CAR_Public/070613.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, June 13, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 116

                           Headlines
     
ANTIGENICS INC: N.Mex. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AON CORP: Objectors Appeal Approval of “Daniel” Suit Settlement
AON CORP: N.J. Federal Court Junks RICO Violations Complaints
AON CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud, ERISA Litigation in Ill.
APACHE CORP: Continues to Face Hurricane Katrina Lawsuit in La.

ASTRAZENECA: Sales Rep Files Suit in Del. Over Unpaid Overtime
BASS PRO: Faces Suit over Printing Credit Card Info on Receipts
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Aug.
BISYS GROUP: Court Mulls Fairness of $66.5M Suit Settlement
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Settles N.Y. Suit Over 2006 Buyout Offer

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Still Faces N.Y. Suits Over Stock SOG, SAR
CALIFORNIA: Suit Filed Over Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund
CERIDIAN CORP: Minneapolis Firefighters Sue to Block Sale
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Lawsuits
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Suit by Bryman College Student
CORNELL COS: Faces Litigation in N.Mex. Over VCDC Strip Searches
CORNELL COS: Still Faces Tex. Stockholder Suit on Veritas Merger
CVS/CAREMARK CORP: Del. Court Considers Merger Suit Settlement
DANA CORP: Ohio Court Considers Motion in Ohio Securities Suit

DOBSON COMMS: $3.4M Settlement of Okla. Securities Suit Appealed
DRUG COS: Another County Mulls Joining Suit Over Pseudoephedrine
DYNEGY POWER: Seeks to Remove Auction Suits to Federal Court
EXPEDIA INC: Still Faces Suit Over City Hotel Accommodations Tax
FLORIDA: St. Lucie Moves to Dismiss Suit over Jail Conditions

GEORGIA: Suit Planned Against AHA Over Alleged Underpayments
GOOGLE INC: Cal IV Entertainment Sues YouTube for Infringement
GRAVITY CO: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $10M
ILLINOIS: Receiver Sought for Cook County Juvenile Center
MIDWEST AIR: Market Street Sues Over Rejected AirTran Buyout

MOTOROLA INC: Bluetooth Headsets Suits Conference Set June 18
REAL ESTATE BROKERS: Perjury Claim Raised in Sarkisian Lawsuit
SIERRA HEALTH: Settles Shareholder Suit Over UnitedHealth Deal
SLS RESIDENTIAL: Ex-residents File $225M Suit over Ill-treatment
TYSON FRESH: Recalls Ground Beef Products Tainted with E. Coli

ZURICH FINANCIAL: $29.95M Lawyers’ Fees in Antitrust Suits OK’d
UNITED NATIONS: Claims Immunity from Srebrenica Massacre Suit
WASHINGTON: Court Sided with Drivers in Partial Summary Judgment
WASHINGTON: WTO Protesters Get Compensated for Illegal Arrests
W.R. GRACE: Mass. Court Denies Jury Demand in ERISA Lawsuit


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Online Teleconferences
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals         


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DENDRON CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
MACY’S INC: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NETLIST INC: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
XINHUA FINANCE: Zwerling, Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ANTIGENICS INC: N.Mex. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed a purported
securities fraud class action filed against Antigenics, Inc. by Steven J.
Tuckfelt on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 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 complaint was filed on June 16, 2006 against the company and its chief
executive officer Garo H. Armen, Ph.D.  It alleges that certain of the
company's disclosures in connection with the conduct of the Oncophage Phase 3
renal cell carcinoma trial violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint includes purported claims for
breach of fiduciary duty.

On March 14, 2007, the court dismissed the action without prejudice due to
the Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute the action.  However, there is the
possibility the case could be re-filed.

Antigenics Inc. -- http://www.antigenics.com-- is a biotechnology company  
developing technologies and products to treat cancers, infectious diseases
and autoimmune disorders, primarily based on immunological approaches.


AON CORP: Objectors Appeal Approval of “Daniel” Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties objecting to the settlement in the purported class action, "Daniel v.
Aon (Affinity)," appealed the Circuit Court of Cook County’s final approval
of the deal, 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.

Several suits were initially filed against Aon Corp. subsidiaries Affinity
Insurance Services Inc. and K&K Insurance Group, alleging that they entered
into "profit-sharing" relationships with the underwriters without disclosing
the income to their policyholder clients.

The suit seeks to determine whether the company's having received or being
eligible for receipt, without consent of its clients, undisclosed commissions
or 'kickbacks' in connection with the placement of insurance, violates the
fiduciary or confidential obligations imposed under Illinois law.

The suit was filed on behalf of current or former policyholders of the Aon
Corp., Aon Group, and Aon Services Group as class members alongside lead
Plaintiffs Alan S. Daniel and the Williamson County (Illinois) Agricultural
Association.

On July 28, 2004, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

On March 9, 2005, the court gave preliminary approval to a nationwide class
action settlement within the $40 million reserve established in the fourth
quarter of 2004.

The court granted final approval to the settlement in March
2006.  Parties that objected to the settlement have appealed.

For more details, contact:

         Daniel Settlement Administrator
         2807 Allen St., PMB #801
         Dallas, TX, 75204-4094
         Phone: 1-800-714-9815
         Web site: http://www.aon-daniel-settlement.com

The suit is "Daniel v. Aon (Affinity), Case No. 1999-CH-11893," filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, under Judge
Julia M. Nowicki.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Hartunian Futterman & How
         122 S. Michigan 1850
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 427-3600

Represented the company is:

         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 E. Randolph Dr.
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 861-2000


AON CORP: N.J. Federal Court Junks RICO Violations Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corp. continues to face several purported class actions in New Jersey and
California courts generally alleging violations of the federal antitrust and
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Beginning in June 2004, a number of other putative class actions were filed
against Aon and other companies by purported classes of clients under a
variety of legal theories, including state tort, contract, fiduciary duty,
antitrust and statutory theories and federal antitrust and theories.  

These actions are currently pending in state court in California and in
federal court in New Jersey.  

In the New Jersey federal class actions, the Court on April 5, 2007
dismissed, without prejudice, the plaintiffs’ federal antitrust and RICO
claims.  

The Court granted plaintiffs one opportunity to replead their claims, and Aon
and other defendants will again move to dismiss the new complaints, 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.

Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com-- through its various subsidiaries  
worldwide, serves its clients through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Brokerage Services, which acts as an advisor and insurance broker,
helping clients manage their risks, as well as negotiating and placing
insurance risk with insurance carriers through its global distribution
network; Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting, communications, human
resource outsourcing, human resource consulting, and financial advisory and
litigation consulting, and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty
insurance products.


AON CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud, ERISA Litigation in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corp. continues to face several purported class actions in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging either violations of the
securities laws or Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 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.

Beginning in late October 2004, several putative securities class actions
were filed against Aon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.  

Also beginning in late October 2004, several putative ERISA class actions
were filed against Aon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.  

Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com-- through its various subsidiaries  
worldwide, serves its clients through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Brokerage Services, which acts as an advisor and insurance broker,
helping clients manage their risks, as well as negotiating and placing
insurance risk with insurance carriers through its global distribution
network; Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting, communications, human
resource outsourcing, human resource consulting, and financial advisory and
litigation consulting, and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty
insurance products.


APACHE CORP: Continues to Face Hurricane Katrina Lawsuit in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class action, “Barasich, et
al., individually and as representatives of all those similarly situated vs.
Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., et al, No. 05-4161,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 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 the suit, the plaintiffs’ claim that defendants were negligent by
constructing canals and conducting oil and gas operations, which plaintiffs
contend is the sole and/or almost the sole cause of the alleged destruction
of the marshes in South Louisiana, which plaintiffs blame for all and/or
substantially all loss of life and destruction of property which was incurred
from Hurricane Katrina.

The suit is "Barasich et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Company et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-04161-SSV-DEK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Sarah S. Vance.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Conrad S. P. Williams, III, Esq.
         St. Martin & Williams
         4084 Highway 311, P. O. Box 2017
         Houma, LA 70361-2017
         Phone: 985-876-3891
         E-mail: duke525@msn.com


ASTRAZENECA: Sales Rep Files Suit in Del. Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
An AstraZeneca sales representative filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court in Wilmington, Delaware Wednesday, The Wilmington, Del. News Journal
reports.

Timothy Carson of Rockaway, N.Y. brought the suit on behalf of former and
current AstraZeneca sales representatives.

The suit alleges that the company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to pay them overtime when they worked more than 40 hours in a
week.

According to federal and state law, workers are entitled to 1 1/2 times their
regular pay should they work more than 40 hours in a week, except those who
fall under one of the act’s exemptions.

The suit focuses on whether AstraZeneca improperly treated those who worked
for the company in N.Y. from 2003 to 2005 as exempt sales representatives.

The suit didn’t specify the amount of damages or the relief it seeks.

According to Mr. Carson’s lawyer, it is a widespread practice among the
pharmaceutical industry and that there could be about 8,000 former and
current AstraZeneca sales representatives affected.

The company’s spokeswoman, Laura King, said they adhere to the laws and
regulations of all the states where they do business.  She said the company
will defend its position vigorously.

Besides the suit in Wilmington, another similar class action was filed in
Fairfax, Del. in federal district court in Pittsburgh, Penn.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Herbert W. Mondros
          Margolis Edelstein
          750 South Madison Street Suite 102
          Wilmington, Delaware 19801
          Phone: 302-888-1112
          Fax: 302-888-1119
          Web Site: http://www.margolisedelstein.com


BASS PRO: Faces Suit over Printing Credit Card Info on Receipts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bass Pro Outdoor World is facing a class action for printing too much credit
card information on a receipt, Post-Tribune reports.

