CAR_Public/070618.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 18, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 119

                           Headlines
     

ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE: Seeks Dismissal of Del. Lawsuit Over Merger
AFRICA: Bawsi Plans Suit Over Alcohol Problem Among Farm Workers
AMERICAN MOVING: Seeks to Dismiss Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
AMERICAN REAL: Three Mich. Lawsuits Over Lear Merger Dismissed
AMVAC CHEMICAL: Discovery Completed in Ga. Pollution Lawsuit

ARKANSAS: Class Status Granted for Suit Over Springdale Gas Leak
AVVO.COM: Hagens Berman Files Wash. Suit Over Net Rating Service
BC FERRIES: Passengers Ask to Certify Suit Over 2006 Sinking
CALIFORNIA: San Diego Correctional Sued Over Poor Health Care
CANADA: Taxpayers Group Drops Suit Against Teachers Union

CANADA: Quebec Court Allows Suit by Farmers Over Mad Cow Disease
CAPT. WILLIAM JACKMAN: Group of Women Objects to Settlement
CBOT HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement in LAMPERS Suit Over Merger
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Nixing of Securities Suit Under Appeal
GUITAR CENTER: Court Dismisses Certain Claims in Fla. RICO Suit

GUITAR CENTER: Discovery Commences for “Snyder” Suit in Calif.
GUITAR CENTER: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. Labor-Related Litigation
HOME SOLUTIONS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
INDIAN HEALTH: N.M. Court Refuses to Certify ISDA-Related Suit
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: N.C. Court Mulls Securities Suit Nixing

KAPLAN INC: Lawyers Challenge $49M Antitrust Suit Settlement
LOUISIANA: Pet Owners Sue Sheriff’s Department Over Pet Killings
MANNATECH INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
MEDICAL STAFFING: Fla. Approves Fla. Securities Suit Settlement
MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.

MENU FOODS: New Brunswick Law Firm Sues Over Pet Food Recall
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Car Shop Sues Over "Direct Repair" System
PURDUE PHARMA: Rochon, Siskinds Files Lawsuit Over Oxycontin
WYETH: Settles PREMARIN Antitrust Suit in Calif. for $5.2M
YAHOO! INC: Disburses Settlement in Suit Over Budgeting Feature


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

STERLING FINANCIAL: Cohen, Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Suit
TELIK INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE: Seeks Dismissal of Del. Lawsuit Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraxis BioScience, Inc. (ABI), formerly American Pharmaceutical Partners
Inc., is facing several stockholder derivative and class actions in relation
to the company's merger with American BioScience, Inc.

On or about Dec. 7, 2005, several stockholder derivative and class actions
were filed against the company, its directors and ABI in the Delaware Court
of Chancery relating to the merger. The company is a nominal defendant in the
stockholder derivative actions.

The lawsuits allege that the company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to stockholders by causing the company to enter into the merger
agreement and for not providing full and fair disclosure to stockholders
regarding the recently completed merger, which it is alleged caused the value
of the shares held by the company's public stockholders to be significantly
diminished.  The lawsuits seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of
damages and the recession of the merger.

On April 18, 2006, Abraxis BioScience completed the merger with American
BioScience, Inc., pursuant to the terms of an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated Nov. 27, 2005.

The company has moved to dismiss the derivative claims filed on its behalf,
and certain of the director defendants have moved to dismiss some of the
claims alleged against them, 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.

Abraxis BioScience, Inc. -- http://www.abraxisbio.com/-- formerly American  
Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures and markets injectable pharmaceutical products.  It manufactures
products in each of the three basic forms, in which injectable products are
sold: liquid, powder and lyophilized, or freeze-dried.  The Company has two
business segments: Abraxis BioScience, representing the combined operations
of Abraxis Oncology and Abraxis Research, and Abraxis Pharmaceutical
Products, representing the hospital-based operations. ABI focuses primarily
on its internally developed products, including Abraxane.  APP manufactures
and markets a portfolio of injectable drugs, including oncology, critical
care, anti-infectives, and markets the products it acquired from AstraZeneca.


AFRICA: Bawsi Plans Suit Over Alcohol Problem Among Farm Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Black Association of the Wine and Spirits Industry (Bawsi) threatens to
file a class action against the government and the wine industry if they fail
to address the issue of alcohol abuse among farmworkers, reports say.

Bawsi is blaming the government and the industry for encouraging people to
become alcoholics through the “dop system,” a prohibited practice of giving
farm workers alcohol as benefit of employment.

Bawsi is calling for the establishment of an industry fund to change people's
attitude to drinking, and to set up an institution to treat alcoholics.


AMERICAN MOVING: Seeks to Dismiss Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Moving and Storage Association asked federal courts on June 8 to
dismiss antitrust class actions filed against it alleging it and several
major van lines charged customers illegal fuel surcharges over a four-year
period, eTrucker.com reports.

According to the report, the association says it asked the courts to dismiss
the lawsuits because the proper jurisdiction for determining whether the fuel
surcharges have been reasonable lies with the Surface Transportation Board,
which was given that responsibility by Congress.

STB is successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission that in the 1970s
allowed the interstate moving industry to collect fuel surcharges.  The
federal government created a fuel surcharge system to allow transportation
providers to survive from quick and dramatic fluctuations in fuel prices
while making sure that customers would benefit from price drops, said Linda
Bauer Darr, president and chief executive officer of the association.  

The association says as far as it is aware, all the fuel surcharges paid by
customers have been passed on directly to the owner-operators.  The lawsuit
is thus, unfounded and frivolous.

American Moving and Storage Association, Inc. is named defendant in a suit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois that
accuses it of reaping hundreds of millions of dollars by inflating and fixing
fuel surcharges and misrepresenting them as "costs" (Class Action Reporter,
May 9, 2006).

The suit is "Moad et al. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-02506," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq.
          Chavez Law Firm P.C.
          28 North First St., Suite 2
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Phone: (630) 232-4480
          E-mail: gkeg4@aol.com

          - and -

          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          Stephen William Fung, Esq.
          Craig S. Mielke, Esq.
          Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, LLC
          28 North First St., Suite 2
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Phone: (630) 232-6333
          E-mail: rmf@foote-meyers.com or sfung@foote-meyers.com
                  or csm@foote-meyers.com


AMERICAN REAL: Three Mich. Lawsuits Over Lear Merger Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Real Estate Partners L.P. have been named defendant in various
purported class actions that were filed in connection with its agreement and
plan of merger to acquire Lear Corp., according to the company’s May 9, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The following actions have been filed in the Court of Chancery of State of
Delaware, New Castle County:

      -- “Market Street Securities, Inc. v. Rossiter, et al.;”

      -- “Harry Massie, Jr. v. Lear Corporation, et al.;” and

      -- “Classic Fund Management AG v. Lear Corporation, et
         al.”

These actions are purported class actions filed on behalf of stockholders of
Lear and have been consolidated into a single action that names as defendants
the Company, certain of its affiliates and one of its directors who serves on
the board of Lear, alleging generally that the company and its named
affiliates aided and abetted the Lear directors’ claimed breaches of their
fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Lear.

On Feb. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action filed a
consolidated amended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings and a
motion to preliminarily enjoin the proposed merger with Lear.  A motion for a
preliminary injunction is to be heard June 2007.

The following actions have been filed in the Circuit court for Oakland
County, Michigan:

      -- “Louis Carulli v. Lear Corp et al.;”

      -- “Emilio Valentine v. Lear Corp et al.;” and

      -- “Jeanette Ciambella v. Lear Corp. et al.”

These actions are also purported class actions on behalf of stockholders of
Lear that assert claims against the company, and one of the company's
directors who also serves on the board of Lear.

The allegations in these actions are generally similar to those asserted in
the Delaware lawsuits.

On May 9, 2007, the Circuit court ruled in the company’s favor and dismissed
all three of these lawsuits based upon a determination that plaintiffs’
claims should be adjudicated in the above referenced Delaware action.

