CAR_Public/070614.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 14, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 117

                           Headlines
     
ALABAMA CONTRACTORS: Accused of Violating Clean Water Act
ARTI PROPERTIES: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Recover Unpaid Overtime
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
BROOKS AUTOMATION: Seeks Dismissal of Mass. Securities Complaint
CALPINE CORP: Reaches Settlement in Calif. ERISA Violations Suit

CANADA: Courts Approve $1B Compensation to Hepatitis C Victims
CANADA: Residents Near Landfill Plan to File Suit Over Smell
CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Calif. Securities Suit’s Dismissal Appealed
CONNECTICUT: DCF Settles Suit Over Foster Care Services for $10M
CRIMZON ROSE: Recalls Stud Earrings Due to High Lead Content

DOMINION HOMES: Faces Suit in Ohio Over Down Payment Assistance
DOMINION HOMES: Still Faces Ohio Condominium Homeowners' Suit
DOMINION HOMES: Still Faces Ohio Suit Over Down Payment Program
DOT HILL: Securities Plaintiffs File New Consolidated Complaint
DR. PHIL: Therapist Claims Fraud in Relation to TV Show Ad

ECHOSTAR COMMS: August 2008 Trial Set for Colo. Retailers' Suit
FERRO CORP: Awaits Final Approval of $4M ERISA Suit Settlement
FERRO CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Ohio
FUNERAL HOMES: N.Y. Homes Sued Over Illegal Tissue Harvesting
GAS STATIONS: Face Ga. Lawsuit Over “Unremitted” Fuel Taxes

GLOBE FIRE: Recalls Fire Sprinklers That Could Fail in Use
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Trial in Securities Fraud Suit Set January
ICF INTERNATIONAL: Faces La. Lawsuit Over Road Home Program
LYCOMING ENGINES: Technicality Causes Trouble for “Bristow” Case
MERCEDES HOMES: Workers File Suit in Fla. Over Unpaid Overtime

MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y. Suit Over Misuse of “Sweep Programs” Amended
MMR CASE: Few Claimants Makes Class Status Moot, Court Says
NEW MEXICO: Judge Grants Red-light Camera Suit Class Status
NEW YORK: High Court Rules DMV May Require Identification
PUERTO RICO STORES: Recall DEG-Containing China-Made Toothpaste

REICH & MANCINI: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Recover Unpaid Overtime
REWARDS NETWORK: Settlement of Suit by Dining Plan Members Ok’d
STARWOOD RESORTS: IT Manager Alleges Labor Code Violations
TARGET CORP: Faces Cal. Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
TJX COS: Faces “Hamilton-Griffin” Privacy Violations Lawsuit

VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Late Fee Charges
WEST VIRGINIA: Masseur Sued for Secretly Filming Female Clients

* HARMD Expects Onslaught of Cases Over Methadone-Related Deaths

   
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

STERLING FINANCIAL: Subsidiaries Face Securities Suit in N.Y.
STERLING FINANCIAL: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
XINHUA FINANCE: Schiffrin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ALABAMA CONTRACTORS: Accused of Violating Clean Water Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Several Alabama contractors are facing a class-action complaint filed May 31
in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County in Alabama over alleged violations
of the Clean Water Act, the CourtHouse News reported.

Named defendants in the complaint are:

          -- Grady Roland Pugh, Sr.;
          -- Grady Roland Pugh, Jr.;
          -- Joseph "Eddie" Yessick;
          -- US Infrastructure, Inc.;
          -- Sohan P. Singh;
          -- Edward T. Key;
          -- Floyd W. Pat Dougherty;
          -- F.W. Dougherty Engineering & Associates, Inc.;
          -- Rast Construction, Inc.;
          -- Bobby Rast;
          -- Danny Rast;
          -- Affholder Co.;
          -- Civil Engineering and Design Services Inc. a/k/a;
             R.K. Wilson & Associates, Inc.;
          -- Jack W. Swann;
          -- Clarence R. Barber;
          -- Harry T. Chandler;
          -- Ronald K. Wilson;
          -- Larry P. Creel;
          -- William Dawson; and
          -- several other fictitious persons, entities or
             corporations who have entered into contracts or
             otherwise participated in the court ordered sewer
             project who also conspired to commit wrongdoing.

Named plaintiff Carole C. Smitherman alleges that these contractors bribed
Jefferson County officials with golf outings, cash, gambling trips and
property in order to land lucrative sewer contracts.

She further alleges County officials had more than $3 billion to award after
the county agreed to bring its sewer system into compliance with the Clean
Water Act. The Jefferson County Environmental Services Department supervised
the upgrade, which was expected to cost at least $1 billion.

When a group of engineers and sewer technicians approved pipe-lining products
as part of the county’s sewer repair work, the defendants allegedly rig bids
to get a slice of the $3 billion awarded in county sewer contracts, the class
action states.

Several contractors and officials pleaded guilty to bribery in connection
with the scheme, and one contractor was fined $2 million for his role in
bribing officials.

Plaintiff brings these allegations pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(a) and/or 23(b)
(3) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all Alabama
residents, entities and/or businesses who have paid sewer charges to the
Jefferson County Sewer Commission between 1996 to date.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants' conduct constituted bribery
         resulting in Jefferson County sewer contracts;

     (b) whether defendants' bribery and scheme resulted in
         higher sewer rates than would have otherwise been
         necessary had the bribery not occurred;

     (c) whether defendants' bribery and scheme resulted in
         higher tax rates than would have otherwise been
         necessary had the bribery not occurred;

     (d) whether defendants' bribery and scheme led to the
         performance of substandard work by defendants on the
         sewer contracts; and

     (e) whether defendants breached contract of which the class
         were third party beneficiaries.

Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for compensatory and punitive
damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. Plaintiff further
requests any other relief to which she may be entitled.

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?20d9

The suit is "Carole C. Smitherman et al. v. Grady Roland Pugh, Sr. et al.,
Case No. CV200701951," filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama.

Representing the plaintiff:

          Brandy Murphy Lee, Esq.
          Campbell, Waller & Poer, L.L.C.  
          2100 Southbridge Pkwy, Suite 450
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: (205) 803-7335
          Fax: (205) 803-0053


ARTI PROPERTIES: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arti Properties, Inc. and Arti Properties, Inc., d/b/a Econo Lodge, are
facing a class-action complaint filed June 6 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations.

Named plaintiff Fannie Nealy brings this action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Section 201, et. seq.) to recover unpaid
back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff alleges that from at least March 2005 and continuing through Feb.
7, 2007, defendants failed to comply with the law concerning pay at the rate
of at least minimum wage for all hours worked and to compensate plaintiff at
a rate of one and one-half times plaintiff's regular rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.  Plaintiff's should not
have been required for less than minimum wage for all hours worked and should
be compensated at the rate of one and one-half times plaintiff's regular rate
for those hours that plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week as
required by the FLSA, the complaint states.

Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in her favor and against
defendants as follows:

     -- declaring, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 206, that the
        acts and practices complained of are in violation of the
        minimum wage provisions of the FLSA;

     -- awarding plaintiff compensation in the amount due them
        for plaintiff's time worked for defendants for which he
        has not been compensated at least minimum wage;

     -- awarding plaintiff liquidated damages in an amount equal
        to the unpaid wage award;

     -- awarding plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs
        and expenses of the litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
        Section 216(b);

     -- awarding plaintiff pre-judgment interest; and

     -- ordering any other further relief the court deems just
        and proper.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?20e5

The suit is “Nealy v. Arti Properties Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-14170-
JEM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
under Judge Jose E. Martinez with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Andrew Ross Frisch
          Rosenthal & Levy PA
          1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 350
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-478-2500
          Fax: 561-478-3111


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule
on a motion seeking the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class
action pending against Authentidate Holding Corp. and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class actions were
filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the company and certain of current and former officers and directors.  

Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  

The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the company failed
to disclose that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) could cancel its August 2002
contract with it if the company did not meet certain performance metrics, and
when it disclosed in 2005 that the USPS could cancel its contract because the
company had not met those performance metrics, the market price of its stock
declined.  The class action complaints seek unspecified monetary damages.

Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders have filed motions seeking to
consolidate the class actions and to be appointed a lead plaintiff under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

On Oct. 5, 2005 the court consolidated the class actions as, "In re
Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05
Civ. 5323 (LTS)," and appointed the Illinois State Board of Investment as
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on Jan. 3,
2006, which asserted the same claims as the prior complaints and also alleged
that the company violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting that
it possessed certain patentable technology.

On July 14, 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety;
certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and plaintiff was given leave to
replead those claims, which were not dismissed with prejudice.