Kelvin R. Goods filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Hammond,
Louisiana Wednesday.  He intends to represent all those who are similarly
situated.

Mr. Goods said the Islamorada Fish Company in Portage, a part of Bass Pro
Outdoor World, printed the last five digits of his credit card number and the
expiration date too, on a May 25 receipt.

The lawsuit, which seeks damages up to $1,000 plus other costs, claims the
practice of printing expiration date leaves customers susceptible to theft.  

It further claims the last five digits along with the expiration date are
enough for someone to get into his account.


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Aug.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 6, 2007 fairness hearing is scheduled for a proposed settlement in a
purported securities fraud class action filed against Biolase Technology,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaints sought unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of
persons who purchased the company's common stock between Oct. 29, 2003 and
July 16, 2004.  

The complaints alleged that the company and its officers violated federal
securities laws by failing to disclose material information about the demand
for the company's products and the fact that the company would not achieve
the alleged forecasted growth.  

The claimed misrepresentations included certain statements in the company's
press releases and the registration statement the company filed in connection
with the company's public offering of stock, which closed in March 2004.

In January 2006, the company's motion to dismiss the second amended
consolidated class action complaint was granted and the action was dismissed,
with leave to further amend, by the order of the Judge David O. Carter, U.S.
District Judge for the Central District of California.  On March 10, 2006,
the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

The third amended complaint made the same allegations regarding violations of
the federal securities laws but is limited to an alleged class of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock pursuant to or
traceable to the public offering of the company's stock that closed in March
2004.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint and on July 25, 2006, the
court ruled on the motion, granting the motion on the grounds that lead
plaintiffs lack standing, denying the motion on the grounds that the
complaint fails to state a claim and allowing plaintiffs to file a fourth
amended complaint and a motion to appoint new lead plaintiffs.  

On Aug. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint which
defendants answered on Oct. 20, 2006.

The parties entered into settlement agreements, subject to court approval.

On April 23, 2007, the Court in the federal class action entered an Order
preliminarily approving the settlement of the class action, as contained in a
Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court.  

A hearing on whether to approve the settlement is set for Aug. 6, 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.

The suit is "Van Dam Holdings Ltd. v. Biolase Technology,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-947," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge David
O. Carter.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Dale Joseph MacDiarmid, Esq.
         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         Peter Arthur Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150

         Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway
         3 Bala Plaza E, Ste. 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-7706

              - and -

         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman
         200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste. 406
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7263
         E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Theodore K. Bell, Esq.
         Bruce A. Ericson, Esq.
         Marci A Reichbach, Esq.
         Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
         Phone: 650-233-4500, 415-983-1000 and 415-983-1422
         E-mail: tbell@pillsburywinthrop.com
                 bericson@pillsburywinthrop.com
                 marci.reichbach@pillsburylaw.com


BISYS GROUP: Court Mulls Fairness of $66.5M Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to
grant final approval to a $66.5 million settlement for a consolidated
securities fraud suit filed against Bisys Group Inc.

Following the company's May 17, 2004 announcement regarding the restatement
of its financial results, seven putative class action and two derivative
lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its current and former
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

By order of the court, all but one of the putative class actions were
consolidated into a single action, and on Oct. 25, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint generally alleging that during the class
period the company, certain of its officers, and its independent registered
public accounting firm allegedly violated the federal securities laws in
connection with the purported issuance of false and misleading information
concerning the company's financial condition.

On Oct. 28, 2005, the court dismissed certain claims under the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as to six of the individual defendants,
narrowed certain additional claims against the company and the individual
defendants and dismissed all claims as to the company's independent
registered public accounting firm.

The remaining putative class action purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons who acquired Bisys securities from the company as part of private
equity transactions during the class period.  

The complaint generally asserts that the company and certain of its officers
allegedly violated the federal securities laws in connection with the
purported issuance of false and misleading information concerning the
company's financial condition, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The court subsequently consolidated plaintiff's complaint into the above
complaint, but in August 2006, a magistrate judge issued a recommendation to
the court that it not certify the proposed class of non-publicly traded
company security holders. Plaintiff subsequently filed objections to the
magistrate judge's recommendation.

                      Settlement Agreement

On Oct. 16, 2006, the company announced that it had reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated class action, including claims relating
to the second restatement filed on April 26, 2006, as well as the remaining
putative class action on an individual basis.  

The parties signed two definitive stipulations of settlement dated Oct. 30,
2006.  Under the proposed settlements, the company paid an aggregate of $66.5
million in cash into escrow accounts on Nov. 15 and 16, 2006.  

The consolidated class action settlement received preliminary court approval
on Nov. 6, 2006 but remains subject to, among other things, final court
approval.  

Following such approval, the funds will be disbursed to certain purchasers of
Bisys securities according to a Court-approved distribution plan.  

The settlements include no admission of wrongdoing by the company or any of
the individual defendants, and were funded through a combination of cash on
hand and the company's existing credit facility.

The company is currently in discussions with its insurance carriers to
determine the amount of available insurance proceeds remaining under its $25
million directors' and officers' liability policy.

The fairness hearing was held at which time the court took the matter under
advisement.

The company reported no development in the matter in its 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 "In re Bisys Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04- cv-03840-LAK-
GWG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan with referral to Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         James Allen Carney, Esq.
         S. Gene Cauley, Esq.
         Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC
         11311 Arcade Drive, Ste. 200
         Little Rock, AR 72212
         Phone: (501)-312-8500
         Fax: (501)-312-8501 or (501) 312-8505
         E-mail: acarney@cauleybowman.com
                 gcauley@cauleybowman.com

              - and -

         Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Esq.
         George Theodore Peters, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4600 or 212-545-4611
         Fax: 212-545-4653 or (212)-545-4758
         E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                 peters@whafh.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Elizabeth Anne Hellmann, Esq.
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
         Four Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-735-2590
         Fax: 917-777-2590
         E-mail: ehellman@skadden.com

              - and -  

         James J. Capra, Jr., Esq.
         David M. Fine, Esq.
         Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
         666 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10103
         Phone: 212-506-5000 or 212-506-3793
         Fax: 212-506-5151
         E-mail: jcapra@orrick.com
                 dfine@orrick.com


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Settles N.Y. Suit Over 2006 Buyout Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in shareholder suits relating to an October
2006 offer by the Dolan Family Group to acquire all of the outstanding shares
of Cablevision Systems Corp.

In October 2006, a number of shareholder class actions were filed in New York
Supreme Court, Nassau County against Cablevision and its individual directors
relating to the Oct. 8, 2006 offer by the Dolan Family Group to acquire all
of the outstanding shares of Cablevision's common stock, except for the
shares held by the Dolan Family Group.  

These lawsuits allege breaches of fiduciary duty and seek injunctive relief
to prevent consummation of the proposed transaction and compensatory
damages.  

The trial court ordered expedited discovery, which began in November 2006.  
On Jan. 12, 2007, the Special Transaction Committee of Cablevision's Board of
Directors received a revised proposal from the Dolan Family Group to acquire
all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Cablevision, except for the
shares held by the Dolan Family Group.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the Special Transaction Committee delivered a letter to
Charles F. Dolan and James L. Dolan, rejecting as inadequate the revised
proposal.  

On May 2, 2007, Cablevision entered into a merger agreement pursuant to which
the Dolan Family Group will obtain ownership of all of the common stock
equity of Cablevision.  

Lawyers representing shareholders in these lawsuits and in an action
involving claims for alleged options backdating (that is also pending in the
Nassau County Supreme Court) actively participated in the negotiations, which
led to improvements to the financial terms of the transaction as well as
significant contractual protections for shareholders.  

The parties have agreed in principle to the dismissal of the pending going
private litigation, subject to approval of a settlement by the Nassau County
Supreme Court.

Cablevision Systems Corp. -- http://www.cablevision.com/-- is a cable  
operator in the U.S. that operates cable programming networks, entertainment
businesses and telecommunications companies.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Still Faces N.Y. Suits Over Stock SOG, SAR
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corp. remains a defendant in shareholder lawsuits pending
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
and New York State Supreme Court for Nassau County over stock option grants
(SOG) and stock appreciation rights (SAR), 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, September and October 2006, purported derivative lawsuits,
including one purported combined derivative and class action, relating to the
company's past stock option and SARs grants were filed by parties identifying
themselves as shareholders of Cablevision purporting to act on behalf of
Cablevision.  The suits are filed in:

     -- New York State Supreme Court for Nassau County,

     -- the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
        District of New York, and

     -- Delaware Chancery Court for New Castle County.

These lawsuits named as defendants certain present and former members of
Cablevision's Board of Directors and certain present and former executive
officers, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment relating
to practices with respect to the dating of stock options, recordation and
accounting for stock options, financial statements and SEC filings, and
alleged violation of Internal Revenue Code 162(m).  

In addition, certain of these lawsuits asserted claims under Sections 10(b),
14(a), and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 304
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  The lawsuits sought damages from all defendants,
disgorgement from the officer defendants, declaratory relief, and equitable
relief, including rescission of the 2006 Employee Stock Plan and voiding of
the election of the director defendants.  

On Oct. 27, 2006, the Board of Directors of Cablevision appointed Grover C.
Brown and Zachary W. Carter as directors and, on the same date, appointed
Messrs. Brown and Carter to a newly formed special litigation committee (SLC)
of the Board.

The SLC was directed by the Board to review and analyze the facts and
circumstances surrounding these claims, which purport to have been brought
derivatively on behalf of the company, and to consider and determine whether
or not prosecution of such claims is in the best interests of the company and
its shareholders, and what actions the company should take with respect to
the cases.  