New York-based American Real Estate Partners, L.P. (AREP) --
http://www.arep.com/-- is a diversified holding company engaged in a variety  
of businesses, including gaming, real estate and home fashion.  The Company's
general partner is American Property Investors, Inc.  AREP owns its
businesses and conducts its investment activities through a subsidiary
limited partnership, American Real Estate Holdings Limited Partnership and
its subsidiaries.  


AMVAC CHEMICAL: Discovery Completed in Ga. Pollution Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a purported class action against AMVAC Chemical Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of the American Vanguard Corp., have substantially completed
class certification discovery in the case, “McLendon et al. v. Philip
Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01770-CAP.”

On July 19, 2006, AMVAC’s registered agent was served with a complaint
entitled, “Latrice McLendon, et al. v. Philip Service Corp. etc. et al.,
(including AMVAC),” which was filed in the Superior State Court of Fulton
County, State of Georgia No. 2006CN119863 and subsequently removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under Case No. 1:06-
CV-1770-CAP.

The purported class of plaintiffs seeks damages, including punitive damages,
in an unspecified amount for personal injuries and diminution in property
value allegedly arising from the airborne release of propyl mercaptan and
ethoprop from a waste treatment facility operated by PSC Recovery Services in
Fairburn, Georgia.

Plaintiffs, residents living in the vicinity of the PSC plant, allege
trespass, nuisance and negligence on behalf of defendants in handling,
storing and treating waste, which was generated by AMVAC’s Axis, Alabama
facility.

The parties have substantially completed class certification discovery,
according to American Vanguard’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

The suit is “McLendon et al. v. Philip Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-01770-CAP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia under Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Charles M. Goetz, Jr., Esq.
         Goetz Allen & Zahler
         2859 Paces Ferry Road, Overlook III, Suite 1740
         Atlanta, GA 30339
         Phone: 770-431-1000
         E-mail: cmgoetz@goetz-zahler.com

Representing the company is:

         Cari K. Dawson, Esq.
         Alston & Bird LLP
         1201 West Peachtree Street, One Atlantic Center
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
         Phone: 404-881-7000
         E-mail: cari.dawson@alston.com


ARKANSAS: Class Status Granted for Suit Over Springdale Gas Leak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth Circuit Judge Mary Ann Gunn, of the Washington County Circuit Court,
granted certification to a class of plaintiffs bringing a lawsuit over a 2004
carbon monoxide leak in Springdale, Arkansas, Trish Hollenbeck of the
Northwest Arkansas Times reports.

The case involves Juan Hernandez and other named plaintiffs, as well as
several additional unnamed people, including former and current residents of
Springdale Ridge Apartments I and II.

The suit states that the Springdale Fire Department found high levels of
carbon monoxide in most of the complex's 192 units Aug. 10, 2004, after the
landlord had been notified of residents' complaints.

Plaintiffs are suing multiple defendants over the reported leak at the
apartments.  Those defendants include:  

      -- Simpson Housing Solutions,  
      -- Simpson Housing Limited Partnership,  
      -- Deer Run Limited Partnership,  
      -- Fox Run Limited Partnership of Springdale Affordable  
         Multi-Family,  
      -- Walling Development,  
      -- Pinnacle Realty Management Co.,  
      -- apartment manager Heather Hardcastle,
      -- Atlas Construction of Arkansas,  
      -- A. R. Mays Construction Inc.,
      -- L & L Plumbing & Heating Inc.,  
      -- Architecture, Design & Development,  
      -- Thomas O'Neil, and  
      -- Jerry Verdin.

Plaintiffs allege that exposure to elevated and potentially lethal
concentrations of carbon monoxide at the facility were caused by design,
construction and other defects in the units, relating to the air conditioning
and water heating systems and those systems being located within the same
closet in each unit.

The plaintiffs proposed a division of the overall class of plaintiffs in two
subclasses, A and C.

Last year, hearings were conducted and lawyers were to submit proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law to determine class action status for
subclasses in the suit (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2006).

In her recent ruling, the judge finds that one of the subclasses proposed by
plaintiffs should be certified for class action.

Subclass A seeks claims for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of contractual obligation to maintain, repair and inspect,
failure of consideration, and fraud.  Proposed members of this class are all
lessees to lease agreements for apartments within Springdale Ridge Apartments
I and II.

Judge Gunn found that the subclass satisfies legal requirements for a class
action, but does so conditionally.

The proposed subclass C is defined by plaintiffs as all current or former
residents, current or former tenants, or current or former occupants of the
apartments. It is seeking claims for strict liability, outrage and negligence
against the same defendants.  This class also seeks claims for wrongful death
and unenforceability/unconstitutionality of the Civil Justice Reform Act of
2003 against all defendants.

The judge found that this subclass does not meet two criteria for a class
action.

In her opinion, the Judge wrote, “The tort of outrage is intensely
individualized and is not easily determined by a class action.  While it is
possible to bring outrage as a class action, the court finds that in this
case, with this many defendants, the elements of outrage are highly
individualized and predominate over any common claim of Subclass C.”


AVVO.COM: Hagens Berman Files Wash. Suit Over Net Rating Service
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve W. Berman, the managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, filed a
proposed nationwide class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, on behalf of other attorneys claiming that the lawyer-
rating Web site Avvo.com is unfair and highly deceptive.

The suit alleges that the site launched by the creator of the successful
travel Web site Expedia violates unfair methods of competition and deceptive
acts in the conduct of commerce as stated in the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.

"When the site launched, they had a very slick media campaign that led
consumers to believe the site would give them accurate and insightful
information about attorneys," Mr. Berman said. "In reality, we believe the
site's rating methodology is prone to error and wide open to manipulation."

Avvo, which launched on June 5, 2007, touts itself as a resource for
consumers looking to hire an attorney by grading attorneys from one to 10
using a mathematical model based on multiple - but undisclosed -- sources of
information. A low score indicates that an attorney should be approached
with "extreme caution" while higher ratings denote "good" to "superb"
performance.

According to Mr. Berman, the site's rating methodology is flawed, citing
examples ranging from profound to comical.

According to the complaint, Bellevue attorney Enrico Salvatore Leo listed an
award he earned in 2006 for his athletic prowess in playing recreational
softball. His score immediately jumped despite the fact that the achievement
had nothing to do with his practice. Before removing the listing, he added a
second softball award which caused his score to again increase.

"The bottom line is the Avvo rating isn't a true representation of one's
ability to practice law and deliver positive results to their client -- it
dupes consumers into thinking the site is an accurate reflection of an
attorney's ability," said Mr. Berman.

The complaint also cites rating trends involving Avvo insiders. While the
site claims to be an unbiased system, Deborah Rhodes, an Avvo board member
and Stanford ethics professor scored a perfect 10, while the dean of the
Stanford law school scored significantly lower, the suit states.

"I think it is highly dangerous to have a consumer making important choices
based on a jack-legged system that puts as much emphasis on a softball award
or the attorney's relationship with Avvo's CEO as it does legal prowess," Mr.
Berman added. "Consumers deserve more than to be manipulated and misguided by
a site claiming to be working in their interests."

In perhaps the most stunning contrast, the complaint notes that U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito each received three out of
five stars for trustworthiness when the site launched, awarding them a 6.5
or "Good" rating, while giving Lynne Stewart the exact same rating. Mr.
Stewart is currently serving a prison term for conspiracy to defraud the
government, the suit contends.

"This sort of casual rating system might work for finding a restaurant or
tire store, but when a person needs to find an attorney to handle a life-
defining crisis, we think this system is wholly inadequate," Mr. Berman
noted.

Mr. Berman received a 9.2 rating, characterized as "superb" on the site's
rating system, one of the highest ratings for his practice area of securities
fraud, class action and anti-trust law.

"We are all interested to see if my rating 9.2 will drop once they are served
with this lawsuit," Mr. Berman noted.