In August 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which does not
assert any claims relating to the company's patents, but which otherwise is
substantially similar to the prior complaint.  The second amended complaint
seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
Nov. 13, 2006.  The motion is pending before the court, according to 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: Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:05-cv-05323-LTS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Laura Taylor Swain.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard William Gonnello, Esq.
         Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
         Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
         Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
         280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 894-7200
         Fax: (212) 894-7272
         E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
                 jwhitman@entwistle-law.com

              - and -

         Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Irwin Howard Warren, Esq.
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: (212) 310-8000
         Fax: (212) 833-3148
         E-mail: irwin.warren@weil.com


BROOKS AUTOMATION: Seeks Dismissal of Mass. Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has yet to rule on
a motion seeking the dismissal of a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
securities class action, “Charles E. G. Leech Sr. v. Brooks Automation, Inc.,
et al.”

                       Leech Class Action

On June 19, 2006, a putative class action, "Charles E. G. Leech
Sr. v. Brooks Automation, Inc., et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  The defendants in this action are:

     -- the company;

     -- former chairman and chief executive Robert Therrien;

     -- Ellen Richstone, former chief financial officer;

     -- Roger D. Emerick, former director;

     -- Amin D. Khoury, former director;

     -- Robert W. Woodbury, Jr. chief financial officer; and

     -- Edward C. Grady, director, president and chief
        executive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the company and the individual
defendants; Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants; Section 11 of the Securities Act against the company and Messrs.
Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and Therrien; Section 12 of the Securities
Act against the company and Messrs. Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and
Therrien; and Section 15 of the Securities Act against Messrs.
Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and Therrien.

The complaint seeks, inter alia, damages, including interest, and plaintiff's
costs.

                        Shaw Litigation

On July 19, 2006, a putative class action, "James R. Shaw v.
Brooks Automation, Inc. et al., No. 06-11239-RWZ," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The defendants in the case are the company, Mr. Therrien, Ms. Richstone, Mr.
Emerick, Mr. Khoury, Mr. Woodbury, and Mr. Grady. The company has not been
served with the complaint at the time the company prepared its report for the
fiscal year ended Sept.
30.  

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants and violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against all individual defendants.  It thus, seeks,
inter alia, damages, including interest, and plaintiff's costs.

On Dec. 13, 2006, the court issued an order consolidating the Shaw action
with the Leech action described above and appointing a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.  

The lead plaintiff has filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. Motions to
dismiss have been filed by all defendants in the case and briefing is now in
process, according to 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 “Leech v. Brooks Automation, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11068-
RWZ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
under Judge Rya W. Zobel.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Peter A. Pease, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617/542-8300
         Fax: 617/542-1194
         E-mail: ppease@bermanesq.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Randall W. Bodner, Esq.
         Ropes & Gray LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-7000 x7776
         Fax: 617-951-7050
         E-mail: rbodner@ropesgray.com


CALPINE CORP: Reaches Settlement in Calif. ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated class action, "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 4:03-cv-01685-SBA," have reached a settlement in the
matter, 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.

Two nearly identical class action complaints alleging claims under ERISA were
consolidated under the caption, “In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master
File No. C 03-1685 SBA,” as filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against:

     * Calpine Corp.,

     * the members of Calpine Corp.’s Board of Directors,

     * the 401(k) Plan’s Advisory Committee and its members,

     * signatories of the 401(k) Plan’s Annual Return/Report of
       Employee Benefit Plan Forms 5500 for 2001 and 2002,

     * an employee of a consulting firm hired by the 401(k)
       Plan; and

     * unidentified fiduciary defendants,

alleging claims under ERISA purportedly on behalf of the participants in the
401(k) Plan from Jan. 5, 2001, to the present who invested in the Calpine
unitized stock fund.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties involving
the 401(k) Plan, in violation of ERISA.  

The Court would eventually dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In addition, Calpine Corp. filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to
extend the automatic stay to the individual defendants.

Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the hearing was scheduled for June 5, 2006;
however, prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated to allow the appeal to
proceed.

If the Northern District Court ruling is reversed, the plaintiffs may then
seek leave from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to proceed with the action.

Plaintiff’s opening brief was filed with the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 6, 2006.  
The Ninth Circuit has stayed further briefing on the appeal pending
completion of the parties’ participation in the court’s alternative dispute
resolution program.

On March 21, 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle
the plaintiffs’ claims in return for a payment of $4 million by Calpine’s
fiduciary insurance carrier.  

The settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the
Northern District Court.

The suit is "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No.
4:03-cv-01685-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
         F. Andre Delfi, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: eciolko@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Robert S. Green, Esq.
         Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq.
         Green Welling, LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2750
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710
         E-mail: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM

Representing the company is:

         Robert L. McKague, Esq.
         Morrison & Foerster, LLP
         755 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-813-5835
         Fax: 650-494-0792
         E-mail: rmckague@mofo.com


CANADA: Courts Approve $1B Compensation to Hepatitis C Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courts in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec approved a national $1 billion
compensation package for Canadians infected with hepatitis C from tainted
blood transfusions, reports say.  

The approval is one the final steps before more than 6,000 "forgotten
victims" across Canada can collect compensation payments, according to the
Vancouver Sun.  A British Columbia court is expected to make the same
ruling.  

The compensation fund will be administered by Crawford Class Actions Services.

                        Case Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CANADA: Residents Near Landfill Plan to File Suit Over Smell
------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton (Canada) residents intend to hire a lawyer and file a class action
over a stinky landfill, AM900 reports.

Several residents nearby the Glanbrook landfill want to seek compensation for
damages and lost property value or make the city buy them out.

They have endured the putrid odor coming from the landfill that worsened
after the SWARU incinerator was closed five years ago.  Since then, the city
has been dumping compost garbage in the landfill.

The primary objective of the suit is to force the city to buy their homes so
they can move somewhere else.

The city is currently working on the landfill gas collection system and may
take a year to finish.


CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Calif. Securities Suit’s Dismissal Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., which was acquired by Dot Hill Systems
Corp., has yet to report that the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California has ruled on an appeal against a dismissal of a
purported securities class action filed against the company.

The lawsuit, among other things, alleges violations of federal securities
laws and purports to seek damages on behalf of a class of shareholders who
purchased Chaparral securities during a defined period prior to Dot Hill's
acquisition of the company.    In May 2005, the second amended complaint was
dismissed with leave to amend.  

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which the court again dismissed
with leave to amend in November 2005 as to the company and certain other
defendants.  Plaintiffs declined to amend within the proscribed period, and
final judgment was entered in February 2006.

Plaintiffs filed a notice appeal in the U.S. District Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit, though they have not filed their opening papers.

Dot Hill Systems Corp. 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 Robert T. Harvey Securities Litigation, 8:04-
cv-00876-DOC-PJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, under Judge David O. Carter.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brian Barry, Esq.
         Jill Levine Betts, Esq.
         Brian Barry Law Offices
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 307
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-788-0831
         E-mail: bribarry1@yahoo.com
                 jilllevine1@yahoo.com

         Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Esq.
         Jim T. Tice, Esq.
         Catanzarite Law Offices
         2331 W Lincoln Ave.
         Anaheim, CA 92801
         Phone: 714-520-5544
         E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com
                 jtice@catanzarite.com

              - and -

         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         Rosen Law Firm
         350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Representing the company is:

         Eric H. Macmichael, Esq.
         Meghan Oryan Spieker, Esq.
         Cooley Godward
         4401 Eastgate Mall
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Phone: 858-550-6000
         E-mail: mspieker@cooley.com


CONNECTICUT: DCF Settles Suit Over Foster Care Services for $10M
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state Department of Children and Families reached an agreement on June 6
to settle for $10 million a federal class action seeking improved services
for foster children, Newsday.com reports.

Under the settlement, DCF will spend $3 million to improve emergency mobile
psychiatric services to help children in crisis, and $5.3 million on more
comprehensive, community-based mental health services.  It will also complete
43 new special therapeutic group homes to serve 173 mentally ill youth in
institutional care or foster homes.

The remaining $1.7 million would cover the costs of a consultant to oversee
implementation of the settlement, the plaintiffs' legal costs and other
ancillary services.

The suit was filed in 2002.  Representing a class of about 2,000 mentally ill
children is attorney Anne Louise Blanchard of Connecticut Legal Services Inc.

Connecticut Legal Services -- http://www.connlegalservices.org/-- is a  
private, non-profit, civil law firm.


CRIMZON ROSE: Recalls Stud Earrings Due to High Lead Content
------------------------------------------------------------
Crimzon Rose Accessories of North Providence, R.I., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of
nearly 5,300 “Accessories” Silver Stud Earring Sets.

The firm said the recalled earrings contain high levels of lead.  Lead is
toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects.

Crimzon Rose has not received injuries or incident reports.

The earrings are oval-shaped, silver-colored studs.  “ACCESSORIES” is printed
on the front of the earrings’ packaging.  Kmart is printed on the back.