The SLC, through its counsel, filed motions in all three courts to intervene
and to stay all proceedings until completion of the SLC's independent
investigation of the claims raised in these actions.  

The Delaware action subsequently was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
by the plaintiff.  

The actions pending in Nassau County have been consolidated and a single
amended complaint has been filed in that jurisdiction.  

Similarly, the actions pending in the Eastern District of New York have been
consolidated and a single amended complaint has been filed in that
jurisdiction.  

Both the Nassau County action and the Eastern District of New York action
assert derivative claims on behalf of the U.S. as well as direct claims on
behalf of Cablevision shareholders relating to the company's past stock
option and SAR grants.  

On Nov. 14, 2006, the trial court in the Nassau County action denied the
SLC's motion for a stay of proceedings and ordered expedited discovery.  

The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court subsequently
stayed all proceedings in the Nassau County action, including all discovery,
pending the SLC's appeal of the denial of its stay motion.  The SLC's appeal
has been fully submitted but has not been scheduled for oral argument.  

In the Eastern District of New York action, the trial court has issued a stay
of all proceedings until June 12, 2007.

Cablevision Systems Corp. -- http://www.cablevision.com/-- is a cable  
operator in the U.S. that operates cable programming networks, entertainment
businesses and telecommunications companies.


CALIFORNIA: Suit Filed Over Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
The government-run State Compensation Insurance Fund is facing a lawsuit
filed by Acro Constructors Inc. in Los Angeles County over allegations State
Fund top managers misappropriated funds "that belonged to policyholders," it
emerged in a report by Marc Lifsher of the LA Times.

It also accuses top managers of self-dealing and conflict of interest.  It
claims that former President James Tudor, Vice President Renee Koren and
board attorney Charles Savage improperly authorized payments to board members
who ran companies that did business with State Fund.  

The companies combined State Fund policyholders into groups of similar
employers so they could qualify for special discounts on their premiums, the
suit says.  

California employers and the Burbank development contractor would have
received premium credits and dividends from the money that have been
allegedly diverted, Gary S. Soter, a Sherman Oaks attorney representing Acro,
said.

The suit seeks class-action status, $25 million in compensatory damages and
$50 million in punitive damages.

The State Fund is under investigation for possible misuse of public funds
worth billions.  


CERIDIAN CORP: Minneapolis Firefighters Sue to Block Sale
---------------------------------------------------------
Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Association has filed a class action on June
4 in Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of shareholders of information
services company Ceridian Corp., in an attempt to block the company’s sale to
private equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners and Fidelity National Financial,
Pension & Investments reports.

According to the complaint, officials of the $225 million plan claim the sale
would undervalue the company and that the company’s board of directors
has “entrenched” itself by delaying its annual meeting, which would allow
shareholders to vote out current board members.

“We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend
against it,” said Pete Stoddart, spokesman for Ceridian.

Minneapolis, Minn.-based Ceridian Corporation enables customers to outsource
a range of employment processes.  The Company also provides information
services in the human resources, transportation, and retail markets.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is seeking to compel arbitration in several
lawsuits regarding the status of its accreditation with other colleges.

On March 8, 2004, the company was served with two virtually identical
putative class-action complaints:

     -- "Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges,
         Inc.," and

     -- "Florida Metropolitan University, and Satz v. Rhodes
         Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida
         Metropolitan University."

Additionally, on May 7, 2004, the company received another putative class-
action complaint entitled:

     -- "Jennifer Baker, et al. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and
         Florida Metropolitan University, Inc."

On April 15, 2005, the company received another complaint:

     -- "Alan Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,
         Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan
         University, Inc."

The Baker complaint names nine plaintiffs while the Alvarez first amended and
supplemental complaint names 99 plaintiffs.

Additionally, the court in the Alvarez case recently granted the plaintiffs
motion to add an additional seven plaintiffs to the first amended and
supplemental complaint.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former students in the company's
Florida Metropolitan University (FMU) campuses in Florida and online.  

They allege that FMU concealed the fact that the Commission on
Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
(SACS) does not accredit it and that FMU credits are not transferable to
other institutions.

Plaintiffs seek certification of the lawsuits as a class action and recovery
of compensatory damages and attorneys' fees under Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act for themselves and all similarly situated people.

The Alvarez plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves under common law
and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The arbitrator in the Satz case found for the company on all counts in a July
5, 2005 award on the company's motion to dismiss.

The arbitrator also found that Mr. Satz breached his agreement with FMU by
filing in court rather than seeking arbitration and is therefore responsible
to pay FMU's damages associated with compelling the action to arbitration.  
Mr. Satz filed a motion for reconsideration, which the arbitrator recently
denied.

The company has filed motions to compel arbitration in "Baker" and "Alvarez,"
and the Travis court recently compelled that case to arbitration.

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

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu-- is a for-profit, post-
secondary education companies in the U.S. and Canada, with more than 64,500
students enrolled as of June 30, 2006.  As of June 30, 2006, the Company
operated 95 colleges in 26 states and 33 colleges in seven Canadian
provinces.  It offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees through five operating divisions in the U.S.
and Canada.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on appeal
regarding the dismissal of a securities fraud suit filed against Corinthian
Colleges, Inc.

From July 8, 2004 through Aug. 31, 2004, various putative class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by
certain alleged purchasers of the company's common stock against the company
and certain of its current and former executive officers, David Moore, Dennis
Beal, Paul St. Pierre and Anthony Digiovanni.

On Nov. 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and these cases have been
consolidated into one action.  A first consolidated amended complaint was
filed in February 2005.  

The consolidated case is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the company's common stock during a specified class period
from Aug. 27, 2003 through July 30,
2004.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in violation of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the defendants made certain material misrepresentations and
failed to disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
company's business and prospects during the putative class period, causing
the plaintiffs to purchase the company's common stock at artificially
inflated prices.

The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Moore, Beal, St.
Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act.  
The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as
well as other relief.

On April 24, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's third consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.  The
plaintiff has appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth
Circuit.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its 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 "Conway Investment Club v. Corinthian Colleges Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real with referral to Judge Carla Woehrle.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Vahn Alexander, Esq.
         Yourman Alexander and Parekh
         3601 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 3000
         Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
         Phone: 310-601-4108
         E-mail: valexander@yaplaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Robert L. Dell Angelo, Esq.
         Munger Tolles & Olson
         355 S. Grand Ave, 35th Fl
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
         Phone: 213-683-9100
         E-mail: dellangelorl@mto.com


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Suit by Bryman College Student
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. remains a defendant in a putative class action
filed by a former diagnostic medical sonography student from the company's
Bryman College campus in West Los Angeles.  The plaintiff, Michelle Sanchez,
alleges the school violated California’s education code and of California's
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

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

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu-- is a for-profit, post-
secondary education companies in the U.S. and Canada, with more than 64,500
students enrolled as of June 30, 2006.  As of June 30, 2006, the Company
operated 95 colleges in 26 states and 33 colleges in seven Canadian
provinces.  It offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees through five operating divisions in the U.S.
and Canada.


CORNELL COS: Faces Litigation in N.Mex. Over VCDC Strip Searches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc. faces a purported class action in Federal District
court in Albuquerque, New Mexico that was filed by individuals stripped
searched at the Valencia County Detention Center (VCDC).

Joe Torres and Eufrasio Armijo filed the suit on April 2007.  Each alleged
that he was stripped searched at VCDC in violation of his federal rights
under the Fourth, Fourteenth and Eighth amendments to the U.S. constitution.  

The claimants also allege violation of their rights under state law and seek
to bring the case as a class action on behalf of themselves and all detainees
at VCDC during the applicable statues of limitation.  

The plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, 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.

Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/-- provides  
correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and treatment services for
adults and juveniles.  The company partners with federal, state, county and
local government agencies.  Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure institutions
and detention centers, juvenile justice, educational and treatment programs,
and adult community-based corrections and treatment programs.  


CORNELL COS: Still Faces Tex. Stockholder Suit on Veritas Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc. still faces a purported class action in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas, 269th Judicial District (No. 2006-67413) that
was filed by Ted Kinbergy, a purported stockholder of the company.

Filed on Oct. 19, 2006, the complaint names as defendants the company and
each member of its board of directors as well as Veritas Capital Fund III,
L.P.

The company is a purported class action that alleges, among other things,
that:  

      -- the defendants have breached fiduciary duties they  
         assertedly owed to the company's stockholders in  
         connection with the company entering into the Agreement  
         and Plan of Merger, dated as of Oct. 6, 2006, with  
         Veritas, Cornell Holding Corp., and CCI Acquisition  
         Corp., and  

      -- the merger consideration is unfair and inadequate.  

The plaintiffs sought, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of the merger.

The proposed merger was rejected at a special meeting of the company’s
stockholders held on Jan. 23, 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.

Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/-- provides  
correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and treatment services for
adults and juveniles.  The company partners with federal, state, county and
local government agencies.  Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure institutions
and detention centers, juvenile justice, educational and treatment programs,
and adult community-based corrections and treatment programs.  


CVS/CAREMARK CORP: Del. Court Considers Merger Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court has yet to approve a proposed settlement in a
class action over the merger of CVS Corp. and Caremark Rx Inc., which
resulted in the formation of a new entity called CVS/Caremark Corp.

On Nov. 1, 2006, CVS Corp. and Caremark RX Inc. entered into a definitive
merger agreement, and the merger closed on March 22, 2007 following receipt
of required shareholder approvals.  The new entity is called CVS/Caremark
Corp.

Prior to approval and closing of the merger, several putative class actions
were filed in the Tennessee state court, the Tennessee federal court and the
Delaware Chancery Court alleging, among other things, that Caremark’s board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger.