Currently the Avvo site rates attorneys in Washington, California, New York,
Illinois, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arizona, Texas and the District of
Columbia.

"We have heard from attorneys across the country also concerned that
consumers are being misled," Mr. Berman said.

The suit claims that Avvo violates Washington's Consumer Protection Act,
stating the site is deceptive in its ratings and that it provides consumers
with biased, subjective and unreliable information.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman
          Mark Firmani
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: (206) 623-7292 or (206) 443-9357
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com or Mark@firmani.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com


BC FERRIES: Passengers Ask to Certify Suit Over 2006 Sinking
------------------------------------------------------------
B.C. Supreme Court Justice David Tysoe heard on June 12 arguments to certify
a suit filed by two passengers of Canada's BC Ferry ship Queen of the North,
which sank in northern British Columbia in March 2006, The Canadian Press
reports.  The Queen of the North sank on March 22, 2006 after plowing into
Gil Island.   

Judge Tysoe still has to decide whether ferry passenger Maria Kotai can be
the representative plaintiff for 53 passengers.  

A lawyer for B.C. Ferries says the case should not be certified as a class
action because the surviving passengers’ experiences are too diverse.  

At the hearing, passengers filed affidavits documenting symptoms, including
anxiety, sleeplessness, anger and irritability that plaintiffs claim to have
suffered since the sinking.  

Nanaimo Alexander and Maria Kotai filed the case, early in 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, March 30, 2006).  The Kotais accuse BC Ferries of failing to train
crew adequately, supervise the crew on the bridge, keep a proper lookout,
operate at safe speed, and conduct an evacuation of the ferry in a way that
prevented or minimized injuries.  

In September, Justice Tysoe approved the addition of the ship's captain Colin
Henthorne, Fourth Officer Carl Lilgert and deckhand Karen Bricker as
defendants (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006).

The workers are accused of recklessness through "temporary abandonment of
their duty" and "failure to keep a proper lookout."  


CALIFORNIA: San Diego Correctional Sued Over Poor Health Care
-------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of immigrant
detainees at San Diego Correctional Facility (SDCF), charging that inadequate
medical and mental health care have caused unnecessary suffering and, in
several cases, avoidable death.

The June 13 lawsuit -- filed by the ACLU’s National Prison Project and
Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties and the
law firm of Cooley Godward Kronish LLP -- says that detainees are routinely
subjected to long delays before treatment, denied necessary medication for
chronic illnesses, and refused essential referrals prescribed by medical
staff.

“The quality of care provided to detainees at San Diego Correctional Facility
is horrific, and in stark contrast to American values,” said Tom Jawetz,
immigration detention staff attorney for the ACLU National Prison
Project. “The federal government must do more to ensure that immigrant
detainees do not suffer and die unnecessarily.”

The lawsuit specifically names eleven detainees, including:

     -- a woman who has a neurological disorder that has caused
        a painful glomus tumor on her finger;

     -- several detainees with untreated bipolar disorder and
        depression;

     -- a man who was forced to wait more than eight months for    
        eye surgery and nearly suffered permanent disfigurement;
        and

     -- detainees with Type 2 diabetes, hypercholesterolemia,
        hypertension, abscessed and broken teeth, and chest
        pains.

The ACLU believes that inadequate medical care at SDCF has — on several
occasions — resulted in death; in one such case, a Ghanaian man suffering
obvious chest pains was denied treatment and was ordered to submit a written
sick call request shortly before his death.

According to the ACLU, one of the most serious problems with health care at
SDCF, as at other immigration facilities around the country, is that it is
provided in accordance with the deeply flawed Division of Immigration Health
Services (DIHS) Covered Services Package. On-site medical staff must get
approval from DIHS to provide medically necessary referrals before treating
detainees. Medical staff at the facility, who are responsible for examining
patients and determining necessary treatment, are frequently told by DIHS
staff reviewing the case on paper in Washington DC, that they may not provide
that treatment due to limitations in the DIHS package.

“The Division of Immigration Health Services needs to make major improvements
to its benefits package to ensure detainees get the treatment they need,”
said David Blair-Loy, Legal Director of the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial
Counties. “It is imperative that DIHS make significant changes to its current
practices that cause avoidable suffering due to its slow bureaucratic
process.”

The ACLU charges in its lawsuit that the incompetence and indifference of
immigration officials in refusing to provide appropriate medical care amounts
to punishment that violates the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits subjecting any person in the custody of the
U.S. to unnecessary pain and suffering. Because SDCF holds civil immigrant
detainees, not one of whom is serving a criminal sentence, the Fifth
Amendment applies to protect their civil rights.

“People at SDCF are being denied fundamental health care and in extreme
circumstances are suffering long term health consequences or death because
the authorities are refusing to treat them,” said Anthony M. Stiegler,
litigation partner at Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. “This lack of treatment for
these civil immigration detainees is both inhumane and clearly
unconstitutional.”

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?20f7

The suit is “Woods v. Myers,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Anthony M. Stiegler
          Mary Kathryn Kelley
          Cooley Godward Kronish LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Phonee: (858) 550-6035
          Fax: (858) 550-6420
          E-mail: astiegler@cooley.com

          - and -

          Tom-Tsvi M. Jawetz
          Gouri Bhat
          David C. Fathi
          American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
          National Prison Project
          915 15th Street NW, 7th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (202) 548-6610
          Fax: (202) 393-4931
          E-mail: tjawetz@npp-aclu.org


CANADA: Taxpayers Group Drops Suit Against Teachers Union
---------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation has dropped its lawsuit against BC
Teachers' Federation over an illegal strike in the fall of 2005.

Lawyers for the taxpayers' federation now say the case is no longer being
pursued because they could not find enough parents to add to the action,
according to CKNW News.

The suit alleges negligence by the striking teachers, their union and their
union president when 38,000 members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation walked
off the job on October 7, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20, 2005).  The
suit, whose lone plaintiff is Jacqueline Grant, accuses teachers, their union
and Jinny Sims, their leader of going on strike despite legislation and legal
decisions that declare their actions as being illegal.  

The statement of claim also contends that their negligence includes the
failure to instruct union members to return to work and a lack of effort to
maintain essential service levels, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(October 14, 2005) reports.


CANADA: Quebec Court Allows Suit by Farmers Over Mad Cow Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Superior Court Justice Richard Wagner ruled on June 15 that a
class action on behalf of some 20,000 Quebec cattle farmers against the
Federal Government will proceed to trial.

This is an important step in obtaining compensation for farmers following
Canada's mad cow issue involving over 100,000 Canadian cattle farmers,
including Quebec's 20,000 cattle farmers.

On May 20, 2003 cattle producers were struck with the worst disaster to hit
the Canadian agriculture industry since the Great Depression.  Bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (also known as BSE or mad cow disease) was
diagnosed in one cow in Alberta, triggering the immediate closing of
international borders to Canadian cattle and beef.

Canadian cattle producers have lost billions of dollars in revenue as a
result.  Farms that have been in the same family for generations have been
sold.  Many producers have been forced to turn their back on farming
altogether.  Families have suffered and continue to suffer.  This national
class action is intended to recover every penny lost by Canadian cattle
producers from those who caused their losses.

In April 2005, class action claims were filed cooperatively by a team of
lawyers in the courts of Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta on behalf
of all commercial farmers of cattle residents in Canada as of May 20, 2003
(the date at which Canada's International cattle and beef exports were
frozen).

The claims allege that negligence on the part of the Federal Government
caused the BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) crisis in Canada and the
corresponding loss of income to Canadian cattle producers.  BSE is an
incurable neurological disease of cattle that is transmitted when healthy
cattle eat the remains of infected cattle or other ruminants.

The class actions allege that the BSE crisis, the closing of the U.S. and
other international borders to Canadian cattle and beef, and the loss of
billions of dollars by the Canadian cattle industry were the result of gross
incompetence on the part of the Canadian government. Statistics Canada
confirmed in May of this year that Canadian cattle producers have lost more
than $9B in cash receipts since the BSE crisis began in May of 2003, an
amount which has been growing daily.

