Pork, Prepared Foods and
Other.


TYSON FOODS: Seeks Dismissal of Certain Claims in Okla. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. and other defendants in a suit related to an alleged
contamination of Grand Lake O' the Cherokee's property in Oklahoma have filed
answers and motions to dismiss a number of plaintiff's claims.

On Oct. 23, 2001, a putative class action, “R. Lynn Thompson and Deborah S.
Thompson, et al. vs. Tyson Foods, Inc.,” was filed in the District Court for
Mayes County, Oklahoma, on behalf of all owners of Grand Lake O' the
Cherokee's littoral (lakefront) property.

The suit alleged the Company "or entities over which it has operational
control" conduct operations in such a way as to interfere with the putative
class action plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property, allegedly
caused by diminished water quality in the lake.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Seeks Nixing of Minn. PSLRA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of the amended
complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class action pending against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class actions alleging a
violation of the federal securities laws was brought by an individual
shareholder against certain of our current and former officers and directors
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On Dec. 8, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed consolidating the
actions into a single action.  The action is captioned, “In re UnitedHealth
Group Incorporated PSLRA Litigation.”

Lead plaintiff California Public Employees Retirement System brought the
action against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions during the period between January 20, 2005
and May 17, 2006, in press releases and public filings that artificially
inflated the price of the company’s common stock.

The complaint also asserts that during the class period, certain defendants
sold shares of our common stock while in possession of material, non-public
information concerning the matters set forth in the complaint.

It alleges claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  

The action seeks unspecified money damages and equitable relief. Defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on Feb. 6, 2007,
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 “In re UnitedHealth Group Incorporated PSLRA Litigation, Case No.
06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin L.
Noel.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Gretchen A. Agee, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-492-6741
         Fax: 612-340-8856
         E-mail: agee.gretchen@dorsey.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of Minn. 401(k) Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Inc. intends to seek for the dismissal of a 401(k) breach
of fiduciary duty class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota.

On June 6, 2006, a purported class action captioned “Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth
Group Inc.,” was filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

The suit was filed on behalf of participants in the company's
401(k) defined contribution retirement plan (the UnitedHealth Group Inc. 401
(k) Savings Plan) for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or
held shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock at any time from Dec. 21,
2005 through May 24, 2006.

The case [No. 06-CV-2237 (JNR/SRM)], alleges that UnitedHealth
Group Inc. and other Plan fiduciaries concealed from Plan participants
important information concerning:

     (i) long-standing, improper practices at the company
         relating to executive stock options, including those
         awarded to former chief executive William McGuire and
         current chief executive Stephen Hemsley; and

    (ii) whether UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock was a
         prudent and suitable retirement investment for the
         Plan.

On May 1, 2007, plaintiffs amended the complaint.  That amended complaint
alleges that the fiduciaries to the Company-sponsored 401(k) plan violated
ERISA by allowing the plan to continue to hold company stock.  

Defendants intend to move to dismiss the 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 "Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case
No. 0:06-cv-02237-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin
L. Noel.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., Ste. 500
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230
         E-mail: ssbny@aol.com

              - and -

         James B. Hovland, Esq.
         David E. Krause, Esq.
         Krause & Rollins
         310 Groveland Ave.
         Mpls, MN 55403
         Phone: 612-874-8550
         Fax: 612-874-9362
         E-mail: jhovland@krauserollins.com
                 dkrause@krauserollins.com

Representing defendants are:

         Peter W. Carter, Esq.
         Thomas P. Swigert, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-2600
         Fax: 612-340-2868
         E-mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com
                 swigert.tom@dorsey.com

              - and -

         David M. Brodsky, Esq.
         Blair Connelly, Esq.
         Alexandra A. E. Shapiro, Esq.
         Latham & Watkins
         885 3rd Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-906-1628, 212-906-1658 and 212-906-1670
         Fax: 212-751-4864
         E-mail: david.brodsky@lw.com
                 blair.connelly@lw.com
                 alexandra.shapiro@lw.com


UNITED AMERICAN: Court Grants Summary Judgment Motion in “Moore”
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida issued a summary judgment in the
case, "Moore v. United American Insurance Company, Case No. 16-2003-CA-001955-
XXX-MA, Division CV-E."

The plaintiff, representing a class with in excess of 8,000 members, asserts
that the annual additional fee that United American Insurance Co., a
subsidiary of Torchmark Corp., charges him and its other Medicare Supplement
insurance policyholders for electronic processing of claims is a premium
charge subject to filing with and approval by the State of Florida's
Department of Financial Services (formerly the Department of Insurance) and
that such charge has never been filed by the Company with and approved by the
Department. The plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract and the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as for declaratory
relief.  

Compensatory damages including the refund of all premium charges found to be
illegal, a declaratory judgment, interest, costs, and attorney's fee are
sought.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was granted by the
Circuit Court on July 14, 2003.  The case was subsequently re-filed by the
plaintiff and the Company filed another motion to dismiss the case, which was
denied by the
Circuit Court on Oct. 22, 2003.  

The Company filed appropriate responsive pleadings with the Circuit Court and
on March 3, 2005, the Circuit Court issued an order denying certification of
a plaintiffs’ class.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the Florida Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s
ruling.  

On April 27, 2007, the Circuit Court entered an order which granted United
American’s motion for a summary judgment in this case, resolving the
remaining issues in the case, according to the Torchmark Corp.’s May 9, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com-- is an insurance holding  
company.  The Company’s primary operating subsidiaries are American Income
Life Insurance Co., Liberty National Life Insurance Co., Globe Life And
Accident Insurance Co., United American Insurance Co., and United Investors
Life Insurance Co.  Through its subsidiaries, Torchmark markets primarily
individual life and supplemental health insurance and annuities, to middle
income households throughout the U.S.  The Company operates in two segments:
insurance, which includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


UNITED PARCEL: Calif. Delivery Drivers to Get Part of $87M Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement checks are being mailed to thousands of California United Parcel
Service delivery drivers to compensate them for meal and rest breaks they
missed while working at UPS.