The Tennessee state and federal cases were either stayed or held in abeyance
pending the outcome of the Delaware Chancery Court litigation.

The Delaware case was filed by the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’
Retirement System and later joined by R.W. Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of
Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf of Caremark’s stockholders.

On March 8, 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Delaware case and informed the Delaware Chancery Court of their agreement.

The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement on April 13, 2007, which
provides, among other things, that:

      -- the plaintiffs will dismiss the case and release the
         defendants from claims asserted in the action, and

      -- the defendants will not oppose plaintiffs’ petition for
         an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses not to exceed
         $20 million.

The settlement is subject to the court’s approval, and a hearing to determine
whether the settlement is set June 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.

Rhode Island-based CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com-- formerly  
CVS/Caremark Corp., operates in the retail drugstore industry in the U.S.  As
of December 30, 2006, the Company operated 6,202 retail and specialty
pharmacy stores in 43 states and the District of Columbia. The Company
operates in two segments: Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Benefit Management
(PBM).  The Company sells prescription drugs and an assortment of general
merchandise, including over-the-counter drugs, beauty products and cosmetics,
film and photo finishing services, seasonal merchandise, greeting cards and
convenience foods, through its CVS/pharmacy retail stores.  The PBM business
provides a range of prescription benefit management services to managed care
and other organizations.  


DANA CORP: Ohio Court Considers Motion in Ohio Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has yet to rule on
a motion for an order partially lifting the statutory discovery in the
matter, “Howard Frank v. Michael J. Burns and Robert C. Richter,” which was
filed against certain officers of Dana Corp.

The suit is specifically naming Dana Corp.’s Chief Executive Officer (Mr.
Burns, and its former Chief Financial Officer Mr. Richter, as defendants.

The plaintiffs in the action allege violations of the U.S. securities laws
and claim that the price at which Dana’s shares traded at various times
between February 2004 and November 2005 was artificially inflated as a result
of the defendants’ alleged wrongdoing.

In February 2007, lead plaintiff in the action filed a motion for an order
partially lifting the statutory discovery stay in this action to enable it to
obtain copies of certain documents produced to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Defendants opposed that motion and, following a hearing on May 4, 2007, the
matter is now under consideration by the District 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.

The suit is “Frank v. Dana Corporation et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-07393-JGC,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under
Judge James G. Carr.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Keith W. Schneider, Esq.
         Maguire & Schneider
         Ste. 500, 250 Civic Center Drive
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-224-1222
         Fax: 614-224-1236
         E-mail: kwschneider@ms-lawfirm.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph P. Thacker, Esq.
         Cooper & Walinski
         900 Adams Street
         Toledo, OH 43624
         Phone: 419-249-0264
         Fax: 419-720-3439
         E-mail: thacker@cooperwalinski.com


DOBSON COMMS: $3.4M Settlement of Okla. Securities Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Final Order and Judgment approving a $3.4 million settlement of a
consolidated securities fraud suit against Dobson Communications, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is under appeal.

The class consists of all persons and their beneficiaries who purchased or
acquired publicly traded Dobson Communications,
Corp. securities between May 6, 2003 to Aug. 9, 2004.

Beginning on Oct. 22, 2004, securities class actions were filed against the
defendants.  Most of them allege violations of the federal securities laws
and seeks unspecified damages.  

The suits allege among other things:

      -- that the company concealed significant decreases in
         revenues and failed to disclose certain facts about its
         business, including that the company's rate of growth
         in roaming minutes was substantially declining, and
         that the company had experienced negative growth in
         October 2003;

      -- that AT&T Wireless, the company's largest roaming
         customer, had notified the company that it wanted to
         dispose of its equity interest in the company that it
         had held since the company's initial public offering,
         significantly decreasing their interest in purchasing
         roaming capacity from the company;

      -- that Bank of America intended to dispose of its
         substantial equity interest in the company as soon as
         AT&T Wireless disposed of its equity interest in the
         company;

      -- that the company had been missing sales quotas and
         losing market share throughout the relevant period; and

      -- that the company lacked the internal controls required
         to report meaningful financial results.

The suits further allege that the company issued various positive statements
concerning its financial prospects and subscriber information, the speed of
the deployment of its GSM network and the continued growth in its roaming
minutes, and that those statements were false and misleading.

The court consolidated these actions into "In Re: Dobson Communications, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CIV-04-
1394-C."

On July 5, 2005, motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint were filed.  
Plaintiffs filed their response to the motions to dismiss on Sept. 6, 2005.  
The company filed its reply briefs on
Oct. 3, 2005.

In November 2006, Dobson reached a settlement agreement for the consolidated
securities class action (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 15, 2006).

The company said the $3.4 million settlement, if approved, would settle all
claims from investors who bought shares between May 6, 2003 and Aug. 9,
2004.  A substantial portion of the settlement amount is covered by
insurance, according to the company.

On March 20, 2007, after a hearing, the trial court approved the settlement
agreement and issued a Final Order and Judgment.

On April 19, 2007 an individual (who had filed an objection to the settlement
and who was not a class member) filed a purported appeal of the Final Order
and Judgment approving the settlement, 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 "In Re: Dobson Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CIV-04-1394-C," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J. Cauthron.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stuart W. Emmons, Esq.
         William B. Federman, Esq.
         Jennifer F. Sherrill, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         120 N Robinson Ave., Suite 2720
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         Fax: 405-239-2112
         E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com
                 wfederman@aol.com
                 jfs@federmanlaw.com

              - and -

         Trevan Borum, Esq.
         Gregory Castaldo, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: tborum@sbclasslaw.com
                 gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Jeffrey A. Berger, Esq.
         Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
         Chicago, 71 S. Wacker Dr.
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: 312-701-8583
         Fax: 312-706-8400
         E-mail: jberger@mayerbrownrowe.com

              - and -   

         Warren F Bickford, IV, Esq.
         Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens
         100 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 1700
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820
         Phone: 405-232-0621
         Fax: 405-232-9659
         E-mail: wbickford@fellerssnider.com


DRUG COS: Another County Mulls Joining Suit Over Pseudoephedrine
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boone County Quorum Court in Arkansas is considering joining other
Arkansas counties in a class action against several manufacturers of
pseudoephedrine, Harrison Daily Times’ Celia Dewoody reports.

In last week’s Law Enforcement Committee meeting, Chairman Jerry Greenhaw
told the Times that Independence, Monroe, Nevada, Sharp, Woodruff and Carroll
counties have already united in the suit against big drug companies.

The suit, which seeks to recover damages the counties have incurred in
combating methamphetamine use and addiction, was filed in Independence County
Circuit Court on March 21.

It follows the pattern established by the tobacco lawsuits that culminated in
the multi-state tobacco settlement of 1998.

The suit accused the companies of failing to cooperate with efforts by the
Drug Enforcement Administration for controls on ephedrine and pseudoephedrine
since 1986.  

Among the defendants named in the suit are Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and
Perrigo Co. (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 20, 2007).

No specific damages were mentioned in the suit.

In an interview with the Times, Attorney Mike Rainwater, the Little Rock
attorney for the Risk Management section of the Arkansas Association of
Counties, said the drug companies involved are being asked for "disgorgement
of profit unjustly received."

Dustin McDaniel, Arkansas attorney general, said in a newsletter that the
suit “absolutely has merit.”

Boone County QC Law Enforcement Committee and the 14th Judicial Drug Task
Force Coordinator have one month to think about joining the action.


DYNEGY POWER: Seeks to Remove Auction Suits to Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., a subsidiary of Dynegy, Inc. want to remove two
purported state court class actions over the Illinois reverse power
procurement auction to a federal court.

                  Attorney General’s Complaint

On March 15, 2007, as amended on March 16, 2007, the Attorney General of the
State of Illinois (IAG) filed a complaint at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) against 16 electricity suppliers engaged in wholesale power
sales, challenging the results of the Illinois reverse power procurement
auction conducted in September 2006.

The complaint alleges that the prices charged under supply contracts
resulting from the auction process are not just and reasonable.

It also requests that FERC investigate purported price manipulation by the
wholesale suppliers in the auction process. The complaint names DPM among the
respondents.

The public version of the complaint served upon DPM is heavily redacted
resulting in substantial uncertainty regarding the specific allegations
against DPM and the specific relief sought by the IAG against DPM.

                        Class Actions

Shortly after the IAG’s filing at FERC, two civil class action complaints
against 21 wholesale electricity suppliers and utilities, including DPM, were
filed in Illinois state court.

The complaints largely mirror the IAG’s filing and seek unspecified actual
and punitive damages.

In late April 2007, the defendants filed notices of removal to federal court
in both cases, 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.   

Dynegy, Inc. -- http://www.dynegy.com/-- is a holding company focused on the  
power generation sector of the energy industry.  The Company’s primary
business is the production and sale of electric energy, capacity and
ancillary services from its 11,739-megawatt fleet (20 plants) of owned or
leased power generation facilities.  Dynegy’s power generation facilities
generate electricity by burning coal, natural gas or oil.  


EXPEDIA INC: Still Faces Suit Over City Hotel Accommodations Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in the Circuit Court
of Washington County, Arkansas over city hotel accommodations taxes.

On Feb. 28, 2007, the City of Fayetteville filed a putative class action in
state court against a number of internet travel companies, including
Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia.