Quebec Attorney Gilles Gareau and Ontario's Cameron Pallett, co-counsel in
the Quebec action commented, "We applaud this decision as an important
milestone for all of Quebec's and Canada's cattle producers. We are confident
it will lead to eventual redress for hard-working farmers who have suffered
extensive damage and whose livelihoods have been compromised. It is a view
held by many experts that the BSE crisis would never have happened if the
Federal Government had not been asleep at the wheel. We would recommend that
all potential members of the class retain their financial records going as
far back as possible, as these records may be critical in determining the
financial damages they are entitled to recover.

According to documents filed in Quebec Court, government officials
jeopardized the safety of the Canadian food supply in failing to inform the
public that they had allowed 80 British cattle that were supposed to be in
a 'monitoring program', to enter the human and animal food chain in Canada.
These same government officials' own risk analysis indicated that there was a
95% chance that 6 or more of these animals had BSE."

Although findings of liability against the Federal Government remain to be
made at trial, Mr. Gareau and his colleagues from across the country find
this a tremendous development for all Canadian cattle producers.

BSE Class Action on the net: http://www.bseclassaction.ca/english

For more information, contact:

          Adams Gareau
          Me Gilles Gareau
          Phone: (514) 848-9363
          Cell: (514) 966-7555
          E-mail: gareaug@adamsgareau.com

          Cameron Pallett
          Barrister & Solicitor
          Phone: (416) 923-1776
          Cell: (416) 473-0460
          E-mail: cpallett@leggeandlegge.com

          Reynold Robertson
          Robertson Stromberg Pedersen LLP
          Phone: (306) 933-1348
          Cell: (306) 230-9980
          E-mail: r.robertson@thinkrsplaw.com

          - and -

          Clint Docken, Q.C.
          Docken & Company
          Phone: (403) 269-7656
          Cell: (403) 619-3612
          E-mail: cgd@docken.com


CAPT. WILLIAM JACKMAN: Group of Women Objects to Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eleven women in western Labrador are objecting to a tentative settlement of a
suit filed by Labrador City women who were exposed to tainted gynecological
instruments at Capt. William Jackman Memorial Hospital, according to CBC News.

Elevement women have written to Ches Crosbie, whose firm negotiated the
settlement, to voice out their dissatisfaction.

The class action by 327 women was filed in 2003 after these women were told
about the possible exposure to contagious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis
A and C, while they underwent tests at the gynecological clinic (Class Action
Reporter, May 3, 2007).

The settlement, still subject to the judge's approval, stipulates that each
woman involved in the suit receives CAD450, and her spouse CAD100.  It also
states that Jackman hospital must publish changes in policy and procedure in
a local paper.  

Anticipating objections to the settlement, Mr. Crosbie said previously that
the maximum amount in such cases is only $1,000, and they already got about
half of that.  He added: " in order to get [the CAD1,000], you were probably
looking at another year or two, with things like a psychiatrist being hired
by the defendant."


CBOT HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement in LAMPERS Suit Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
The CBOT Holdings, Inc. denied it reached a settlement with the Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System (LAMPERS), which filed a suit
challenging CBOT's proposed merger with Chicago Mercantile Exchange Holdings
Inc. (CME), Heather Dale of Global Pensions reports.

Last week, LAMPERS announced it reached a settlement agreement resolving a
class action challenging alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the CBOT board
of directors and aiding and abetting of those breaches by CME.

CBOT said the agreement was reached only with the CME, according to the
report.

LAMPERS filed the suit on March 16, 2007 against CBOT and its board of
directors, challenging a proposed $8.9 billion merger with Chicago Mercantile
Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007).

Specifically named as defendants in the suit are:

      -- CBOT Holdings, Inc.;
      -- Charles P. Carey;
      -- Robert F. Corvino;
      -- Bernard W. Dan;
      -- John E. Callahan;
      -- James E. Cashman;
      -- Mark E. Cermak;
      -- Jackie Clegg;
      -- Brent M. Coan;
      -- James A. Donaldson;
      -- Larry G. Gerdes;
      -- James P. McMillin;
      -- Joseph Niciforo;
      -- C.C. Odem, II;
      -- John Pittrzak;
      -- Christopher Stewart;
      -- Michael D. Walter;
      -- Charles M. Wolin; and
      -- Chicago Mercantile.

The suit, which is seeking class-action status, alleges that the
Chicago Mercantile merger agreement contains "numerous coercive and
preclusive" protections that "heavily tilt the playing field in the favor of
Chicago Mercantile."  These provisions include a $240 million termination
fee, and the prohibition of CBOT directors from seeking other suitors.

According to a report by Shanny Basar of Financial News Online U.S., the
court has allowed LMERS to undertake limited discovery.  In turn, CBOT filed
motions to dismiss the lawsuit on April 9, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, May
18, 2007).

On June 4, 2007, LAMPERS filed an amended complaint that added claims for
alleged disclosure inadequacies.

The June 14 settlement resolves the claims in that lawsuit. Among other
enhancements to the proposed CME/CBOT merger, the settlement provides for:

     (1) CBOT to pay a special cash dividend of $9.14 per share
         to holders of record of CBOT Holdings Class A common
         stock; and

     (2) The availability of appraisal rights under Delaware law
         to CBOT Holdings Class A common stockholders.

The settlement, which provides at least $475 million in additional
consideration to shareholders based solely on the special dividend, follows
CME's May 11, 2007 increase, of about $1 billion, of consideration to be
offered in the deal.

The settlement follows extensive discovery efforts and aggressive
negotiations by LAMPERS and its counsel. "We're proud to have played a
central role in achieving well over a billion dollars in additional value for
CBOT shareholders," said LAMPERS' General Counsel, Randall R. Roche.

"Our activist approach, combined with the superior efforts of our outside
litigation counsel, set a strong example for other institutional investors
and sends a clear message to corporate directors about the need to maximize
shareholder value when negotiating merger transactions."

Co-lead plaintiff's counsel John P. (Sean) Coffey stated, "We are pleased to
have assisted LAMPERS in its efforts to advance the interests of the public
shareholders of the Chicago Board of Trade in this significant litigation."
Mr. Coffey is co-managing partner with the New York-based law firm Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

Co-lead counsel Stuart Grant added, "With this additional half a billion
dollar dividend and appraisal rights for those who choose to pursue them, the
CME-CBOT transaction appears to be superior to the ICE proposal and fair to
the public shareholders. We are pleased we could be a part of this process
and protect the public shareholders' interests." Mr. Grant is co-managing
partner of Wilmington, DE-based Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

The formal settlement documents will be presented to the Honorable John W.
Noble, Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Chancery Court, for his approval in
the coming weeks. The vote on the proposed CBOT/CME merger is scheduled for
July 9, 2007.

Cypress Associates LLC acted as financial advisor to LAMPERS and its counsel.

The suit is "Louisiana Municipal Employees' Retirement System v. CBOT
Holdings, Inc., et al. Case No. 2803," filed in the Court of the Chancery of
the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 554-1282 and (212) 554-1400
         Fax: (212) 554-1444
         E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
         Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com
       
              - and -

         Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
         Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
         1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302) 622-7070
         Fax: (302) 622-7100
         E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com
         Web site: http://www.gelaw.com/stuartm_grant.cfm


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Nixing of Securities Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of a second consolidated amended
complaint in a securities fraud class action filed against Discovery
Laboratories, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On May 1, 2006, Hal Unschuld filed an action in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, individually and purportedly on behalf
of a class of the company's investors who purchased its publicly traded
securities between Dec. 28, 2005 and April 25, 2006 (Class Action Reporter,
June 15, 2006).

The suit was filed against the company and company Chief Executive Officer
Robert J. Capetola.  This action alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with various public
statements made by the company.