These earring sets were manufactured in China and were sold exclusively at
Kmart stores nationwide from October 2004 through March 2007 for about $3.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled earrings and return them
to any Kmart store for a free replacement pair of earrings.

Click on the link to view the photo of the earring sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07210.html

For additional information, contact Kmart at (800) 659-7026 between 7 a.m.
and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday, or visit Kmart’s Web site at
http://www.kmart.com     


DOMINION HOMES: Faces Suit in Ohio Over Down Payment Assistance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Homes Financial Services, Ltd. faces a purported class action in the
Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio, 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, “Rece, et al. v. Dominion Homes, Inc., et al., Case No.
06CVH202335,” was filed on Feb. 21, 2006 against DHFS, Dominion Homes, Inc.,
(DHI), named and unnamed appraisers who have worked with DHI, and unnamed
charitable organizations that have provided the DHI’s customers with down
payment assistance funds in the last several years.

Plaintiffs purport to bring the claim on behalf of purchasers of the
Company’s homes from 1999 to the present who received such funds and allege,
among other things, that the defendants misrepresented the value of the
plaintiffs’ homes and obtained an improper benefit by artificially inflating
the sales price of homes to purchasers receiving down payment assistance
funds.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants engaged in predatory lending
practices against the plaintiffs and other consumers by extending them credit
without regard to the actual value of their homes, knowing that the result
would be higher default and foreclosure rates in its communities.

The complaint seeks injunctive or declaratory relief, compensatory damages,
punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Dominion Homes, Inc. -- http://www.dominionhomes.com-- is primarily engaged  
in the construction and sale of homes and condominiums in Central Ohio
(primarily the Columbus Metropolitan Statistical Area), and Louisville and
Lexington, Kentucky.  It designs, sells and builds single-family homes on
finished lots.  It also purchases undeveloped land to develop into finished
lots as needed for home construction.  It offers five series of homes:
Independence Collection, Metropolitan Series, Celebration and Celebration
Classic Series, Tradition Series and Grand Reserve Series.  Price, size,
standard features and available options differentiate these series of homes.  
It provides title insurance services through affiliated title insurance
agencies and mortgage financing services through a joint venture arrangement.


DOMINION HOMES: Still Faces Ohio Condominium Homeowners' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Homes Financial Services, Ltd., and National City  
Mortgage Co. continues to face a purported class action, "Stuart, et al. v.
Dominion Homes Financial Services, Inc., et al.," which is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Filed on Feb. 21, 2006, the complaint includes claims for breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent representations and material
omissions in connection with the financing of plaintiffs' condominium homes
located in the Village at Polaris Park (VPP), where the company has been
unable to obtain final Department of Housing and Urban Development approval
for Federal Housing Administration insured mortgages to be sold to its
customers.  

The plaintiffs purport to bring the claim on behalf of homeowners in VPP who
purchased FHA mortgages through and from the defendants.   

The complaint seeks damages, including actual damages, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs, for, among other things, the alleged loss of
certain FHA-insured mortgage features, including loan assumability, and for
the defendants' failure to notify plaintiffs of the status of their
mortgages.  

The company reported no development in the case at 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 "Stuart, et al. v. Dominion Homes Financial  
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00137-MHW-MRA," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Michael H.
Watson with referral to Judge Mark R.  
Abel.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Gary Michael Smith, Esq.
         Graham & Graham Co. L.P.A.
         Graham Law Building
         17 N. 4th Street, P.O. Box 340
         Zanesville, OH 43702-0340
         Phone: 740-454-8585
         Fax: 740-454-0111
         E-mail: gmsmith@grahamlpa.com

Representing the defendants are:  

         James Edward Arnold, Esq.
         Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
         Columbus, OH 43215,  
         Phone: 614-469-1400
         E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com

         James Eugene Burke, Esq.
         Keating Muething & Klekamp
         One E. Fourth Street, Suite 1400
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-579-6400
         Fax: 513-579-6429
         E-mail: jburke@kmklaw.com

              - and -

         Joseph William Ryan, Jr., Esq.
         Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
         41 S. High Street, Suite 2800
         Columbus, OH 43215-6194
         Phone: 614-227-2000
         Fax: 614-227-2244
         E-mail: jryan@porterwright.com


DOMINION HOMES: Still Faces Ohio Suit Over Down Payment Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Homes Financial Services, Ltd., its chairman and chief executive
officer, certain affiliates and current and former officers, and The Nehemiah
Corp. of America continue to face a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The suit was filed on Feb. 23, 2006, by plaintiff homeowners, who purchased
homes from the company using Nehemiah down payment assistance funds.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that plaintiffs suffered financial
injuries as a result of the defendants' participation in fraudulent conduct
by the company related to the Nehemiah down payment assistance program in
violation of Federal statutes and Ohio law.  

The complaint further alleges that defendants fraudulently misrepresented and
concealed the cost and operation of the Nehemiah program from plaintiffs.   

Plaintiffs purport to bring the claim on behalf of customers of the company
who purchased a home from 1999 to present using down payment assistance from
Nehemiah.  They seek monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company reported no development in the case at 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 "Rudawsky, et al. v. Borrer, et al., Case No. 2:06 cv-00144-ALM-
MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
under Judge Michael H. Watson with referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Amy Gullifer, Esq.
         Gary Michael Smith, Esq.
         Graham & Graham Co., L.P.A.
         17 North Fourth Street, P.O. Box 340
         Zanesville, OH 43702-0340
         Phone: 740-454-8585
         Fax: 740-454-0111
         E-mail: gmsmith@grahamlpa.com
                 aegullifer@grahamlpa.com
  
Representing the defendants are:  

         James Edward Arnold, Esq.
         Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-469-1400
         Fax: 614-469-0900
         E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com

              - and -

         Joseph William Ryan, Jr., Esq.
         Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
         41 S. High Street, Suite 2800
         Columbus, OH 43215-6194
         Phone: 614-227-2000
         Fax: 614-227-2244
         E-mail: jryan@porterwright.com


DOT HILL: Securities Plaintiffs File New Consolidated Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action "Matt Brody, et al. v. Dot Hill Systems Corp.,
et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00228-W-WMC" have filed a Second Consolidated
Complaint.  The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

In late January and early February 2006, numerous complaints purporting to be
class actions were filed against the company.  

The complaints allege violations of federal securities laws related to
alleged inflation in its stock price in connection with various statements
and alleged omissions to the public and to the securities markets and
declines in the company's stock price in connection with the restatement of
certain of its quarterly financial statements for fiscal year 2004, and
seeking damages therefore.   

The complaints were consolidated into a single action, and the court
appointed as lead plaintiff a group comprised of the Detroit Police and Fire
Retirement System and the General Retirement System of the City of
Detroit.    

The consolidated complaint was filed on Aug. 25, 2006, and the company filed
a motion to dismiss on Oct. 5, 2006.  The Court granted the company’s motion
to dismiss on March 15, 2007.

Plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Complaint on April 20, 2007.  At
its May 10 regulatory filing, the company expected to file its motion to
dismiss on May 29, 2007 and expect it to be heard on Aug. 20, 2007.

The suit is "Matt Brody, et al. v. Dot Hill Systems Corp., et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-00228-W-WMC," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Southern District of California under Judge Thomas  
J. Whelan with referral to Judge William McCurine, Jr.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
         Murray Frank and Sailer
         275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 682-1818

         Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy and Blinkow
         1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: (310) 201-9150
         Fax: (310) 201-9160

              - and -

         Ira M. Press, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney and Squire
         830 Third Avenue, Tenth Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 317-2300
         Fax: (212) 371-6600

Representing the defendant is:

         Koji F. Fukumura, Esq.
         Cooley Godward Kronish, 4401 Eastgate Mall
         San Diego, CA 92121-9109
         Phone: (858) 550-6000
         Fax: (858) 550-6420
         E-mail: kfukumura@cooley.com


DR. PHIL: Therapist Claims Fraud in Relation to TV Show Ad
----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Frank Lawlis, the principal content adviser to the "Dr. Phil" show, is
accused of fraud and breach of contract in relation to an ad saying the
program is developing a national network of therapists, Barbara Feder Ostrov
of the Mercury News reports.

The suit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court by therapist Michele
Honeck who spent $500 to enroll to the network that could refer her to
viewers of the show and to Dr. Phil McGraw's Web site.  But the referrals
allegedly did not materialize.   

The suit seeks class-action status.  It alleges that at least 300 therapists
received the training, but never a referral.

It also names Learning Information Technologies, a Florida online education
company that marketed Mr. Lawlis' training and a Southern California company
that offers online mental health counseling on the Web site mytherapynet.com,
according to the report.