The complaint, “City of Fayetteville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., CV 07 567-
1,” alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel
accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinances.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of those ordinances,
unjust enrichment, conversion, imposition of a constructive trust, and
declaratory judgment.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The deadline to
respond to the complaint was May 31, 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.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expedia.com/-- is an online travel company.  The  
Company has created a global travel marketplace used by a range of leisure
and corporate travelers and offline retail travel agents, as well as travel
service providers.  It makes available travel products and services provided
by airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, destination service
providers, cruise lines and other travel product and service companies.  
Expedia’s portfolio of brands includes Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
Worldwide Travel Exchange (WWTE) and Interactive Affiliate Network (IAN),
Classic Vacations, Expedia Corporate Travel (ECT), eLong and TripAdvisor.


FLORIDA: St. Lucie Moves to Dismiss Suit over Jail Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Lucie County (Florida) recently filed a motion asking a judge to dismiss
a class action filed against it over jail conditions, TCPalm reports.

Attorney Bob Watson and Public Defender Diamond Litty filed the suit on
February 2006, alleging that conditions at the county jail violate inmates'
civil rights and create a dangerous situation for inmates and guards (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006).  

They originally brought the suit in a state court and asked for a class-
action status.  But it was later transferred to the federal court.

Nearly 1,400 inmates could be involved should a judge approve the lawsuit.

The county claims the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to bring the suit and
if they did, there was no violation of federal law.

The judge still has to decide on the motion.

The suit is “Strong, et al. v. Coward, et al., Case No: 2:06-cv-14077-JEM,”
under U.S. District Judge Jose E. Martinez with referral to Ted E. Bandstra.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert J. Watson, Esq.
          Frierson & Watson
          3601 SE Ocean Boulevard Suite 4
          Stuart, FL 34996-2237
          Phone: 772-288-1880
          Fax: 288-7412
          E-mail: rjwatsonlaw@cs.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Jeffrey Alan Blaker, Esq.
          Conroy Simberg & Ganon
          1801 Centrepark Drive East Suite 200
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-697-8088
          Fax: 697-8664
          E-mail: jblaker@conroysimberg.com


GEORGIA: Suit Planned Against AHA Over Alleged Underpayments
------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta Progressive News has learned that residents, advocates, and lawyers
are working together on a class action against the Atlanta Housing Authority
for allegedly underpaying families relocated from public housing.

Some underpayments are reportedly for relocation assistance but most were for
utility bill assistance for relocated families receiving private rental
vouchers.

Anthony Bostic, a former AHA personnel, learned recently from a U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) specialist, Mr. Philip
Fortenberry, about the underpayments, the report said.  Families who accepted
relocation payments but not vouchers may have been entitled to more money
under HUD regulations, HUD reportedly told Mr. Bostic.  Those who accepted
vouchers may have been entitled to greater utility bill reimbursements each
month, according to the report.

Mr. Bosic was fired last month from the AHA.  According to the report, he
believes he was fired because of his investigation on the issue.


GOOGLE INC: Cal IV Entertainment Sues YouTube for Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cal IV Entertainment, a country music publishing company that owns copyrights
to many hit singles, filed a class action on June 7 in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against YouTube and parent company
Google for copyright violations, Afterdawn.com reports.

The company alleges that the video sharing site is home to more than 60
copyrighted songs and accuses YouTube "of direct, induced, vicarious and
contributory copyright infringement."

"YouTube has failed to adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides
for the termination of repeat-infringing YouTube subscribers and account
holders," the complaint reads.  "YouTube also fails to monitor works it had
previously been notified are being infringed."

Cal IV complains that it is very hard for the company to track down work that
may be infringing due to the random nature the videos are tagged by users.
The company also alleges that although they are enrolled in YouTube's Content
Verification Program, new copyrighted material is found on the site daily.

Cal IV brings this action on behalf of all persons or entities who own or
hold exclusive rights to any copyrighted works in which a certificate of
registration has been issued or for which an application for registration has
been properly submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office that, without consent or
authorization was reproduced, adapted, distributed, publicly displayed,
performed, or otherwise transmitted or disseminated on or through the
YouTube.com website on or after Dec. 15, 2005, through the date that these
illegal action cease.

It raises the questions of:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in direct infringement of
         plaintiff's and class members' copyrighted works;

     (b) whether defendants are engaged in contributory
         infringement of plaintiff's and class members'
         copyrighted works;

     (c) whether defendants are engaged in vicarious
         infringement of plaintiff's and class members'
         copyrighted works;

     (d) whether defendants are engaged in inducing infringement
         of plaintiff's and class members' copyrighted works;

     (e) whether defendants have the ability to take reasonable
         measures to prevent the infringement of copyrighted
         works held by plaintiff and the class;

     (f) whether defendants acted willfully in regards to the
         allegations described above;

     (g) whether defendants place an undue burden on copyright
         holders to monitor www.YouTube.com to find and
         ascertain infringing works;

     (h) whether defendants have the ability or technology that
         would allow defendants to filter content uploaded by
         its users to prevent its users from uploading work and
         materials that are protected by the Copyright Act;

     (i) whether defendants have the ability to provide
         plaintiff and the class members with an opportunity to
         monetize the use of their copyrighted works or to track
         royalties due and owing;

     (j) whether defendants have benefited financially from the
         alleged copyright violations described;

     (k) whether YouTube's "take down" notice procedure complies
         with the requirements of the DMCA;

     (l) whether defendants have access to technology that would
         allow them to limit the ability of users to post
         copyrighted material, to identify and remove
         copyrighted material, and prevent the repeat posting of
         infringing material;

     (m) whether defendants are obligated to use such technology
         as currently exists to limit copyright infringement,
         without regard to the copyright holder's decision to
         enter into a license agreement with YouTube;

     (n) whether defendants, in operating the YouTube website,
         are engaged in "storage at the direction of the a
         user," of copyrighted material, as such term is used in
         17 U.S.C. Section 5129c)(1);

     (o) whether defendants, in operating the YouTube website,
         limit their activities to storing user directed content
         without modification or whether YouTube instead
         provides features and facilities to propagate the
         content in modified form;

     (p) whether copyrighted material displayed by Youtube
         resides on the a system or network controlled by
         defendants, as that term is defined in 17 U.S.C.
         Section 512(c)(1);

     (q) whether defendants have actual knowledge of the
         infringing material on their systems or networks;

     (r) whether defendants have actual knowledge of the
         infringing activities of YouTube users on their systems
         or networks;

     (s) whether technology utilized by defendants makes it
         difficult, if not impossible for copyright holders to
         locate all instances of copyright infringement
         occurring on defendants' website;

     (t) whether the defenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. section 512
         or elsewhere in the Copyright Act are available to
         defendants;

     (u) whether defendants knowingly provide the means,
         facilities and networks to promote, encourage, invite
         and/or induce the infringing activities alleged;

     (v) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         injunctive relief;

     (w) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         damages (in the form of statutory and monetary
         damages), disgorgement of profits, interest and
         attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff and the class members pray for judgment against defendants as
follows:

     -- for a determination that this action is a proper class
        action pursuant to Rule 23 pf the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- for a permanent injunction requiring that defendants
        cease directly or indirectly infringing, or causing,
        enabling, facilitating, encouraging, promoting and
        inducing or participating in the infringement of, any of
        plaintiffs' and the class members' copyrighted works
        protected by the Copyright Act, whether now in existence
        or hereafter created;

     -- for an order requiring defendants to adopt and
        implement, and offer to all holders of valid copyrights,
        such technological measures as exist, now or in the
        future, including without limitation technologies
        developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright
        holders owners and service providers in the relevant
        industries without necessarily substantial costs or
        burdens on their systems, to otherwise made available
        through the facilities owned or operated by defendants;

     -- for actual damages to be proved at trial, including but
        not limited to defendants' profits attributable to their
        infringing acts. Alternatively, for statutory damages
        pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 504(c);

     -- for an order directing disgorgement of all profits,
        direct or indirect, illegally obtained;

     -- for an award of punitive damages as allowable under any
        applicable state law;

     -- for plaintiffs' reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 17
        U.S.C. Section 505, costs and other disbursements;

     -- for pre and post-judgment interest allowed under the
        law; and

     -- for such other relief that plaintiffs may be entitled to
        or that the court should deem just and proper.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?20d1

The suit is “Cal IV Entertainment, LLC v. Youtube, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-00617,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, under Judge Robert Echols with referral to Judge John S. Bryant.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kevin Doherty
          Burr & Forman, LLP
          700 Two American Center
          3102 West End Avenue
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 724-3211
          Fax: (615) 724-3290

          Daniel C. Girard
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

          - and -

          Gerald E. Martin
          Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
          217 Second Avenue, N
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: (615) 244-2202
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com


GRAVITY CO: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $10M
----------------------------------------------------------
Online game developer and publisher Gravity Co., Ltd. and other defendants
have reached an agreement in principle to settle the class action “In re
Gravity Co., Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 1:05-CV-04804-LAP,” brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Under the proposed settlement, a fund of $10 million will be created to
settle the claims of a class consisting of persons who purchased American
Depository Shares of the Company during the period from February 7, 2005
through November 10, 2005, inclusive.

The Company's share of the settlement fund will be $5 million. Costs of
administering the settlement, as well as Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses (which have not yet been determined) will be paid out of the
settlement fund before distributions are made to class members. In exchange,
the Company, its current and former directors and officers as well as other
third parties will be released from liability for the claims asserted by the
class.

In 2005, several class action complaints were lodged in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Gravity Co., Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRVY) between February 7, 2005 and
May 12, 2005, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, July 12, 2005).

The Complaints charge Gravity and certain of the Company's executive officers
with violations of federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading financial statements to the investing public that caused the price
of the Company's stock to be artificially inflated. Gravity develops and
distributes online games and related businesses within Korea and other
countries worldwide. The Company's primary product, Ragnarok Online, is
commercially available in 19 markets.