Plaintiff sought an order wherein the suit may proceed as a class action and
an award of compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the other
class members in an unspecified amount, together with interest and
reimbursement of costs and expenses of the litigation and other equitable or
injunctive relief.
     
The company was notified that two additional class actions seeking the same
relief have since been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, although the company
has not been served with a complaint in these actions.

On July 25, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued an order appointing the Mizla Group, as lead plaintiff
in "In re Discovery Laboratories Securities Litigation, No. 06-1820 (SD)."

The court also approved the appointment of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP as lead
counsel.  The court directed that a consolidated amended complaint be filed,
and on Aug. 10, 2006, the company filed the consolidated amended complaint.

On Sept. 14, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, and, in an order dated Nov. 1, 2006, the district court
granted that motion while giving plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint.

On Nov. 30, 2006, the company filed the second consolidated amended complaint
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2006).

On March 19, 2007, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
second consolidated amended complaint.

On April 10, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company’s
May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

In addition, on March 19, 2007, the court issued an order in a derivative
action against the company and several of its officers and directors, in
which the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Dec. 29, 2006
and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007.

The court directed that, as the derivative action complaint is largely based
on the assumption that various statements made by the company subjected it to
potential liability under the federal securities laws and the court's March
15 opinion in the class action held that the vast majority of the statements
referenced in the derivative plaintiffs' complaint are not actionable under
federal law, plaintiffs should file a supplemental brief explaining why the
court's March 15 decision in the class action does not require dismissal of
the derivative complaint as well, and defendants should file a response.

The suit is "In re Discovery Laboratories Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:06-cv-01820-SD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Stewart Dalzell.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         James R. Malone, Esq.
         Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
         Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue
         Haverford, PA 19401
         Phone: 610-642-8500
         E-mail: jamesmalone@chimicles.com
                 josephsauder@chimicles.com

Representing defendants are:

         Michelle M. Crimaldi, Esq.
         Robert L. Hickok, Esq.
         Christopher J. Huber, Esq.
         Gay Barlow Parks Rainville, Esq.
         Pepper Hamilton LLP
         3000 Two Logan Square, 18th and Arch Streets
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
         Phone: 215-981-4000 or 215-981-4583 or 215-981-4446
         Fax: 215-981-4750
         E-mail: crimaldim@pepperlaw.com
                 hickokr@pepperlaw.com
                 huberc@pepperlaw.com
                 rainvilleg@pepperlaw.com


GUITAR CENTER: Court Dismisses Certain Claims in Fla. RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed
certain claims in a purported class action filed against Guitar Center, Inc.
and its chief executive officer remain, alleging violations of the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, several antitrust laws
and trade practices, 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.

On Nov. 29, 2005, a case was filed against company and other defendants,
including its chief executive officer.  The complaint specifically asserts
violations of:

      -- RICO and a corresponding Florida statute,
       
      -- Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,  
       
      -- Section 2 of the Clayton Act (as amended by the  
         Robinson-Patman Act),  

      -- the Antidumping Act of 1916,  
    
      -- the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, and  

      -- the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act;
         and  

      -- tortious interference with business relationship under  
         Florida law and civil conspiracy under Florida law.

The violations are in connection with the claimed inability of  
Ace Pro Sound and Recording, L.L.C. to obtain vendor lines for its store.  

The complaint purports to be a class action on behalf of all current and
former retail sellers of musical instruments and/or sound equipment and/or
recording equipment with stores located in geographical regions in the U.S.
wherein some or all of the   defendants have carried on business, and seeks
compensatory   damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief
and   attorneys' fees.
  
On April 1, 2007, the court entered its order on defendants’ motions to
dismiss.  The court dismissed plaintiff’s RICO claims against Mr. Albertson
and further granted a motion to strike a claim for consequential damages
brought under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The
court denied all other motions to dismiss.  

The suit is "Ace Pro Sound and v. Albertson, et al., Case No. 05-CV-23098,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under
Judge Marcia G. Cooke.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Michael L. Feinstein, Esq.
         Michael L. Feinstein, P.A.
         888 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 700
         Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
         Phone: 954-767-9662
         Fax: 954-527-0848

Representing the company is:

         Douglas E. Ede, Esq.
         The Law Offices of Salas, Ede, Peterson & Lage, L.L.C.         
         6333 Sunset Drive
         Miami, Florida 33143
         Phone: (305) 663-0000
         Fax: (305) 663-0989
         E-mail: dede@sepllaw.com
         Web site: http://www.sepllaw.com


GUITAR CENTER: Discovery Commences for “Snyder” Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the purported class action, “J. Kevin Snyder v.
Guitar Center Stores, Inc.,” which was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, based upon Guitar
Center’s allegedly unlawful point-of-sale credit card practices.

The suit was filed on Dec. 6, 2006.  Discovery has commenced in this matter,
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.

Guitar Center, Inc. -- http://www.guitarcenter.com-- is the U.S. retailer of  
guitars, amplifiers, percussion instruments, keyboards, and pro-audio and
recording equipment.


GUITAR CENTER: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. Labor-Related Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has yet to rule
on a motion to dismiss a purported class action filed against Guitar Center
Stores, Inc.

On Jan. 11, 2007, a lawsuit named, “Michael Kuhl v. Guitar Center Stores,
Inc.,” was filed by a Guitar Center sales associate as a putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, based upon Guitar Center’s allegedly
unlawful payroll deduction policies.

The lawsuit has been brought on behalf of plaintiff and all former and
current hourly employees in Illinois and nationwide.

A motion to dismiss was filed on the Company’s behalf on March 26, 2007,
according to the company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

The suit is “Kuhl et al. v. Guitar Center Stores, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-
cv-00214,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Joan B. Gottschall.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Jordan Rudnick, Esq.
         Diab & Bock, LLC
         20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1741
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 334-1970
         E-mail: jordan@diabbockllc.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Cathryn Elizabeth Albrecht
         Jackson Lewis, LLP
         320 West Ohio Street, Suite 500,
         Chicago, IL 60610
         Phone: (312) 787-4949
         E-mail: albrechc@jacksonlewis.com


HOME SOLUTIONS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Home Solutions of America, Inc. faces a consolidated securities fraud class
action in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas,
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.

One of these suits was filed on June 20, 2006.  Home Solutions and the chief
executive officer, president, and chief financial officer of Home Solutions,
are named as defendants in that action.   

The complaint alleges claims against Home Solutions and such officers for
violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that
the defendants disseminated false and misleading information to the public
and misrepresented the accuracy of the company's financial condition and
future revenue prospects.   

It further alleges that the effect of the purported fraud was to manipulate
Home Solution's stock price so that the defendants could profit from the
manipulation.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  

On June 27, 2006 and on July 6, 2006, two additional class actions were filed
in the same court.  Home Solutions and its directors are named as defendants
in those actions.   

The allegations in these two additional class actions are substantially
similar to those in the first lawsuit.  The actions seek damages in an
unspecified amount.   

On Jan. 10, 2007, the Court consolidated two of the class action cases and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated case.

On March 12, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 against the same defendants as in the original complaints as well as
against several additional defendants, including a member of the Company’s
board of directors and Sanders Morris Harris Group, Inc.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding certain of the Company’s contracts and
acquisitions and made false statements regarding the Company’s 2006 earnings
guidance.

The suit is " Hansen v. Fradella et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01096," filed in
the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas under Judge David
C. Godbey.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Theodore Carl Anderson, III, Esq.
         Kilgore & Kilgore
         3109 Carlisle, Suite 200
         Dallas, TX 75204
         Phone: 214/969-9099
         Fax: 214/292-8758
         E-mail: tca@kilgorelaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Gerard G. Pecht, Esq.
         Fulbright & Jaworski
         1301 McKinney St., Suite 5100
         Houston, TX 77010-3095
         Phone: 713/651-5151
         Fax: 713/651-5246
         E-mail: gpecht@fulbright.com

              - and -

         William L. Banowsky, Esq.
         Thompson & Knight
         1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 3300
         Dallas, TX 75201-4693
         Phone: 214/969-1231
         Fax: 214/969-1751
         E-mail: bill.banowsky@tklaw.com


INDIAN HEALTH: N.M. Court Refuses to Certify ISDA-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico issued on May 22 a
memorandum opinion and order denying class certification and denying motion
to create sub-classes and appoint counsel for sub-class in a purported class
action filed by 334 tribal health organizations against the U.S. government
and the federal agency responsible for providing health care to American
Indians and Alaska Natives.