Ms. Feder Ostrov said in the report that Dr. Lawlis declined to speak with
the Mercury News.  However, in a May 23 e-mail, Dr. Lawlis reportedly said
that his only contact with Learning Information Technologies was to develop a
class curriculum.  

"There was never a promise or offer to supply referrals from me or the show,"
Dr. Lawlis wrote.  "That is bad practice and I would never stoop to that
level."  Also, a spokeswoman for "Dr. Phil," reportedly said in an e-mail
that the show isn't affiliated with Learning Information.

The report noted that LearnDrphilFromLawlis.com was shut down in May after
the lawsuit was filed.

Ms. Honeck attorney is David Golden of San Francisco.


ECHOSTAR COMMS: August 2008 Trial Set for Colo. Retailers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An August 2008 trial has been scheduled for a purported class action filed by
retailers against EchoStar Communications Corp. in the Arapahoe County
District Court, Colorado.

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Arapahoe County and in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, attempting to certify
nationwide classes on behalf of certain of the company's satellite hardware
retailers.

The plaintiffs are requesting the courts declare certain provisions of, and
changes to, alleged agreements between the company and the retailers invalid
and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and payments,
charge backs, and other compensation.  

The company is vigorously defending against the suits and has asserted a
variety of counterclaims.  The federal court action has been stayed during
the pendency of the state court action.

EchoStar Communications later filed a motion for summary judgment on all
counts and against all plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for additional
time to conduct discovery to enable them to respond to the company's motion.

The court granted limited discovery, which ended during 2004.  
Plaintiffs claimed that the company did not provide adequate disclosure
during the discovery process.   The court agreed, and recently denied the
company's motion for summary judgment as a result.  

Trial has been set for August 2008, according to its May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

EchoStar Communications Corp. -- http://www.echostar.com-- is primarily a  
holding company.  Through its subsidiaries, the Company operates two
interrelated business units: the DISH Network and EchoStar Technologies
Corporation (ETC). The DISH Network provides a direct broadcast satellite
(DBS) subscription television service in the U.S. DISH Network services
include hundreds of video, audio and data channels, interactive television
channels, digital video recording, high-definition television, international
programming, professional installation and around-the-clock customer service.
ETC designs and develops DBS set-top boxes, antennae and other digital
equipment for the DISH Network (collectively referred to as EchoStar receiver
systems). ETC also designs, develops and distributes similar equipment for
international satellite service providers. As of December 31, 2006, the DISH
Network had approximately 13.105 million subscribers.


FERRO CORP: Awaits Final Approval of $4M ERISA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ferro Corp. has yet to report that the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio granted final approval to a $4 million settlement of a
purported class action against the company over alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On June 10, 2005, a putative class action was filed against Ferro Corp., and
certain former and current employees alleging breach of fiduciary duty with
respect to ERISA plans.

In October 2006, the parties reached a settlement in principle that would
result in the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice in exchange for the
settlement amount of $4.0 million, which would be paid by the company's
liability insurer subject to the company's satisfaction of the remaining
retention amount under the insurance policy.

The company and the individual defendants expressly deny any and all
liability.  

The U.S. District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
Nov. 3, 2006.

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 "Duquette v. Ferro Corp., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-01594-JMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio under Judge John M. Manos.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
         Dworken & Bernstein
         60 South Park Place
         Painsville, OH 44077
         Phone: 440-352-3391
         Fax: 440-352-3469
         E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

         Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
         Sarraf Gentile
         Ste. 1005, 485 Seventh
         Avenue, New York, NY 10018
         Phone: 212-868-3610
         Fax: 212-918-7967

              - and -

         Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
         Shalov Stone & Bonner
         Ste. 1000, 485 7th Street
         New York, NY 10018
         Phone: 212-239-4340
         Fax: 212-239-4310
         E-mail: rstone@lawssb.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Steven A. Friedman, Esq.
         Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
         4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 216-479-8327
         Fax: 216-479-8777
         E-mail: sfriedman@ssd.com


FERRO CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ferro Corp. continues to face a consolidated securities fraud class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

In a July 23, 2004, press release, Ferro announced that its Polymer Additives
business performance in the second quarter of 2004 fell short of expectations
and that its Audit Committee would investigate possible inappropriate
accounting entries in Ferro's Polymer Additives business.

A consolidated putative securities class action arising from and related to
the July 23, 2004, announcement is currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Ferro, its deceased former
chief executive officer, its chief financial officer, and a former operating
vice president of Ferro.

The claim is based on alleged violations of federal securities laws.

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

Ferro Corp. -- http://www.ferro.com-- is a producer of specialty materials  
and chemicals.  In approximately 50 manufacturing sites around the world, the
Company produces different types of products, such as inorganic specialty
products, which includes high-quality glazes, frits, enamels, pigments,
dinnerware decorations and other performance materials; organic specialty
products, which includes polymer specialty materials, engineered plastic
compounds, electrolytes, high-potency pharmaceutical active ingredients and
specialty solvents, and electronic materials, including high-performance
dielectrics, conductive pastes, metal powders and polishing materials.  Ferro
manages its businesses in eight business units, which are organized as six
segments: Performance Coatings (comprising Tile Coating Systems and Porcelain
Enamel), Electronic Materials, Color and Glass Performance Materials, Polymer
Additives, Specialty Plastics and Other Businesses (comprising
Pharmaceuticals and Fine Chemicals).


FUNERAL HOMES: N.Y. Homes Sued Over Illegal Tissue Harvesting
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three funeral homes in Rochester (N.Y.) are facing a class action filed by
seven Rochester-area residents whose deceased relatives may have been
subjected to illegal tissue harvesting, Steve Orr of the Rochester Democrat
and Chronicle reports.

The suit was filed June 6 in New York Supreme Court.  Named defendants are
Burger Funeral Home in Hilton, Profetta Funeral Chapel in Irondequoit and
Webster, and Serenity Hills Funeral Home in Rochester, as well as the
businesses' owners and key employees.  

Directors at the funeral homes were indicted last month on charges they
permitted New Jersey human tissue recovery firm Biomedical Tissue Services to
harvest bones and tissues from cadavers at the funeral homes without
obtaining the families’ consent.  Four local employees of the New Jersey
firm, Biomedical Tissue Services, also were charged in the case, according to
the report.

Seven Rochester-area residents filed the lawsuit, Associated Press reports.  
They are suing on fears that Biomedical harvested tissue from their
relatives.  It is alleged that funeral directors at the homes were paid
$1,000 per body by Biomedical to allow the improper harvesting to take place
without family consent.  That creates doubt about the funeral homes’ general
trustworthiness, according Rochester lawyer John Parrinello, co-counsel for
the plaintiffs.

Mr. Parrinello and lawyer David Charlip of Florida are seeking class-action
status for the case and damages on behalf of all people whose loved ones’
remains were handled at those three funeral homes.  

The class would be limited to remains that were handled during the period
that Biomedical was active in Rochester, which Mr. Parrinello said was from
November 2004 through early 2006, according to the report.

The plaintiffs are also asking that the judge preliminarily order the three
funeral homes to pay for forensic testing of cremated remains, or examination
of bodies unearthed from their graves, so that it can be determined if tissue
was taken from the remains.

For more information, contact:

          John R. Parrinello, Esq.
          Redmond & Parrinello  
          36 W. Main St.
          Suite 400
          Rochester, NY 14614-1776
          Phone: (585) 454-2321
          Fax: (585) 454-6626


GAS STATIONS: Face Ga. Lawsuit Over “Unremitted” Fuel Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Several gas stations are facing a class-action complaint filed June 5 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia accusing them of
collecting millions of dollars in purported fuel taxes, but failing to remit
the money to federal, state and local governments.

Named defendants in the suit are:

          -- Murphy Oil USA,
          -- The Pantry,
          -- Quiktip,
          -- Pilot Travel Centers,
          -- Petro Shopping Centers,
          -- Marathon Oil Company,
          -- Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores,
          -- The Circle K Corp., and
          -- Alimentation Couche-Tard

Named plaintiffs Steven Rutherford, Ellison and Sons Trucing Co., LLC, W.E.
Hicks, Inc., Brent Crawford, Jason Sullivan, Dixcee L. Millssap, Franie
Mitchell, Carl Rittenhouse and Samuel Ely allege defendants have collected
millions of dollars in purported fuel "taxes" which moneys have not been
remitted to federal, state, and local governments.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that since warmer gasoline has greater
volume, defendants collect more in taxes from consumers based on the expanded
volume of the gas.  Instead of remitting such taxes to federal, state and
local governments, the defendants only remit taxes based on the volume of
gasoline as measured at 60 degrees Fahrenheit.  Consequently, defendants have
collected from the class millions of dollars more in purported taxes than are
actually due and remitted.