Historically, revenues from Ragnarok Online have accounted for the majority
of the Company's revenue, with 95% of the Company's revenue prior to the IPO
attributable to that product.

The Complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented
material adverse facts, including that:

     (1) Ragnarok Online was experiencing a material decline in
         customer demand and increased competition in the
         marketplace, which caused Ragnarok Online's revenues to
         steeply decline;

     (2) Gravity's mobile animation business was in such a dire
         state that it was no longer capable of producing a
         viable revenue stream for the Company; and

     (3) the Company's statements about substantial growth
         potential for online gaming were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made because Gravity's royalties
         and license fees (for online gaming) were negatively
         impacted by unfavorable trends in China which caused a
         decline of Ragnarok Online revenues.

On May 12, 2005, Gravity announced disappointing financial results for first-
quarter 2005 which shocked the market, causing Gravity's share price to
tumble $3.64 per share, more than 39%, to close at $5.60 per share on May 13,
2005.

Under the recent settlement, the Company has denied and continues to deny any
and all allegations of wrongdoing in connection with this matter, but
believes that given the uncertainties and costs associated with the
litigation, the settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its
shareholders.

II Young Ryu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Gravity, commented, "It
is important that we put this unfortunate event behind us so we can focus on
continuing to build our business and focus on our prospects for growth. This
settlement is a milestone towards that effort."

The proposed settlement is conditioned, among other things, on various
conditions being met and final court approval after notice to the plaintiff
class and expiration of the time for appeal from any order of the court
approving the settlement. There can be no assurance that the final settlement
will be obtained.

The suit is “In re Gravity Co., Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-CV-
04804-LAP,” in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Loretta A. Preska.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr.
          Samuel Howard Rudman
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins,           
          LLP(LIs)
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173
          E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com or srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing defendants are:

          Ross Jeffrey Ellick
          Cole Schotz Meisel Forman & Leonard
          Court Plaza North, 25 Main Street - P.O.Box 800
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201)489-3000x525-6236
          Fax: (201)489-1536
          E-mail: Rellick@coleschotz.com

          Joseph P. Moodhe
          Eliza M. Sporn
          Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP(NYC)
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-909-6000 or 212-909-6536
          Fax: 212-909-6836
          E-mail: jpmoodhe@debevoise.com or esporn@debevoise.com

          - and -

          Michael Joseph Osnato, Jr.
          Lindner, Speers & Reuland, P.C
          54 West Downer Place, P. O. Box 5055
          Aurora, IL 10105
          Phone: 212 424 9041
          Fax: 212 424 9100
          E-mail: mike.osnato@linklaters.com


ILLINOIS: Receiver Sought for Cook County Juvenile Center
---------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for court-appointed "Next Friend" of the Cook County Juvenile
Temporary Detention Center’s children filed a motion asking federal Judge
John Nordberg to appoint a receiver to run the center, Rob Olmstead of the
Daily Herald reports.

The petition was filed by American Civil Liberties Union attorney Benjamin
Wolf and attorneys from Kirkland and Ellis, who represent Next Friend
Geraghty.  They want the center run by a receiver after the state allegedly
failed to improve conditions at the center.

Mr. Geraghty, a Northwestern University School of Law professor, was
appointed by the court in 1999 to represent the children's best interests in
a class action filed by former residents.  He claims the county fulfilled
few, if any, of the promises it made in a memorandum of agreement entered in
December 2002 and in a supplemental order last year.

Complaints against the center include abuse by staff members, unclean
environment and inadequate food and supplies.

Cook County Board President Todd Stroger has issued a statement acknowledging
problems at the detention center, but denying lack of effort to address them.

The suit is named "Doe, et al. v. Cook Co, et al., Case No. 1:99-cv-03945,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge John A. Nordberg.

Representing the defendants is:

          Patrick Malone Blanchard, Esq.   
          State's Attorney of Cook County
          500 Richard J. Daley Center   
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 603-5440
          E-mail: pblanch@cookcountygov.com   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          Benjamin S. Wolf, Esq.
          Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU Inc.
          180 North Michigan Ave., Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60601-7401
          Phone: (312) 201-9740
      
               -  and  -

          Colby Anne Kingsbury, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Chicago)  
          200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100
          Chicago, IL 60601  
          Phone: (312) 861-2000
          E-mail: ckingsbury@kirkland.com


MIDWEST AIR: Market Street Sues Over Rejected AirTran Buyout
------------------------------------------------------------
Investor group Market Street Securities Inc. has filed a class action
accusing Midwest Air Group Inc. and its board of directors of not acting in
good faith by rejecting buyout offers from rival AirTran Holdings, Associated
Press reports.  

AirTran initially offered $78 million.  It boosted its bid to $389 million,
but the board of Midwest unanimously rejected the buyout calling
it "inadequate."  A shareholder meeting is set June 14.

Individual defendants are Timothy E. Hoeksema, Frederick P. Stratton, Jr.,
Samuel K. Skinner, John F. Bergstrom, David H. Treitel, Richard H. Sonnentag,
Ulice Payne, Jr., James R. Boris and Elizabeth T. Solberg.  

The suit, “Market Street Securities Inc. v. Midwest Air Group Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:2007cv00345,”was filed on June 12, 2007  in Wisconsin Eastern
District Court.  Presiding judge is J.P. Stadtmueller.  


MOTOROLA INC: Bluetooth Headsets Suits Conference Set June 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action against Motorola Inc. for its manufacture and
distribution of Bluetooth headsets is set for an initial status conference on
June 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Jesse Ammerman of the Legal Newsline.com reports.

In 2006, Motorola faced several class-action complaints in several states
over allegations that it has put the hearing of consumers at risk, since its
Bluetooth headsets exceed safe decibel levels and it failed to warn customer
of the potential dangers.

The suits allege the company's headsets have volume controls, which produce
sounds exceeding 85 decibels, with sound often peaking in excess of 100
decibels.  It contends that without resorting to scientific testing, the
consumer cannot determine the decibel level of the sound being emitted from
the headset.  

In a 2006 test performed by the American Speech-Hearing-Language Association,
Motorola's H700 model headset produced decibel levels of up to 106 decibels
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 206, 2006).

The suits pointed out that that someone can develop hearing loss if they are
exposed to such levels between three and four minutes a day.

Though the company sold the headsets with a booklet containing safety
information, the suit alleges that it "omitted and concealed [from consumers]
any safety information pertaining to the headsets' propensity for causing
noise-induced hearing loss."  The suits add that the company also omitted
information about the headsets' decibel level.  

The suits claim that users are often forced to turn up the volume on the
devices, due to the background noise that comes in through the users' non-
Bluetooth-connected ear.

"By design," the suits allege that the company "put consumers at risk of
suffering serious hearing loss when the headsets are put to their normal and
intended use." It goes on to allege that "millions of consumers have had
their hearing put at risk by Motorola's headsets."

The suits seek:

      -- an award of unspecified damages to the class;  

      -- a temporary restraining order to keep Motorola from  
         selling, marketing or advertising the headsets without  
         a detailed warning regarding potential hearing loss;  
         and  

      -- other unspecified damages.

In February, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
ordered that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, the actions pending outside
the Central District of California are transferred to the Central District of
California and with the consent of that Court, assigned to the Honorable Dale
S. Fischer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The multidistrict litigation consolidates dozens of cases brought forth by
plaintiffs alleging that the headsets cause hearing loss and Motorola failed
to warn consumers of that danger.

Lead attorneys for Motorola, Terrence J. Dee and Michelle Inouye Schultz,
both recently moved to reschedule the initial status conference for the
Bluetooth litigation from June 4 to June 18.  The hearing will take place on
that date before Judge Dale S. Fischer in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The suit is “Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:07-
ml-01822-DSF-E,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Dale S. Fischer, with referral to Judge Charles F.
Eick.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Stephen M. Garcia
          David Michael Medby
          Garcia Law Firm
          One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
          Long Beach, CA 90831
          Phone: 562-216-5270
          562-216-5270
          E-mail: sgarcia@lawgarcia.com or dmedby@lawgarcia.com

Representing defendants are:

          Terrence J. Dee P.C.
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP  
          Aon Center
          200 East Randolph Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-6636
          Phone: (312) 861-2099
          Fax: (312) 861-2200

          - and -

          Michelle Inouye Schultz
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP  
          777 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800
          Phone: (213) 680-8489
          Fax: (213) 680-8500


REAL ESTATE BROKERS: Perjury Claim Raised in Sarkisian Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the suit, "Real Estate Alliance, Ltd. v. Sarkisian et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-03573-TMG" denied perjury allegations related to the suit in a
response and supplemental filing submitted to the court during the week of
May 29, RISMedia reports.

RISMedia said it has reported on allegations of a cover-up in the mapping
patent case on May 14, 2007.  On May 9, 2007 the plaintiff filed a motion to
compel and sanction the defendant for perjury in attempting to cover up her
use of the patented mapping technology in her marketing of properties,
according to the report.

At the center of the argument is the Web site http://www.DianeSarkisian.net,
which is reportedly owned by defendant Diane Sarkisian.  REAL said the site
is not mentioned in the defendant’s sworn answer to original discovery
requests in January 2006.  Also, according to reports, the plaintiff cited
more than 60 similar lapses during the deposition as further evidence of Ms.
Sarkisian's evasiveness and intent to conceal.

The defense asserts that Ms. Sarkisian's responses during her sworn
deposition do not rise to the level of perjury.