The tribal health organizations claim that the Indian Health Service (IHS)
has knowingly and annually shortchanged them since the early 1990s.   

Plaintiffs are suing for the government’s alleged failure to pay the full
contract amounts specified in contracts between Native American Tribes or
Pueblos and the Indian Health Service that were awarded under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act.

These ISDA contracts provide that Zuni Pueblo members will deliver health
care services to other Zuni Pueblo members that would otherwise be provided
to members by IHS, the complaint states.

Plaintiff seeks damages for the Government’s underpayment of contract support
costs to tribes for ISDA contracts in fiscal years dating back from 1993 to
the present. The Amended
Complaint was filed on December 12, 2001. It alleges various theories of
claims flowing from the Government’s alleged breach of contract and violation
of the ISDA, and requests both declaratory relief and monetary damages.  

The massive shortfall, according to them, has hurt a population facing
medical crises on many fronts, including soaring rates of diabetes, heart
disease, suicide and alcoholism.

The court said the case shall not be certified as a class action because the
claims of the putative class members do not meet jurisdictional requirements
under the Contract Disputes Act, which applies to claims for money damages
under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.

“Even if the putative class description is narrowed to allow only class
members who have presented all their claims, this case shall not be certified
because the putative class does not meet Rule 23(a) requirements for
commonality, typicality and fair and adequate representation. The tribal
contracts are individual and were individually negotiated; the Government’s
defenses would differ; and named class representatives’ interests could
conflict with those of the putative class members.”

“...wbat predominates here are separate and individual contracts with
different terms and conditions and different defenses pertaining to what is
allegedly owed in contract support costs. Moreover, class certification is
not a superior method of adjudication because it will end up being more
cumbersome than efficient. Mini-trials would abound on numerous threshold
jurisdictional issues, as well as on issues pertaining to the Government’s
liability on individual tribal contracts,” the court states.

A copy of the Order is available for free at:

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

More information about the case is available at:
        http://www.cscclass.net/Zuni_Litigation/case.htm   

The suit is "Pueblo of Zuni, et al. v. United States of America;
Tommy Thompson, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services; and Michael h. Trujillo, Director of the Indian
Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Case No. Civil Action No. 01-1046LH," filed in U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lloyd Benton Miller, Esq.
          Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Munson, LLP
          900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 700
          Anchorage, Alaska 99501
          Phone: (907) 258-6377
          Fax: (907) 272-8332
          E-mail: lloyd@sonosky.net

                  - and –

         David C. Mielke, Esq.
         Gary F. Brownell, Esq.
         Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Mielke, LLP
         500 Marquette Avenue Northwest, Suite 1310
         Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
         Phone: (505) 247-0147
         Fax: (505)843-6912
         E-mail: dmielke@abqsonosky.com
         gbrownell@abqsonosky.com.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: N.C. Court Mulls Securities Suit Nixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina has yet to
rule on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action filed
against Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain other defendants.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the first of five identical purported shareholder class
action complaints was filed against the company and certain of its senior
officers.

Each complaint alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5, and focused on statements that are claimed to be false and misleading
regarding a Phase 3 clinical trial of the company's dry eye product
candidate, ProlacriaTM (diquafosol tetrasodium).

Each complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's securities between June 2, 2004 and Feb. 8, 2005.

On March 27, 2006, following consolidation of the lawsuits into a single
civil action and appointment of lead plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint.

The complaint asserts claims against the company and certain of its present
or former senior officers or directors.  It also asserts claims under
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 based on statements
alleged to be false and misleading regarding a Phase 3 clinical trial of
Prolacria, and also adds claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint also asserts claims against certain parties that served as
underwriters in the company's securities offerings during the period relevant
to the complaint.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's securities from May 10,
2004 to Feb. 8, 2005.

In May 2006, the plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss their claims
against the underwriters on the basis that they were time-barred.  

On June 30, 2006, the company and other defendants moved that the court
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted and does not satisfy the pleading requirements
under applicable law.  Briefing on that motion is now complete and it is
currently pending before the court.

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 "Mirco Investors, LLC v. Inspire Pharma, et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00118-WLO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina under Judge William L. Osteen.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Leslie Bruce Mcdaniel, Esq.
         Mcdaniel & Anderson, L.L.P.
         P.O. Box 58186
         Raleigh, NC 27658-8186
         Phone: 919-872-3000
         Fax: 919-790-9273, E-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com

              - and –

         Kristi Stahnke Mcgregor, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         5200 Town Ctr. Cir., Ste. 600
         Boca Raton, FL 33486
         Phone: 561-361-5022
         Fax: 561-367-8400
         E-mail: kmcgregor@milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendants are:

         William Mark Conger, Esq.
         Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P.
         1001 W. Fourth St.
         Winston-Salem, NC 27101
         Phone: 336-607-7309
         Fax: 336-734-2633
         E-mail: mconger@kilpatrickstockton.com

              - and -

         Barry m. Kaplan, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-883-2500
         Fax: 206-883-2699


KAPLAN INC: Lawyers Challenge $49M Antitrust Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
More than 20 lawyers have filed objections to a $49 million settlement of a
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against BAR/BRI and
Kaplan, Inc.

The case was filed by former law students in California, Michigan and
Louisiana, who had brought it on behalf of all persons who purchased a bar
review course from BAR/BRI Bar Review from August 1997 (Class Action
Reporter, July 17, 2006).

Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/a BAR/BRI of
violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiring with Kaplan, Inc. to
prevent competition in the market for full-service bar review courses.  
Kaplan is an international provider of educational and career services.

BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. to assist would-be
attorneys in their preparation for taking one or more bar examinations
required by each state and the District of Columbia prior to the issuance of
a license to practice law.

Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct, consumers had to
pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than they should have (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 19, 2007).

Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-service bar review
course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. where BAR/BRI directly operated a
course anytime from August 1997 up to the present time.

Therefore, any individual who purchased a full-service bar review course from
BAR/BRI to prepare for the winter 1998 bar examination or any subsequent bar
examination is a class member.

In early December 2006, the parties agreed to a settlement of the
litigation.  On Feb. 2, 2007, the parties filed a settlement agreement with
the court together with documents setting forth a procedure for class notice
(Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29, 2007).

The settlement calls for West Publishing to pay $36 million and Kaplan to pay
$13 million.  After $12 million in attorney fees, this translates into an
average award of $125 each to the roughly 300,000 law students who took West
Publishing's BAR/BRI courses between 1997 and 2006.

As a part of the settlement, defendants have agreed to establish a $49
million fund. The settlement also provides for other non-monetary relief.

Class Members are eligible to obtain up to 30% of the total amount they paid
for a bar review course from the fund.

The class includes persons who purchased a BAR/BRI full-service bar review
course between August 1, 1997 and July 31, 2006, unless they requested
exclusion on or before Aug. 13, 2006.  BAR/BRI and Kaplan acknowledge having
signed a joint marketing agreement, but deny that it violated any antitrust
laws.

According to Rosenbloom, for several months, three of the seven lead
plaintiffs -- Loredana Nesci, Lisa Gintz and Ryan Rodriguez -- have been
demanding stronger terms and prodding McGuireWoods and Mr. Disner to try to
strike a better deal.  The three want a larger payout and injunctive relief
to protect BAR/BRI's future customers against anti-competitive behavior.  The
remaining four lead plaintiffs have agreed to the settlement.