As a result of this fuel tax collection scheme, defendants pay pre-collected
taxes based on a lower volume of fuel than actually sold to customers, but
collect fuel taxes on the higher volume of fuel actually sold to their
customers.  As such, defendants are reaping a windfall because customers are
paying more purported taxes to defendants than the defendants actually pay to
the federal, state and local governments for fuel taxes.

Plaintiffs bring this action as representatives of customers of defendants
who were charged and paid purported federal, state and local fuel taxes at
retail fuel stations owned or operated by defendants in the State of Georgia
for the time period of at least April 16, 2002 through the date of judgment
or verdict on behalf of the class.

They request the following relief and pray for judgment in their favor
against defendants:

     -- an order certifying this case as a class action against
        defendants and appointing the named plaintiffs and the
        undersigned counsel as representatives of the plaintiff
        class;

     -- for judgment against defendants and in favor of
        plaintiffs and the class on all claims asserted in this
        complaint;

     -- for disgorgement and restitution plus interest due
        thereon at the legal rate;

     -- for costs of suit incurred herein;

     -- for prejudgment and post-judgment interest to the extent
        allowed by law;

     -- for punitive damages and penalties as allowed by law;

     -- for declaratory judgment determining defendants'
        business practices to be illegal, deceptive and unfair;

     -- for injunctive relief requiring defendants' future
        compliance with the laws; and

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

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

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

The suit is “Rutherford et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:07-
cv-00113-HLM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia under Judge Harold L. Murphy.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          John W. Crongeyer
          Bryan Anthony Vroon
          Vroon & Crongeyer
          1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2450
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-607-6710
          Fax: 404-607-6711
          E-mail: jcrongeyer@vclawfirm.com or
                  bvroon@vclawfirm.com

          - and -

          Robert Kirtley Finnell
          The Finnell Firm
          Suite 200, P.O. Box 63
          One West Fourth Avenue
          Rome, GA 30162-0063
          Phone: 706-235-7272
          E-mail: bob@finnelllawfirm.com


GLOBE FIRE: Recalls Fire Sprinklers That Could Fail in Use
----------------------------------------------------------
Globe Fire Sprinkler Corp. of Standish, Mich., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling about 300,000
units of Globe Model J Series Dry Fire Sprinklers.

The firm said the sprinkler heads can deteriorate over time and fail to
operate in a fire.

Globe has received five reports of sprinklers that failed to operate as
intended during a fire.  Globe has received no reports of injuries caused by
sprinklers failing to operate.

Model J Series dry fire sprinklers come in pendent, upright, and sidewall
configurations.  The name "Globe,” the letter "J” and the year of manufacture
(1990 though 1999) are embossed on the frame of each sprinkler.  These dry
sprinklers were designed to be installed in areas of buildings where the
sprinklers or water supply pipes may be subject to freezing, such as unheated
attics, freezers and coolers, parking garages, porches and warehouses.

These fire sprinklers were manufactured in the United States and were sold
through fire protection contractors nationwide from January 1990 through
December 1999 for between $27 and $36 per sprinkler head.

Consumers are strongly advised to contact Globe immediately to arrange to
receive replacement sprinkler heads at a reduced cost of $9 per sprinkler
head.

Click on the link for photo of the recalled sprinkler;
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07209.html

For additional information, contact Globe at (800) 248-0278 between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at
http://www.globesprinkler.comand click on the "Recall" link.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Trial in Securities Fraud Suit Set January
-------------------------------------------------------------
An ongoing class action by shareholders against Herley Industries, Inc. over
fraud will go to trial in January, it emerged in a report by Will Atkinson of
SmallCap Investor.com.

In June and July 2006, the company was served with several class action
complaints against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2007).

The claims are made under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

The first identified complaint is "Kevin Montoya, et al. v. Herley
Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-02596," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


ICF INTERNATIONAL: Faces La. Lawsuit Over Road Home Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
ICF International is facing a lawsuit that seeks class-action status in the
19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge after winning a contract from the
State of Louisiana to implement the Road Home program, 995fm.com reports.

New Orleans' attorney and 99-5FM morning show host Rob Couhig filed the
complaint on behalf of New Orleans attorney and Road Home applicant Donald C.
Massey, alleging Mr. Massey has been subjected to negligence by ICF that
includes lost records, repetitive assessments, delays, and obfuscations.

The complaint is seeking changes in the administration of Louisiana's Road
Home Program and potential damages against the program's contractor, ICF
Emergency Management Services.

It further alleges that ICF has engaged in a pattern of delay, bad faith, and
conduct designed to impede, delay, and deny the delivery of grants to
applicants.

The complaint asks the court to prevent ICF from retracting or modifying to
the detriment of an applicant, any monetary award once the amount has been
offered.  Additionally, the court is being asked to issue a permanent
injunction barring ICF from charging or billing the state for fees it incurs
as a result of erroneous award calculations and from using any Road Home
funds on advertisements or communications other than those necessary to
inform the public on how the process works and their rights under the program.

Plaintiff requests injunctive relief and damages.


LYCOMING ENGINES: Technicality Causes Trouble for “Bristow” Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A technicality is preventing a purported class action pending against
Lycoming Engines in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California from moving forward, Chad Trautvetter of Avweb reports.

The suit, “Bristow v. Lycoming Engines et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01947-LKK-
GGH,” was filed against Lycoming over cranlshaft problems affecting 3,774
Lycoming 360- and 540-series engines for airplanes.

Richard A. Bristow, the named plaintiff in the case, maintains that Lycoming
should bear all the costs of replacing the problem crankshafts, which the
manufacturer previously did when similar troubles plagued its other engines.

While the judge believes the class action has merit under California's tough
consumer laws, attorney Robert Mills, Mr. Bristow’s legal representative,
told Avweb that a legal technicality is preventing the case from moving
forward.

Mr. Mills points out that his clients’ affected engines are titled under a
limited liability company and as such is the owner -- and the real plaintiff -
- in the court's eyes. The problem is that the California consumer law is
applicable only to consumers, not companies.

However, Mr. Mills believes the judge will allow him to find an alternate
plaintiff to proceed with the case, so he is seeking an aircraft owner
affected by crankshaft problem that lives in California, bought the aircraft
in California and took title as an individual, and in addition must still own
this airplane.

                        Case Background

Aside from Lycoming, his suit also names AVCO Corp. and Textron Inc., as
defendants.  Lycoming Engines is a division of AVCO Corp. and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Textron, Inc.

Mr. Bristow filed the suit for himself and a class of others similarly
situated in California, who own or lease airplanes with piston aircraft
engines manufactured by Lycoming and subject to Lycoming's "Mandatory Early
Retirement" Service Bulletin Nos. 569 and 569A (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
19, 2006).

The "early retirement" program announced by Lycoming in February  
2006, impacts over 5000 planes and is a direct result of Lycoming's alleged
defective design, manufacture, and testing of its engines, which can lead to
premature failure of the engine crankshafts causing power loss, engine
failure, damage to the airplane and possible loss of life.  The complaint
claims defendants knew these problems for years.

By issuing an "early retirement" program that forces owners to pay for the
replacement of the defective and unsafe Lycoming crankshafts, instead of
issuing a recall where Lycoming would bear the costs, defendants have
allegedly engaged in deceptive, unlawful and unfair conduct.

The plaintiff brings the action as a class action pursuant to  
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of:

     -- a class of all persons and entities in California:

        * who currently own or lease a plane with a Lycoming  
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A;  

        * who formerly owned or leased a plane with a Lycoming  
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A  
          when the Lycoming Crankshaft was replaced pursuant to  
          Service Bulletin 569 or 569A; or  

        * who formerly owned a plane with a Lycoming Crankshaft  
          subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A and sold the  
          plane on or after Feb. 21, 2006; and  

     -- a consumer subclass of all persons and entities in  
        California who -- primarily for personal, family or  
        Household purposes:

        * currently own or lease a plane with a Lycoming  
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A;  

        * formerly owned or leased a plane with a Lycoming  
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A  
          when the Lycoming Crankshaft was replaced pursuant to  
          Service Bulletin 569 or 569A; or  

        * who formerly owned a plane with a Lycoming Crankshaft  
          subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A and sold the  
          plane on or after Feb. 21, 2006.

The complaint raises claims of violation of Unfair Competition Law,
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 for unfair business
practice, fraudulent business practice, and illegal business practice; and
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act California Civil Code Section 1750.