                        Case Background

The suit was filed in 2005.  It alleged that RE/MAX agent Diane Sarkisian of
Pennsylvania infringed U.S. Patents 4870576 and 5032989; "Real Estate Search
and Location System and Method." The claims of these patents cover an online
property location process that has become a de facto standard throughout the
industry: interactive 'zoomable' maps to locate available real estate
properties.

                   Class Certification Filing

A class action motion was filed in February 2007.

According to documents filed in the district court, a finding of infringement
in this case, which has gone on for more than a year now in relative
obscurity, could result in the immediate finding of liability against tens of
thousands of individual agents and brokers defined in the class.  The
National Association of Realtors (NAR) was reportedly aware of this potential
more than a year ago.

According to the motion, official minutes from a NAR board meeting in 2006
cited the association's concern that there was a high likelihood of such
broad implication if the patent could not be invalidated.

In an effort to control the situation, the NAR and its affiliates have
already fully underwritten all of the legal costs and indemnified the
defendant in this one case with nearly $2 million dollars.  No funds were
apparently anticipated for the remaining members that may now be implicated
by this class action motion.

                         Proposed Class

The class filing seeks certification of two groups, one group is labeled
as "Trend," and represents the Multiple Listing Services members who
similarly use and benefit from the infringing process provided to
approximately 30,000 subscribers by the regional MLS organization Trend.

The second group labeled as Realtor.com seeks to establish liability for
those agents who knowingly used enhanced listings and or benefited from
utilization of enhanced listings on the Realtor.com site from July 12, 1999
to the present.

The judge has denied all of the motions of the NAR lead-defense, which
requested, in a Daubert Motion, to have the court throw out all of the patent
holders' expert witnesses.  

                   Summary Judgment Motions

Summary Judgment Motions were filed on March 7 and responses followed on
March 28 from both the plaintiff and defendant.

The defense's Summary Judgment Motion provided by the firm DLA
Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP.

The defendant's motion seeks to establish two distinct battle lines:

     -- that the defendant is not infringing the steps of the
        patent based on her actions; and

     -- that the patent is invalidated by the existence of a
        previous mapping system (prior art).

The suit is "Real Estate Alliance, Ltd. v. Sarkisian et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
03573-TMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Thomas M. Golden.

Representing defendant are Darius C. Gambino and Steven A. Nash, both of DLA
Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP, One Liberty Place,
1650 Market St., Suite 4900, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-
656-3300 or 215-656-3305, E-mail: darius.gambino@dlapiper.com or
steven.nash@dlapiper.com.

Representing plaintiffs is Lawrence A. Husick of Weinberger &
Husick, PO BOX 587, Southeastern, PA 19399-0587, Phone: 610-296-8259, Fax:
610-566-3660, E-mail: lawrence@lawhusick.com.


SIERRA HEALTH: Settles Shareholder Suit Over UnitedHealth Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Health Services Inc. has settled a shareholder lawsuit over a proposed
acquisition by UnitedHealth Group Inc., Business Insurance’s Gloria Gonzalez
reports.

The complaint was filed March 19, 2007 by a purported stockholder of the
company, Edward Sara, on behalf of himself and a class of all others
similarly situated, against Sierra Health Services, Inc., and its directors.  
It was filed in the 8th Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada in
and for the County of Clark.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached and/or
aided the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty,
due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing in connection with the
merger contemplated by the merger agreement; the defendants breached their
fiduciary duty to secure and obtain the best price reasonably available for
the company and shareholders; and the defendants are engaging in self-dealing
and unjust enrichment (Class Action Reporter, May 03, 2007).

The complaint sought, among other relief:

      -- an injunction prohibiting the defendants from
         consummating the merger unless and until the company
         adopt and implement a procedure or process to obtain
         the highest possible price for shareholders; and
   
      -- the imposition of a constructive trust upon any
         benefits improperly received by the defendants as a
         result of the alleged wrongful conduct.

Sierra didn’t admit any of the allegations in the settlement.  However, it
agreed to resolve all claims in the suit, including payment of plaintiff
attorneys’ fees and legal expenses up to $485,000.

The settlement is still subject to the court’s approval after the completion
of transaction and class members receive notice.

According to the Securities Exchange Commission’s filing, the settlement will
not affect any provisions of the proposed transaction that should close
before the year ends.

Sierra Health Services, Inc. -- http://www.sierrahealth.com/--   
is a managed healthcare organization that provides and
administers the delivery of healthcare programs.


SLS RESIDENTIAL: Ex-residents File $225M Suit over Ill-treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two former residents of a private-mental health facility filed a class action
against the companies that run the facility, Terence Corcoran of The Journal
News reports.

Nicholas J. Romano and Deborah A. Morgan of New Jersey, both in their early
20s, brought the suit on their behalf and several unnamed patients.  It was
filed in federal court in White Plains, New York, Case No: 7:07-cv-02034-SCR
under Judge Stephen C. Robinson.

The defendants named in the suit are:

     - SLS Residential Inc.;
     - SLS Health;
     - SLS Wellness;
     - Supervised Lifestyles Inc.;
     - Chairmen Alfred Bergman and Joseph Santoro; and
     - a psychologist and other SLS employees.

The suit alleges that:

     1) residents suffer emotional and physical abuse from staff
        members;

     2) SLS violated the patients' rights under the American
        with Disabilities Act;

     3) SLS staff routinely restrained clients and kept them
        from making and receiving phone calls so they won’t get
        the chance to complain to their families; and

     4) SLS staff would search patients, inspect their rooms and
        packages sent to them.

Contrary to SLS's advertisement that says it provides mentally-ill patients
compassionate and effective treatment, staff members would taunt, ridicule,
humiliate and sometimes assault the residents, the suit says.

The suit further says that the lead plaintiffs’ families pay more than
$200,000 for "treatment that was harmful and exploitative."

The suit seeks $75 million in compensatory damages, $150 million in punitive
damages and an injunction that would prohibit SLS from further violating
patients' rights.

SLS operates mental health facilities for adolescents and young adults
alike.  One is located on North Brewster Road and the other at Putnam Avenue
and Route 6.

Just last year, the state Office of Mental Health charged SLS Residential
$80,000 in fines for violating the state Mental Hygiene Law.  OMH also
ordered the facility to stop admitting patients.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael Howard Sussman, Esq.
          Sussman Law Offices
          40 Park Place P.O. Box 1005
          Goshen, NY 10924
          Phone: 845-294-3991
          Fax: 845-294-1623
          E-mail: sussman1@frontiernet.net

Representing the defendants is:

          Margaret Joann Babb, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202)-416-5828
          Fax: (202)-416-6899
          E-mail: mbabb@proskauer.com


TYSON FRESH: Recalls Ground Beef Products Tainted with E. Coli
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., a Sherman, Texas establishment, in cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 40,440 pounds of ground beef products due
to possible contamination with E. coli O157:H7.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody
diarrhea and dehydration.  The very young, seniors and persons with
compromised immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

The products subject to recall include:

     (a) 1.5-pound trays of "ANGUS STEAK BURGER ALL NATURAL,
         85/15, 6- 1/4 POUND PATTIES;"

     (b) 1.33-pound trays of "ANGUS STEAK BURGER ALL NATURAL,     
         85/15, EXTRA THICK, 4- 1/3 POUND PATTIES;"

     (c) 2.25-pound trays of "73/27 ALL NATURAL GROUND BEEF,
         CARNE MOLIDA DE RES;" and

     (d) 5.5-pound trays of "73/27 ALL NATURAL GROUND BEEF, CARNE
         MOLIDA DE RES."

Each label bears the establishment number "Est. 244S" inside the USDA mark of
inspection as well as a "Use or Freeze By" date of "JUN 13 07."

Click on the link to view the labels of the products:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_027_2007_Release/index.asp#label
s

The problem was discovered through trim sampling done by the company.  The
ground beef products were produced on June 2, 2007 and were distributed to
retail establishments in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the Tyson Consumer
Hotline at (800) 233-6332. Media with questions about the recall should
contact company Director of Media Relations Gary Mickelson at (479) 290-6111.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual
representative available 24 hours a day at http://www.AskKaren.gov. The toll-
free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


ZURICH FINANCIAL: $29.95M Lawyers’ Fees in Antitrust Suits OK’d
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Garrett Brown of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on June 5, approved the $29.95 million payment of fees and expenses
to lawyers who filed antitrust suits against Zurich Financial Services AG
negotiating a $100 million settlement, Bloomberg News reports.

In court papers, plaintiffs’ lawyers said they worked nearly 280,000 hours on
the case, reviewed 26.5 million pages of documents and interviewed 90
witnesses.

On Feb. 16, Judge Brown affirmed the class-action settlement, where lead law
firms are Cafferty Faucher and Whatley Drake & Kallas, representing more than
50 Zurich policyholders.

According to the report, the settlement will pay claims that eight companies
eliminated competition and rigged bids, violating state and federal antitrust
laws.  The companies also have settled with attorneys general and regulators
in 15 states. The insurers in the settlement all are identified as Zurich
units on company Web sites, Bloomberg reported.


UNITED NATIONS: Claims Immunity from Srebrenica Massacre Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United Nations responded Friday to a class action filed against the U.N.
and the Netherlands last week, Jurist’s Michael Sung reports.

The suit, filed in the Dutch Supreme Court in The Hague, Netherlands, alleges
that both the U.N. and Netherlands failed to protect Muslim civilians from
the 1995 genocide, also known as the Srebrenica massacre (Class Action
Reporter, Jun 07, 2007).

The U.N. argued it was immune under Article 2 Section 2 of the Convention on
the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.  The provision says the
U.N.'s property and assets "shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal
process except it has expressly waived its immunity."