"The recovery was a little bit low for absent class members, given what we
believed was the strength of the case," said Ben Nutley, a partner at
Pasadena, Calif.-based Kendrick & Nutley, who represents seven objectors.

A fairness hearing is set today, June 18, 2007, for the $49 million
settlement in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

BAR/BRI Class Action Litigation on the net:

                http://www.barbri-classaction.com

The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al. v. West Publishing Corp. et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge Manuel L. Real with referral to Judge
James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Eliot G. Disner, Esq.
          Noah E Jussim, Esq.
          McGuireWoods, LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-315-8299
          Fax: 310-315-8298
          E-mail: edisner@mcguirewoods.com

          Sidney K. Kanazawa, Esq.
          Tracy Evans Moyer, Esq.
          Colleen M. Regan, Esq.
          Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-315-8200
          E-mail: skanazawa@vsblaw.com or cregan@vsblaw.com

          - and -

          Joanna Shally, Esq.
          Shearman and Sterling
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-848-4700

Representing the defendants are:

          Edward A. Klein, Esq.
          Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif
          1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
          Phone: 310-500-3500

          Stuart N. Senator, Esq.
          Lee Scott Taylor, Esq.
          Munger Tolles & Olson
          355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl.,
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100
          E-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com

          - and -

          Jeffrey A. LeVee, Esq.
          Courtney M. Schaberg, Esq.
          Brian A. Sun, Esq.
          Jones Day
          555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-489-3939
          E-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com or
                  cmschaberg@jonesday.com or basun@jonesday.com

For more details, contact:

          BAR/BRI Class Action Administrator
          P.O. Box 24639
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 1-888-285-7850
          E-mail: BARBRI@completeclaimsolutions.com


LOUISIANA: Pet Owners Sue Sheriff’s Department Over Pet Killings
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Department is facing a purported class action
that accuses it of killing many stranded pets that had been left behind by
their owners in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

A report by David Edwards and Muriel Kane of The Raw Story revealed that
those who filed the suit are nine New Orleans pet owners who are claiming
that they were forced to leave behind their dogs, which were then killed by
sheriff’s deputies.

The pet owners are asserting that their pets were executed in three schools
that were supposed to serve as shelters.

The Louisiana Attorney General’s Office is investigating the matter,
according to a report by WKRN.


MANNATECH INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mannatech, Inc. is facing an amended consolidated securities fraud complaint
filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint proposed by the lead plaintiffs is
substantively similar to the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint filed on March 3, 2006.

Lead plaintiffs allege the company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, by artificially inflating the value of the
company's common stock by knowingly allowing independent contractors to
recklessly misrepresent the efficacy of the company's products during the
purported class period.

The Amended Complaint expands the class period, as alleged in the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, to Oct. 27, 2006, and also adds new
allegations against the company based on news reports of potential regulatory
or enforcement actions by the State of Texas involving the company's selling
and promotional activities.

Originally, three securities class actions were filed against Mannatech.  On
Aug. 1, 2005, Mr. Jonathan Crowell filed a putative class action against the
company and Samuel L. Caster, chief executive officer.  The suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on behalf of Mr.
Crowell and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock between Aug. 10, 2004 and May 9, 2005, inclusive, and who were
damaged thereby.

On Aug. 30, 2005, Mr. Richard McMurry filed a class action against the
company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Terry L. Persinger, the company's president and
chief operating officer, and Mr. Stephen D. Fenstermacher, the company's
chief financial officer.

On Sept. 5, 2005, Mr. Michael Bruce Zeller filed a class action against the
company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Persinger, and Mr.
Fenstermacher.

The allegations in these class actions are substantially identical.  The
complaints allege the company violated Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants
artificially inflated the value of the company's common stock by knowingly
allowing independent contractors to recklessly misrepresent the efficacy of
its products during the purported class period.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the court granted a motion to consolidate the three
putative class actions.  These lawsuits have been consolidated into the civil
action as, "In re Mannatech, Incorporated Securities Litigation."

Also, on Jan. 4, 2006, the court granted a motion in the consolidated
putative class action to appoint "The Mannatech
Group," as lead plaintiffs, which consisting of:

     -- Mr. Austin Chang,
     -- Ms. Naomi S. Miller,
     -- Mr. John C. Ogden, and the
     -- Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund.

The Jan. 4, 2006 court order also appointed the law firms:

     * Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead
       counsel, and

     * Freedman Boyd Daniels Hollander & Goldberg, P.A. as
       liaison counsel, for the putative class.

On March 3, 2006, the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a
consolidated class action complaint for securities fraud.

On April 4, 2006, the company filed a motion to transfer venue to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On April 11, 2006, the court granted the parties agreed motion for joint
continuance and briefing schedule, which was filed
April 6, 2006.

On May 25, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to
the motion to transfer and on June 27, 2006, the company filed its reply in
support of the motion.

In addition, on June 28, 2006, a Notice of Completion of
Briefing was filed.

On Jan. 29, 2007, the Court in the District of New Mexico granted the
company's motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

On March 9, 2007, lead plaintiffs for the putative class filed an unopposed
Motion for Leave to File Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint for
Securities Fraud.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint proposed by the lead plaintiffs is
substantively similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on
March 3, 2006.  

Lead plaintiffs allege the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by artificially inflating the value of the Company’s common stock by
knowingly allowing independent contractors to recklessly misrepresent the
efficacy of its products during the purported class period.

The Amended Complaint expands the class period, as alleged in the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, to Oct. 27, 2006, and also adds new
allegations based on news reports of potential regulatory or enforcement
actions by the State of Texas involving selling and promotional activities of
the Company and/or its independent associates.

The Company was required to answer or move to dismiss the Amended Complaint
by May 21, 2007.

The suit is "Crowell v. Mannatech Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
00238," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
under Judge David C. Godbey.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Roger F. Claxton, Esq.
         Robert J. Hill, Esq.
         Claxton & Hill
         3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103
         Dallas, TX 75204-2471
         Phone: 214/969-9029
         Fax: 214/953-0583
         E-mail: claxtonhill@airmail.net

         David J. George, Esq.
         Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         120 E Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561/750-3000
         Fax: 561/750-3364
         E-mail: dgeorge@lerachlaw.com
                 rrobbins@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         Michael Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310/201-9150
         Fax: 310/201-9160
         E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

Representing defendants is:

         Edward S. Koppman, Esq.
         Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
         1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 4100
         Dallas, TX 75201-4618
         Phone: 214/969-2846
         Fax: 214/969-4343
         E-mail: ekoppman@akingump.com


MEDICAL STAFFING: Fla. Approves Fla. Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida gave final
approval to a proposed settlement in a securities fraud class action filed
against Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc., 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.

                   Marrari, Williams Lawsuits

On Feb. 20, 2004, Joseph and Patricia Marrari filed class actions against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, on behalf of themselves and purchasers of the
company's common stock pursuant to or traceable to the company's initial
public offering in April 2002.  On April 16, 2004, Tommie Williams filed the
same suit in the same court.

These lawsuits also named as defendants certain of the company's directors
and executive officers.  The complaints allege that certain disclosures in
the Registration Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the company's
initial public offering on April 17, 2002 were materially false and
misleading in violation of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.  

The complaints seek compensatory damages, as well as costs and attorney fees.

                      Haddon Zia's Lawsuit

On March 29, 2004, a third class action was brought on behalf of the same
class of the company's stockholders, making claims under the Securities Act
similar to those in the lawsuits filed by Joseph and Patricia Marrari and
Tommie Williams.  The suit was brought by Haddon Zia in the Florida Circuit
Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida.  

Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and plaintiff moved to remand the case back to
the Florida Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, a motion that
defendants opposed.

On Sept. 16, 2004, the federal district court entered an order granting
plaintiff's motion to remand.  On Jan. 6, 2005, the state court stayed the
state court proceedings until further order of the court.  

The Zia complaint seeks rescission or damages as well as certain equitable
relief and costs and attorney fees.