Ending four years of intense litigation, Scott Cole & Associates and its co-
counsel negotiated the unprecedented $87 million settlement which awards
compensation to well over ten thousand current and former UPS delivery
employees as well as extra "enhancement" awards to the lead plaintiffs in
recognition of their efforts in bringing this and the related case.

Among other claims, the settled lawsuit alleges that UPS had violated state
labor laws by automatically deducting a half hour of time for meal periods
oftentimes never actually taken by drivers. As apparently the largest
meal/rest period settlement in history, Scott Cole & Associates attorneys
believe that the result will alert other corporations of the serious
consequences of engaging in similar labor violations.

"We filed this case four years ago with just one driver and look at what he
could do," says Scott Cole, Esq., one of the attorneys who prosecuted the
case. "This is the kind of settlement that makes people sit up, take notice,
and act."

The suit "Cornn et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al.," which has been
certified as a class action, alleges that plaintiffs were improperly denied
wages and/or overtime and meal and rest periods.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of approximately 23,600 drivers and
seek back wages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees.

United Parcel has agreed in principle to settle this matter in full for a
total payment of $87 million.  On Dec. 6, 2006, the court granted tentative
approval of the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29, 2007).

The suit is "Cornn et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:03-cv-02001-THE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Thelton E. Henderson.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Allyn
          Scott Cole & Associates
          Phone: 510-891-9800
          Fax: 510-891-7030
          E-mail: Jallyn@scalaw.com

          Curtis Brooks Cutter
          Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP
          980 9th Street, 19th Floor
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: 916 448-9800
          Fax: 916 669 4499
          E-mail: brooks@cutterlaw.com

          - and -

          Wendy C. York
          York Law Corporation
          2295 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 165
          Sacramento, CA 95833
          Phone: 916 643 2200
          Fax: 916-643-4680
          E-mail: wyork@yorklawcorp.com

Representing defendants are:

          E. Jeffrey Grube, Esq.
          Katherine L. Kettler
          Annette Marie Rittmuller
          Daniel E. Waldman
          Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP
          55 Second Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
          Phone: 415-856-7000 or 415-856-7204
          Fax: 415-856-7100
          E-mail: jeffgrube@paulhastings.com or
                  katherinekettler@paulhastings.com or
                  annettegammon@paulhastings.com or
                  danwaldman@paulhastings.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


NETLIST INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Netlist, Inc. (NASDAQ:NLST) who purchased the common stock of
Netlist pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on
or about November 29, 2006 through April 17, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933.  

This action concerns the initial public offering of Netlist common stock
which took place on or about November 29, 2006.

The complaint charges Netlist and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The Company engages in the design,
manufacture, and sale of memory subsystems for the server, computing, and
communications markets in the U.S..

According to the complaint, at the time of the IPO:

     (a) two of the Company's primary customers, Dell and IBM,
         were over inventoried with product and would be
         reducing their purchases in the future until they
         worked through their inventory;

     (b) the Company was experiencing declining margins due to,
         among other things, an unfavorable sales mix of
         products; and

     (c) the Company's new products were having difficulty
         gaining market acceptance. On November 30, 2006, the
         Prospectus (the Prospectus) with respect to the IPO,
         which forms part of the Registration Statement, became
         effective and 6.25 million shares of Netlist's common
         stock were sold to the public at $7 per share, thereby
         raising more than $43 million.

The complaint alleges that the Prospectus failed to disclose these material
facts.

Then, on April 16, 2007, Netlist announced that revenues and earnings for the
first quarter of 2007 would be lower than its previous guidance - given only
two and a half months prior to this announcement. The Company also announced
weak guidance for the second quarter of 2007.

In response to this announcement, on April 17, 2007, the price of Netlist
stock declined precipitously falling from $5.97 per share to $4.29 per share -
approximately 40% below the IPO price - on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the
common stock of Netlist pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO on or
about November 29, 2006 through April 17, 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 27, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com
          Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com


TELIK INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Telik, Inc. between March 27, 2003 and June 4, 2007, inclusive,
including purchasers in the Company's November 5, 2003 and January 28, 2005
stock offerings.

The Complaint charges Telik and certain of the Company's executive officers
with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Among other
things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and prospects caused Telik's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Specifically the Complaint alleges that when the Company issued preliminary
results from its Phase III clinical trials of TELCYTA, defendants materially
misled the investing public by concealing that patients in those trials were
dying much sooner than patients receiving the standard chemotherapy
treatment.

On June 3, 2007 the Company announced additional details concerning the
negative results of the Phase III clinical trials of TELCYTA. This news
caused the Company's stock to open on Monday, June 4, 2007 more than 15%
lower than the previous trading day's closing price. By the end of trading
that day, the stock had dropped even further. Also on June 4 the Company
announced that the FDA had initiated a clinical hold on the New Drug
Application for TELCYTA, causing Telik stock to fall more than 25% on June 5,
2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

Telik is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the discovery and
development of small molecule therapeutics for the treatment of cancer and
inflammatory diseases. The Company's lead product candidate is TELCYTA, a
small molecule cancer drug product candidate designed to be activated in
cancer cells. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
misled investors about the effectiveness and safety of TELCYTA and the
conduct of certain clinical trials for TELCYTA.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 6, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Lionel Z. Glancy
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Website: http://www.glancylaw.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  * * *