Spokesperson for the U.N. Secretary-General, Marie Okabe, said survivors of
the Srebrenica massacres have the right to demand justice.  She added that
the fact that the United Nations is immune from lawsuits does not impair its
commitment to assist the victims.


WASHINGTON: Court Sided with Drivers in Partial Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Washington Superior Court issued a partial summary judgment against the
city, saying it violated state law and city ordinance, Phuong Cat Le of
Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports.

Superior Court Judge Harry McCarthy ruled in favor of about 4,000 drivers in
Bellevue, Washington who got ticketed for parking on holidays from 2003 up to
2006.  He emphasized the city’s inconsistent enforcement practices during the
period that Ms. Turner was ticketed.

Bellevue resident Colette Turner filed the $700,000 class action on behalf of
all the people who got ticketed for illegally parking on a holiday or for
failure to go back to their car in time.  She claims they should get their
money back.

Despite the street signs saying "You don't have to pay for parking or feed
the meter on holidays," the city still issued tickets and had been doing so
for three years (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2007).

Whether the plaintiffs will get a refund is yet to be resolved.

Plaintiffs’ attorney David Stobaugh said the refund is part of the relief
they’re seeking and it’s for the judge to decide.  He said they are trying to
get everyone reimbursed and that he may have to file another motion at some
point.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is:

          David Stobaugh, Esq.
          Bendich, Stobaugh & Strong, P.C.   
          900 4th Ave. Suite 3800
          Seattle, WA 98164-1044
          Phone:  (206) 622-3536
          Fax:  (206) 622-5759


WASHINGTON: WTO Protesters Get Compensated for Illegal Arrests
--------------------------------------------------------------
Protesters receive compensation for being unconstitutionally arrested in 1999
during a rally against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Wash., CBC
News reports.

Aaron Koleszar was one of the 175 arrested in the highly-organized protest
against globalization.

He recently knew that the class action against the city has been settled for
$1 million.  The agreement also says the police cannot disclose the arrest
records with other government agencies.

The 175 plaintiffs would only receive about $3,000 each; the rest of the
money goes to attorneys’ fees and legal costs.

Mr. Koleszar is not satisfied with the court’s decision and calls it a small
victory.


W.R. GRACE: Mass. Court Denies Jury Demand in ERISA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted defendants’
motion to strike plaintiffs’ jury demand in purported class actions against
W.R. Grace & Co., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

                        Evans Litigation

In June 2004, a purported class action-complaint, “Evans v. Akers et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-11380-WGY,” was filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Board of Directors, certain current and
former Grace officers and employees, and others, relating to the Grace 401(k)
Savings and Investment Plan.

The complaint alleges that the decline in the price of Grace common stock
from July 1999 through February 2004 resulted in significant losses to S&I
Plan participants.

It further alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under
ERISA, by failing to sell or take other appropriate action with regard to
Grace common stock held by the S&I Plan during that period, and by failing to
disclose to S&I Plan participants the risk of investing in Grace common
stock.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages for the S&I Plan from the defendants.

                        Bunch Litigation

On Oct. 26, 2004, a purported class-action complaint, “Bunch et al. v. W. R.
Grace & Co. et al.,” also related to the S&I Plan was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against Grace, the
Investment and Benefits Committee, the Board of Directors, certain current
and former Grace officers and employees, and others.

The complaint alleges that Grace and its investment advisors breached
fiduciary duties under ERISA by selling Grace common stock from the S&I Plan
at a distressed price.

It further alleges that Grace breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by hiring
State Street Bank and Trust Company, the investment manager for the S&I Plan
that Grace retained in December 2003, to rapidly liquidate all of the
employees’ Grace common stock investment at an artificially low sales price.

                      Recent Developments

On July 21, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the Bunch action to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Case No. 1:05-cv-
11602-WGY.  

On Aug. 23, 2005, the Massachusetts District Court consolidated into one case
both the Bunch action and the Evans action.  Grace expects that it would have
an obligation to indemnify the other defendants for any liability arising out
of the consolidated lawsuit.

On Dec. 6, 2006, the Massachusetts District Court, in considering the Evans
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, denied that motion and dismissed
the Evans plaintiffs’ claims, on grounds that those plaintiffs lacked
standing to bring suit.  

The Evans plaintiffs’ petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit to permit an interlocutory appeal of these decisions.  On April 9,
2007, the First Circuit denied the Evans plaintiffs’ petition.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the Bunch plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
Massachusetts District Court alleging self-dealing by State Street and
various theories purportedly supporting allegations of breaches of fiduciary
duty by Grace and other defendants.  

On Feb. 2, 2007, Grace and State Street each filed motions with the District
Court to dismiss the amended complaint against Grace and State Street,
respectively.  

On March 1, 2007, the District Court denied each of these motions to dismiss,
and certified a class of plaintiffs comprising certain S&I Plan
participants.  

On March 30, 2007, the District Court granted Grace’s and State Street’s
motion to strike the Bunch plaintiffs’ jury demand, 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.

W.R. Grace & Co. -- http://www.grace.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is  
engaged in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses on a
worldwide basis.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

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

DENDRON CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Dendreon Corporation
between March 30, 2007 and May 8, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Dendreon and the Company's chief executive officer with
violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims
that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's performance and prospects
caused Dendreon's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting
damages on investors.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants failed to
disclose or indicate, among other things, that:

          (i) study D9902A, a Phase III clinical trial for
              Provenge, was not a complete clinical trial due to
              the limited number of enrolled patients, and
              therefore it lacked complete statistical
              significance;

         (ii) as a result of the foregoing, study D9902A was not
              comparable to earlier studies;

        (iii) the Company's studies failed to show that Provenge
              slowed the spread of prostate cancer;

         (iv) the Company had significantly changed how it
              categorized in its financial statements a contract
              with Diosynth Biotechnology for commercial-scale
              quantities of antigen; and

          (v) this change in accounting allowed the Company to
              manipulate its financial statements and make the
              Company appear financially stronger and more
              attractive to investors.

On May 9, 2007, the Company disclosed that it had received a Complete
Response Letter, commonly referred to as an "approvable" letter, from the FDA
concerning its approval of the BLA for Provenge. The Company revealed that
the FDA had requested additional clinical data in support of the efficacy
claim contained in the BLA, as well as additional information concerning the
chemistry, manufacturing and controls section of the BLA.

This news shocked the market, causing Dendreon stock to plummet $11.41 per
share -- a more than 69% drop -- to close on May 9, 2007 at $6.33 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

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

Dendreon is a biotechnology company that engages in the discovery,
development and commercialization of novel therapeutics that harness the
immune system to fight cancer. The Company's most advanced product candidate
for FDA marketing approval is Provenge, an active cellular immunotherapy.

For more information, contact:

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


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline Plc is facing a class-action complaint filed June 11 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York claiming the
company misled investors about the safety of its diabetes drug Avandia.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly
issuing a series of false and misleading statements regarding Avandia, GSK's
popular diabetes drug.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that GSK failed to adequately disclose
the fact that it had performed a meta-analysis (a pooled analysis of several
clinical trials) related to Avandia which showed an increased risk of heart
attacks.

Preliminary results of this analysis were presented to the FDA in September
2005 and updated results were disclosed to the FDA in August 2006. However,
the results of GSK's meta-analysis were never adequately disclosed to the
investing public.

As alleged in the Complaint, on May 21, 2007, before the close of trading,
the results of a meta-analysis on Avandia conducted by a doctor with the
Cleveland Clinic was reported and published in the New England Journal of
Medicine. Similar to GSK's meta-analysis conducted in 2005 and 2006, the
results of the meta-analysis published in the Journal revealed that Avandia
increased the risk of heart attacks and possibly heart-related deaths. As a
result of the reports regarding the meta-analysis, the price of GSK
securities declined $4.53 per share, or 7.8%, to close at $53.18 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased GSK securities between October 27, 2005 and May 21, 2007, inclusive.

For more information, contact:

          Frederic S. Fox
          Joel B. Strauss
          Jeffrey P. Campisi
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, New York 10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

          Laurence D. King
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501
          San Francisco, California  94111
          Phone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


MACY’S INC: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC commenced a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Macy’s Inc. (formerly known as Federated Department Stores,
Inc.) (now NYSE:M – formerly NYSE:FD) publicly traded securities during the
period between February 8, 2007 and May 15, 2007.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is August 3, 2007.

The complaint charges Macy’s and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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. in 2005
for $11 billion.

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.

For more information, contact:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esquire
          Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC
          Phone: 1-800-391-5164
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


NETLIST INC: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class
action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of purchasers of Netlist, Inc. 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 (the Securities Act).

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

The complaint charges Netlist and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  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.

The Company engages in the design, manufacture, and sale of memory subsystems
for the server, computing, and communications markets in the U.S.

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


XINHUA FINANCE: Zwerling, Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased American Depository Shares (ADSs) of Xinhua Finance
Media Ltd. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with the initial public offering of
Xinhua Finance ADSs (the IPO) between March 8, 2007 and May 21, 2007
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933. The Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO failed to disclose that prior to
the IPO, Defendant Shelly Singhal, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, was an investment banker and stockbroker, who ran a brokerage firm,
Bedrock Securities, that was subject to a cease-and-desist order from the
National Association of Securities Dealers during 2006 and an investigation
that remains pending.

On this news, the Company's shares fell from $9.94 a share to close at $8.76
a share on May 21, 2007. On May 22, 2007, Xinhua Finance shares fell further
to close at $7.10 a share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 23, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq.
          Jayne Nykolyn
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          Phone: 1-800- 721-3900
          E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com
          Website: http://www.zsz.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  * * *