The suit seeks, among others:

     -- certification of the proposed class and consumer  
        subclass;

     -- injunctive relief requiring the defendants cease  
        omitting material information regarding the Lycoming  
        crankshafts covered by SB569A, replace the Lycoming   
        crankshafts, repair any additional damage to parts  
        caused by that replacement, and pay for all costs  
        including parts, labor, and other consequential costs;  

     -- a declaration that defendants must provide full  
        restitution;

     -- an order temporarily and permanently enjoining  
        defendants from continuing the unfair business practices  
        alleged in this complaint; and

     -- an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?11d3

The suit is “Bristow v. Lycoming Engines et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01947-LKK-
GGH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
under Judge Lawrence K. Karlton with referral to Judge Gregory G. Hollows.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert Wade Mills, Esq.
         Mills Law Firm
         145 Marina Boulevard
         San Rafael, CA 94901
         Phone: 415-455-1326
         Fax: 415-455-1327
         E-mail: deepbluesky341@hotmail.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Marla Ruth Weston, Esq.
         Ryan and Fong
         2379 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 100
         Sacramento, CA 95833
         Phone: (916) 924-1912
         Fax: (916) 923-3872
         E-mail: mweston@ryanfong.com


MERCEDES HOMES: Workers File Suit in Fla. Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two former employees are suing Mercedes Homes Inc. in U.S. District Court in
Orlando, Florida, Orlando Sentinel’s Harry Wessel reports.

Luis Aguirre and Gerald Lepinske, technician and builder respectively, filed
the federal suit on behalf of themselves and those who are similarly
situated.  It also seeks to cover service technicians and builders in other
states namely Florida, Texas, North and South Carolina.

The suit accuses the Melbourne-based company of not paying its workers
overtime despite the nature of their work, which requires overtime pay under
federal law.

According to the plaintiffs’ lawyer Charles Scalise, the potential class
members could reach up to hundreds of workers especially that they’re trying
to cover four states.

In fact, several employees were prepared to join the action against their
employer.

The suit is “Lepinske v. Mercedes Homes, Inc. et al., Case No: 6:07-cv-00915-
PCF-DAB,” under Judge Patricia C. Fawsett with referral to David A. Baker.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is:

          Charles Scalise, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600 PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Phone: (407) 420-1414
          Fax: (407) 425-8171
          E-mail: cscalise@forthepeople.com


MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y. Suit Over Misuse of “Sweep Programs” Amended
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Laitman, a partner at Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti PC of New York,
filed in May an amended complaint in the class action “DeBlasio et al. v.
Merrill Lynch & Co. et al, Case No. 1:07-cv-00318-VM,” Dan Jamieson of
Investment News reports.  The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

Originally filed on Jan. 12, the suit also names as defendants:

          -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.,
          -- Citigroup Inc.,
          -- Citigroup Global Capital Markets Inc.,
          -- Morgan Stanley,
          -- Charles Schwab Corp.

The suit alleges these companies are illegally forcing clients into lower
paying deposit accounts, enabling the firms to reap “billions” in extra
profits.  It further alleges violations under New York law, including fraud,
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and negligent
misrepresentation.

It also claims that the sweep programs amount to an illegal “tying”
arrangement outlawed by the Sherman Act, a federal antitrust law.

According to Mr. Laitman, Wachovia Securities LLC could be added to the claim
as officials at parent Wachovia Corp. announced their intention to get more
A.G. Edwards customers into deposit accounts.  A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc. of
St. Louis, which is being acquired by Charlotte, N.C.-based Wachovia,
recently rolled out a deposit sweep program of its own.

Mr. Laitman said he has asked the court for permission to amend the complaint
during the coming weeks. New defendants could be added then.

The suit claims that all the firms except Morgan Stanley, which rolled out
its program in 2005, initially paid deposit account interest rates
competitive with those of money market funds.

The defendant firms deny that they have done anything wrong.

The report continued to say that according to Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.
spokeswoman Sarah Bulgatz, the company intends to make a motion for
dismissal, adding that the firm doesn’t comment on pending legal matters.

The suit is “DeBlasio et al. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00318-VM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Victor Marrero.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Joel Paul Laitman
          Ashley H. Kim
          Frank Rocco Schirripa
          Samuel P. Sporn
          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: (212) 964-0046
          Fax: (212) 267-8137
          E-mail: jplaitman@aol.com or ashley@spornlaw.com or
                  frank@spornlaw.com

Representing defendants is:

          Alfred Robert Pietrzak
          Sidley Austin LLP(NY)
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212)-839-5300
          Fax: (212)-839-5599
          E-mail: rpietrzak@sidley.com


MMR CASE: Few Claimants Makes Class Status Moot, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Tait of the Financial Times reports that the High Court overseeing the
measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) case said he would be recommending that
the "group litigation" status given to the claims should be ended.

Only a small number of claimants now had the public funding necessary to
pursue their cases, according to the report.

The suit was brought against big drug companies by parents who claim that
their children were injured by the triple-jab vaccine for measles, mumps and
rubella.

Pasteur-Merieux, SmithKline Beecham, and Merck were sued in the United
Kingdom, according to a 2001 report by Medscape Medical News.  The
controversy over MMR was prominent in the U.K.


NEW MEXICO: Judge Grants Red-light Camera Suit Class Status  
-----------------------------------------------------------
An Albuquerque (New Mexico) judge granted class-action status to a case that
was filed against the city, Michael Gisick of The Albuquerque Tribune reports.

District Judge Valerie Huling, who denied a motion for a temporary
restraining order for the red-light program in February, ruled on the case
last week.

Plaintiff attorney Rick Sandoval brought the suit on behalf of five people
who got fined under the program.  He said all those who got fined are
represented in the case.

The complaint alleges the camera program conflicts with established state
traffic law and sets up an illegitimate, quasi-legal hearing process for
people who challenge their tickets.

The case, pending in U.S. District Court, seeks to make the city put an end
to its red-light camera program and reimburse millions of dollars in fines.

The suit was initially denied class-action status in January.  District Judge
Geraldine Rivera said the program is legal under the state’s home rule
provisions.

Bob White, representing the city, said he was confident the court would again
uphold the camera program.  He added they’ll defend it the same way they had
before.

Since its commencement in May 2005, the city has already collected more than
$6 million in fines.

Mr. Sandoval is expecting the case to land in the state Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs’ counsel:

          Richard A. Sandoval, Esq.
          Branch Law Firm
          2025 Rio Grande Boulevard, N.W.
          Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104
          Phone: 505-243-3500
          Fax: 505-243-3534
          New Mexico Toll Free: 1-800-562-3456
          Nationwide Toll Free: 1-800-828-4529
          Web Site: http://www.branchlawfirm.com

Representing the city:

          Robert M. White, Esq.
          City of Albuquerque Legal Department  
          One Civic Plaza NW Room 4015
          PO Box 1293
          Albuquerque, NM 87103-1293
          Phone: (505) 768-4500
          Fax: (505)768-4525


NEW YORK: High Court Rules DMV May Require Identification
---------------------------------------------------------
The N.Y. Supreme Court ruled that the state can deny driver’s licenses to
immigrants, who can’t prove their legality, WNYC's Cindy Rodriguez reports.

The post-September 11 policy, which the Department of Motor Vehicles says is
to prevent fraud and abuse, requires drivers license holders to have a valid
Social Security number.

Immigrants who claimed DMV overstepped its boundaries filed the class action
in 2004.

The suit contends the policy is unlawful since it usurps federal
responsibility for immigration, oversteps state law on issuing licenses and
ignores due process.  The plaintiffs denounced the policy as discriminatory
against non-citizens and dangerous to highway safety (Class Action Reporter,
Apr 14, 2005).

The high court’s ruling maintains a lower court’s decision that says DMV can
oblige drivers to furnish the agency with a valid social security number or a
letter proving their legal status from the Social Security Administration.


PUERTO RICO STORES: Recall DEG-Containing China-Made Toothpaste
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pitusa, National Lumber, Everything To Weight, Supermarkets and Supermarkets
Pitusa of Carolina, Puerto Rico, is asking consumers to return to their
stores all dental toothpaste labeled “Made in China,” that were acquired in
any of their stores in Puerto Rico.

This dental toothpaste could be contaminated with poisonous chemical agents
like diethylene glycol (DEG) also known as diglycol or “diglycol stearate”.

The Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) is not aware of any report of
poisoning caused by dental toothpaste not containing (DEG) diglycol 0
diglycol stearate.  But the FDA is worried on the potential risks that
dyglycol or dyglycol could cause by chronic exposure to DEG, diglycol or
diglycol stearate and the exposure of these chemicals in certain populations
like children and individuals with kidney and liver diseases.

These dental toothpaste chemicals have low but significant risk of toxicity
and damages to these populations.  The dental toothpaste is not designed to
be ingested or swallowed, but the F.D.A. is worried about the people who can
ingest or swallow the dental toothpaste without intention.

The tubes of toothpaste are sold in these sizes: large 6.4 oz with dental
brush, 1.76 ounces with brush, and 50 grams for children with dental brush.  
These dental toothpastes could be acquired in any one of their stores in
Puerto Rico.

The dental toothpaste is packed individually in a cardboard multicolor box
with a dental brush in the superior part that is visible on the plastic
window and in cardboard packs (Blister pack).

The marks under which these dental pastes were sold are Dentakleen,
BrightMax, DentaPro, and Dentakleen Junior.  The flavors are Fresh Spearmint,
Cool Peppermint, Freshmint, Strawberry and Blue Berry.

The company needs consumers to return the toothpaste immediately within next
the 30 days to any of their stores.  Consumers will be reimbursed for the
total cost of the product.  Proof of purchase is not necessary.

For more information call to 787-641-8200, Ext. 1177.


REICH & MANCINI: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reich & Mancini P.A. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 6 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code
violations.

Named plaintiff Maria Mercado brings this action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Section 201, et. seq.) to recover unpaid
back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff alleges that from at least March 2005 and continuing through Feb.
1, 2007, defendants failed to comply with the law concerning pay at the rate
of at least minimum wage for all hours worked and to compensate plaintiff at
a rate of one and one-half times plaintiff's regular rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.  

Plaintiff's should not have been required for less than minimum wage for all
hours worked and should be compensated at the rate of one and one-half times
plaintiff's regular rate for those hours that plaintiff worked in excess of
40 hours per week as required by the FLSA.

Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in her favor and against
defendants as follows:

     -- declaring, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202,
        that the acts and practices complained of are in
        violation of the maximum hour provisions of the FLSA;

     -- awarding plaintiff overtime compensation in the amount
        due her for her time worked in excess of 40 hours per
        work week;

     -- awarding plaintiff liquidated damages in an amount equal
        to the overtime award;

     -- awarding plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs
        and expenses of the litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
        Section 216(b);

     -- awarding plaintiff pre-judgment interest; and

     -- ordering any other further relief the court deems just
        and proper

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?20e6

The suit is “Mercado v. Reich & Mancini, P.A., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-14171-
KMM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
under Judge K. Michael Moore with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alan Mitchell Aronson
          Andrew Ross Frisch
          Rosenthal & Levy PA
          1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 350
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-478-2500
          Fax: 561-478-3111
          E-mail: pmay@rosenthallevy.com


REWARDS NETWORK: Settlement of Suit by Dining Plan Members Ok’d
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has given
preliminary approval to a proposed settlement in the purported class action
filed against Rewards Network, Inc.

On May 25, 2004, Bistro Executive, Westward Beach Restaurant
Holdings, LLC and MiniBar Lounge filed a complaint in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court against the company and its subsidiaries.  
Plaintiffs were all participants in the company's dining credits Purchase
Plan (Dining Plan), and their respective owners.

The complaint was brought as a putative class action and alleges that amounts
paid by the company under the Dining Plan constituted loans in violation of
California usury laws and the California Unfair Competition Law.

The suit seeks, among other relief, damages and equitable and injunctive
relief, including disgorgement of all purported "interest" and profits earned
by the company from the Dining Plan in California, which plaintiffs allege to
be a significant portion of an amount in excess of $300 million, and treble
damages for all purported "interest" paid within one year prior to the filing
of the complaint.   

On June 25, 2004, the action was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

On Oct. 11, 2005, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted
certifying two classes as:

      -- all California restaurants which, from May 25, 2000 to   
         May 25, 2004, participated in the Dining Plan and which   
         took a cash advance from the company pursuant to its      
         California Dining Plan agreements;: and   

      -- all persons who, from May 25, 2000 to May 25, 2004,   
         guaranteed payment of cash advances underlying the   
         company's California Dining Plan agreements.  
  
On July 20, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California issued a decision denying the company's motion for
summary judgment and granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to
plaintiffs' usury and usury-based claims. The district court did not reach
any determination regarding monetary relief.

On Aug. 23, 2006, the district court issued an order granting the company's
motion to certify an issue for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

On Aug. 30, 2006, the district court also issued an order continuing the
trial date in this matter from Oct. 3, 2006 to
Dec. 12, 2006.

On Oct. 16, 2006, the 9th Circuit granted the company's petition for an
interlocutory appeal of the district court's summary judgment ruling in favor
of plaintiffs and set a briefing schedule for the appeal that contemplates
that briefing will be completed in March 2007.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the company entered into an initial agreement with the
representative plaintiffs to settle this litigation on behalf of a settlement
class.

The Company has entered into a settlement agreement with the representative
plaintiffs to settle this litigation on behalf of a Settlement Class.  The
settlement agreement was preliminarily approved by the District Court on
March 22, 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.

The suit is "Bistro Executive Inc., et al. v. Rewards Network
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-04640-CBM-Mc," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Consuelo B.
Marshall with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

         John S. Purcell, Esq.
         Kenneth R. Chiate, Esq.
         Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
         James E. Doroshow, Esq.
         Chandra L. Gooding, Esq.
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges
         865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
         Phone: 213-624-7707 and 213-443-3000
         Fax: 213-624-0643 and 213-443-3100
         E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com

              - and -   

         Anat Levy, Esq.
         Anat Levy and Associates
         8840 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Phone: 310-358-3138
         E-mail: alevy96@aol.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Scott M. Pearson, Esq.
         Daniel A. Rozansky, Esq.
         Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
         Stroock Stroock & Lavan
         2029 Century Park E, 18th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086

         Phone: 310-556-5800
         Fax: 310-556-5959
         E-mail: lacalendar@stroock.com


STARWOOD RESORTS: IT Manager Alleges Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Starwood Resorts and Hotels Worldwide is facing a class-action complaint
filed June 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
alleging Labor Code violations.

Named plaintiff Timothy Burger, former Information Technology Manager of
Starwood, brings this action under FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C Section 216
(b) on behalf of all persons who are or have been employed by defendant
as "Information Technology Managers," or other employees responsible for
implementing, maintaining, and/or servicing defendant's computer systems or
operations at its individual hotels and resorts across the country at any
time three years prior to the filing of the complaint, to the final
deposition of the case.

Plaintiff claims that during his employment, within the applicable statute of
limitations, he worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without overtime
compensation.  Despite the hours worked, defendant willfully, in bad faith,
and in knowing violation of the FLSA, failed and refused to pay them overtime
compensation.

He demands:

     -- issuance of notice to all similarly situated employees,
        including information regarding the filing of this
        action, a description of the nature of the action, and
        an explanation of their right to opt in to this lawsuit
        if they were not paid overtime for any hours worked
        within the applicable statute of limitations;

     -- judgment against defendant for an amount equal to
        plaintiff's unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime
        rate;

     -- judgment against defendant that its violations of the
        FLSA were willful;

     -- an equal amount to the overtime damages as liquidated
        damages;

     -- an award of prejudgment interest to the extent
        liquidated damages are not awarded;

     -- all costs and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting
        these claims;

     -- leave to add additional plaintiffs by motion, the filing
        of written consent forms, or any other method approved
        by the court;

     -- leave to amend to add claims under applicable state
        laws; and

     -- for such further relief as the court deems just and
        equitable.

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

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

The suit is “Burger v. Starwood Resorts and Hotels Worldwide, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 0:07-cv-02735-PJS-RLE,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Patrick J. Schiltz with referral to
Judge Raymond L. Erickson.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Paul J. Lukas
          Donald H. Nichols
          Timothy C. Selander
          Nichols Kaster & Anderson
          80 S 8th St Ste 4600
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-256-3200 or 612-256-3281
          Phone: 612-338-4878
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com or nichols@nka.com or
                  selander@nka.com


TARGET CORP: Faces Cal. Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 8 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, The CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Okechukwu Mbama alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Mbama v. Target Corp., Case No. 3:07-cv-03014-JL,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge James
Larson.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Shelby Lawrence Clark
          Bailey Pinney PC
          1498 SE Tech Center Place, Suite 290
          Vancouver, WA 98683
          Phone: 360-567-2551
          Fax: 360-567-3331
          E-mail: SClark@wagelawyer.com

          - and -

          Bonnie MacFarlane
          720 Howe Avene, Suite 113
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: 800-230-5528
          Fax: 800-230-5866
          E-mail: BMacFarlene@wagelawyer.com


TJX COS: Faces “Hamilton-Griffin” Privacy Violations Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
TJX Cos. and Fifth Third Bank are facing a class-action complaint filed June
8 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri court
alleging its negligence allowed computer hackers to break into their system,
gaining access to millions of customers’ private credit information, Joe
Harris of the Courthouse News Service reports.

Fifth Third handles TJX’s accounts and was responsible for the system’s
security, the complaint claims.

Named plaintiff Rose Hamilton-Griffin says as many as 47.5 million customers
may have had their credit card information improperly accessed.

According to the complaint, TJX announced the breach in December 2006, a
month after it was first discovered and purchases from 2002 to 2006 may have
been compromised.  Aside from credit and debit card numbers, TJX also
announced that customer information such as driver’s license numbers, social
security numbers and checking account information was also compromised, the
suit claims.

The class consists of any person that made a transaction that involved the
transmission of personal information during the compromised period.  The
class seeks damages.

The suit is “Hamilton-Griffin vs. TJX Companies, Inc., The, et al., Case No.
4:07-cv-01113-FRB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri under Judge Frederick R. Buckles.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          John S. Steward
          Burstein Law Firm, P.C.
          225 S. Meramec, Suite 925
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-725-6060
          Fax: 314-862-9895
          E-mail: glaw123@aol.com


VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Late Fee Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Wireless is facing a class action in Alameda Superior Court claiming
the cellular service provider illegally profits from late fee charges, The
Marin Independent Journal reports.

Named plaintiff Cathy Gellis claims she paid a $5 late fee on a $131 bill
because her payment was nine days late. She further claims the computer-
generated fee was tacked onto the bill at no cost to Verizon Wireless and the
amount is more than state law allows.

According to the complaint, Verizon Wireless imposes the late charges under
its standard customer contract that allows for a late charge of 18 percent
annually, or a flat $5 fee, whichever is greater.

The lawsuit asks the court to require Verizon Wireless to return excess fees
charged in the past four years to customers, declare that the $5 fee is
unlawful and award unspecified economic damages.

According to Peter Fredman, an attorney with Brayton Purcell LLP in Novato,
under state law, consumers must be charged no more than a "reasonable" sum
that approximates the actual costs associated with processing late fees.  
Only credit card companies are exempt from the regulation.

Plaintiff’s lawyers can be contacted at:

          Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
          Mark Chavez, Esq.
          Brayton Purcell LLP
          222 Rush Landing
          Novato, CA 94945
          Phone: (415) 898-1555
          Fax: (415) 898-1247
          Web site: http://www.braytonlaw.com


WEST VIRGINIA: Masseur Sued for Secretly Filming Female Clients
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Kanawha County masseur is facing a suit for allegedly invading the privacy
of his female clients, Andrew Clevenger of The Saturday Gazette-Mail reports.

Richard Allan “Rico” Filbin, 52, of St. Albans is facing a suit filed in
Kanawha Circuit Court for secretly filming his female clients while they
undress.  Mr. Filbin owns Body and Soul Massage Therapy in Cross Lanes.  He
was recently arrested and charged with 114 counts of criminal invasion of
privacy.

The suit was filed on June 6, 2007 by two women identified only as “Jane Doe
1” and “Jane Doe 2.”  The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for the
suit.  They said in their complaint that police have identified 15 female
victims.  Police have estimated that there are at least 50 other women who
were secretly filmed by Mr. Filbin between 2001 and 2006, Mr. Clevenger
reports.

The suit accuses Mr. Filbin of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction
of emotional distress and negligence.  It seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  

The case has been assigned to Judge Duke Bloom.


* HARMD Expects Onslaught of Cases Over Methadone-Related Deaths
----------------------------------------------------------------
Growing awareness of Methadone abuse resulting in deaths could spur class
actions against manufacturers that have battled against stronger U.S. Food
and Drug Administration warnings, says HARMD, Inc. a National support
organization of families who have lost a loved one to Methadone.

“Methadone related deaths continue their upward trend in many areas across
the Country.  Currently Methadone is the No. 2 Killer Drug in the U.S.,”
HARMD, Inc. said in a statement.

“We're most concerned that Methadone deaths in U.S. have risen 389.7% from
1999 to 2004, and that this epidemic is ongoing”, as heard from members who
are building HARMD, Inc.’s multi-state data base.

Methadone is used as replacement therapy for illicit opiate addictions, and
can assist chronic pain sufferers.  It is supposed to be tightly regulated on
all fronts, but that is not the reality, according to HARMD or Helping
America Reduce Methadone Deaths.

HARMD advocates stricter regulations around the supply of Methadone and more
consistent penalties for those caught selling this drug.

HARMD on the Net: http://www.HARMD.org.


                        New Securities Cases


STERLING FINANCIAL: Subsidiaries Face Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. filed a class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Equipment Finance, LLC (EFI) and the Bank of Lancaster, N.A.,
subsidiaries of the publicly traded entity Sterling Financial Corp., on
behalf of plaintiff and a proposed class of purchasers of securities of
Sterling during the period April 27, 2004 and May 24, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that the Bank of Lancaster, its subsidiary, EFI, and
certain officers and directors of Sterling and/or EFI violated Sections 10(b)
and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging in a
fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of Sterling securities
during the Class Period and thereby defrauding persons who purchased Sterling
securities during the Class Period.

Among the alleged actions of the complaint are that Defendants knowingly
employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud plaintiff and the Class by
knowingly or recklessly providing materially false and misleading financial
information regarding the subsidiary, EFI.

As a result of the scheme to defraud, Sterling was forced to announce that
its previously issued financial statements for fiscal years ended 2004
through 2006, and interim periods therein, could no longer be relied upon.

Sterling announced on May 24, 2007 that irregularities were present in
certain financing contracts which EFI had entered into and that certain of
EFI's officers and directors had subverted internal controls, concealed
credit delinquencies and falsified financial contracts and related documents.
In addition, Sterling announced that it had preliminarily determined that it
would record an after tax charge to its FY 2006 of approximately $145 million
to $165 million. The impact on Sterling's stock was significant, damaging
plaintiff and members of the Class.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on its own behalf and on behalf of the
Class.

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

For more information, contact:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977
          Phone: 800-660-7843 or 845-356-2570
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
          Website: http://www.kgglaw.com


STERLING FINANCIAL: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Bank of
Lancaster, N.A., a subsidiary of the publicly traded entity, Sterling
Financial Corp. and against its subsidiary Equipment Finance, LLC (EFI) and
certain officers and directors of EFI and Sterling on behalf of an
institutional investor and a proposed class of purchasers of securities of
Sterling during the period April 27, 2004 and May 24, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that the Bank of Lancaster, its subsidiary EFI, and
certain officers and/or directors of Sterling and EFI violated Sections 10(b)
and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging in a
fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of Sterling securities
during the Class Period and thereby defrauding persons who purchased Sterling
securities during the Class Period.

Among the alleged actions of the complaint are that Defendants knowingly
employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud plaintiff and the proposed
class by providing materially false and misleading financial information
regarding the subsidiary EFI. As a result of the scheme to defraud, Sterling
was forced to announce that its previously issued financial statements for
fiscal years ended 2004 through 2006, and interim periods therein, could no
longer be relied upon.

On May 24, 2007 Sterling announced that irregularities were present in
certain financing contracts which EFI had entered into and that certain of
EFI's officers and directors had subverted internal controls, concealed
credit delinquencies and falsified financial contracts and related documents.
In addition, Sterling announced that it had preliminarily determined that it
would record an after tax charge for FY 2006 of approximately $145 million to
$165 million. The impact on Sterling's stock was significant, damaging
plaintiff and members of the Class.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on its own behalf and on behalf of the
Class.

Interested parties may move the court not later than July 24, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody P.C.
          6 East 45th Street, Suite 500
          New York, New York 10017
          Phone: 800-337- 4983 or 845-371-4788
          E-mail: TSVI@AOL.COM


XINHUA FINANCE: Schiffrin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all American Depository Share purchasers of Xinhua Finance Media
Ltd. pursuant or traceable to the Company's March 9, 2007 Initial Public
Offering through May 21, 2007.

The Complaint charges Xinhua and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the company's chief financial officer, Shelly
         Singhal's company, Bedrock Securities, was accused by
         the NASD of violating U.S. securities regulations;

     (2) that the company's chief financial officer had received
         a cease-and-desist order from the NASD;

     (3) that the company had failed to adequately conduct a due
         diligence investigation prior to its IPO;

     (4) that the company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

On March 8, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO and offered over 23 million
ADS to the public and raised over $225 million in gross proceeds. On May 19,
2007, Barrons revealed that the Company had failed to disclose that its Chief
Financial Officer had received a cease-and-desist letter from the NASD, and
was accused of other improper behavior relating to securities violations.

Additionally, it was revealed that a broker-dealer firm that the CFO owned
had been accused by the NASD of violating U.S. securities regulations. On
this news, the Company's shares fell 11.8 percent, or $1.18 per share, to
close on May 21, 2007 at $8.76 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on May 21, 2007, the Company issued a statement about its IPO in an
attempt to assure investors that it fully complied with "all disclosure and
due diligence processes required in the U.S." However, investors saw through
this veiled statement, and in response, the Company's shares fell an
additional 18.9 percent, or $1.66 per share, to close on May 22, 2007 at
$7.10 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 23, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

Xinhua operates as a diversified media company in the Peoples Republic of
China consisting of five divisions: Media Production, Broadcasting, Print,
Advertising, and Research.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
          Website: http://www.sbtklaw.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  * * *