                      Jerome Gould Lawsuit

On March 2, 2004, Jerome Gould filed another class action complaint against
the company and certain of its directors and executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of the company's stockholders who
purchased stock from April 18, 2002 through June 16, 2003.

It alleges that certain of the company's public disclosures during the class
period were materially false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages, costs and attorney
fees.

               Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Appointment  

On July 2, 2004, the Marrari, Gould, Williams and Zia actions were
consolidated, although, as noted above, the Zia action was subsequently
remanded to state court.

Plaintiff Thomas Greene was appointed lead plaintiff of the consolidated
action and the law firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman LLP -- now known as
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP -- was appointed
plaintiffs' lead counsel.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed his consolidated amended class
action complaint, which makes allegations on behalf of a class consisting of
purchasers of the company's common stock pursuant to or traceable to the
company's initial public offering in April 2002, for purposes of the
Securities Act claims, and on behalf of the company's stockholders who
purchased stock during the period from April 18, 2002 through
June 16, 2003, for purposes of the Exchange Act claims.

The complaint alleges that certain of the company's public disclosures during
the class period were materially false and misleading in violation of Section
11 of the U.S. Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.  The
complaint seeks compensatory damages as well as costs and attorney fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which, on
Sept. 27, 2005, was granted in part as to those portions of plaintiffs'
Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims concerning statements or omissions prior to
Oct. 29, 2002, and denied as to the remaining claims.  

On May 15, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

Defendants and Lead Plaintiff have reached an agreement to settle the case,
the terms of which are reflected in a Stipulation of Settlement filed with
the District Court.

Under the settlement agreement, Defendants expressly deny any violation of
the securities laws or other wrongdoing.  The settlement will create a $5
million cash fund that will be used to pay claims submitted by class members
and pay fees and expenses of Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel.

The entire amount of the settlement is covered by the Company’s insurance and
therefore will not have any impact on the Company’s earnings.

A fairness hearing was held on March 2, 2007 and the District Court issued a
final judgment on March 6, 2007 approving the settlement and dismissing the
action with prejudice.  

On March 11, 2007, the state court dismissed the Zia action with prejudice.

The suit is "Marrari, et al v. Medical Holdings, et al., Case
No. 9:04-cv-80158-WPD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas, with referral to
Judge Frank J. Lynch.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Scott L. Adkins, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 200
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 750-3364

              - and -

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

Representing defendants are:

         Sameer Advani, Esq.
         Sharon M. Blaskey, Esq.
         Stephen W. Greiner, Esq.
         Tariq Mundiya, Esq.
         Willkie Farr & Gallagher
         787 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-728-8000 or 212-728-8527 or 212-728-8224,
         Fax: 212-728-9587 or 212-728-9527 or 212-728-8111

              - and -

         Harry Richard Schafer, Esq.
         Kenny Nachwalter, P.A.
         201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1100
         Miami, FL 33131-4327
         Phone: 305-373-1000
         Fax: 305-372-1861
         E-mail: hrs@kennynachwalter.com


MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medis Technologies, Ltd. is facing a purported securities fraud class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed on April 23, 2007 against the Company and, among others,
the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.

The complaint alleges that the Company issued a false and misleading press
release on April 13, 2007 regarding sales of the Company’s “24/7” fuel cell
power packs to a major international company by overstating the importance of
those sales, which resulted in the Company’s common stock being artificially
inflated.  

The complaint seeks relief under Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against, among others,
the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.  

The suit is “Kou v. Medis Technologies, Ltd. et al, Case No. 1:07-cv-03230-
PAC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Paul A. Crotty.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: (212) 686-1060
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com


MENU FOODS: New Brunswick Law Firm Sues Over Pet Food Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Talia Profit, a lawyer with New Brunswick law firm Barry Spalding, is
launching a class action on behalf of people whose pets were made ill by food
manufactured and distributed by a Toronto firm, CBC News reports.

Ms. Profit said pet owners affected by the recall "contacted us so we started
a claim."  The New Brunswick is one of the few provinces in Canada that
doesn't have a law covering class actions.  But it has now passed a proposal
to allow class actions, which Lt.-Gov. Hermenegilde Chiasson is expected to
sign soon.

On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American-wide recall of 48
brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food in response to reported deaths
of cats and dogs in the U.S.

The nationwide recall includes popular brands such as Iams, Nutro, and
Eukanuba and private-label brands sold by retailers Wal-Mart, Safeway,
Petsmart, and others.

Veterinary professionals estimate thousands of pets across the nation will
die of kidney failure or become very sick with similar symptoms as a result
of consuming the contaminated products.

To see complete list of recalled products: http://www.menufoods.com/recall

Menu Foods is facing other federal class actions in Canada and the U.S.


PROGRESSIVE CORP: Car Shop Sues Over "Direct Repair" System
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Auto Body Association of Connecticut and three auto body shops filed a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court in New Haven against auto
Progressive Corp., alleging it illegally steers customers to certain
repairers and pays "unreasonably low" labor rates to fix vehicles after an
accident, Diane Levick of the Hartford Courant reports.

The suit alleges that Progressive has violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act and has been "unjustly enriched" by keeping money it improperly
failed to pay the plaintiffs and other body shops.

According to the suit, Progressive has instituted a system of preferred
shops -- often called "direct repair" -- and in-house appraisers to suppress
labor rates and steer policyholders to the shops "in order to extract
enormous profits from the automobile insurance programs" in Connecticut.

The conduct has caused "very substantial damages to the class of hard-
working, highly skilled, auto body repair shops that are trying to earn an
honest living in their industry," the suit alleges.

Progressive is accused of illegally imposing a cap on labor rates it pays
repairers of about $44 to $46 an hour in the state, the suit says. The posted
rates at shops for work not covered by insurance are more than $70 an hour.

Tom Bivona, president of the association and co-owner of My Way Auto Body,
said that although other insurers also don't pay the posted rates, they are
more reasonable than Progressive in approving the procedures and the amount
of time allotted for repairs.

The suit does not specify how much is sought in damages, but David A.
Slossberg, one of the attorneys representing the association in the case,
said it's "in the millions."

According to Ms. Levick, Progressive spokeswoman Cristy Cote declined to
comment, saying the company needs time to review the suit.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          David A. Slossberg
          Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg, & Knuff LLC  
          147 North Broad Street
          P.O. Box 112
          Milford, CT 06460-0112
          Phone: (203) 877-8000
          Fax:  (203) 878-9800
          Web site:  http://www.connecticut-injury.comor  
                     http://www.hssklaw.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Rochon, Siskinds Files Lawsuit Over Oxycontin
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Rochon Genova LLP and Siskinds LLP, on June 8 issued a class
action on behalf of persons in Canada, other than in Quebec, who were
prescribed and who ingested Oxycontin against the manufacturers of Oxycontin -
- Purdue Pharma, Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Frederick Inc., The Purdue
Frederick Company, Inc. and Purdue Pharma LP.

The claim, filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleges that the
Defendants knew or ought to have known that ingesting Oxycontin(R) leads to
drug dependency and addiction.

Oxycontin(R) is a narcotic frequently prescribed as a pain-killer. It was
approved for use in Canada in 1996. The serious problems associated with
ingesting Oxycontin(R) are alleged to have been well-known to the Defendants
for several years.

In May 2007, Purdue Pharma LP and some of its senior executives agreed to pay
over $600 million in penalties in the U.S. for misleading consumers and
physicians about the addictive properties of Oxycontin(R). Some of those
senior executives also pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the U.S.

The Proposed Representative Plaintiffs include three individuals who were
prescribed Oxycontin(R) as a pain medication following serious injuries and
who developed addictions and their family members. Colin MacKay
said, "Oxycontin(R) cost me my marriage and my kids. I now have to take
another drug to help me wean off Oxycontin(R). If I had known that I would
develop a drug addiction, I would never have taken this drug." Sabine Reid,
the wife of Tim Reid, who also became addicted to Oxycontin(R), said, "It has
been an incredibly painful process to watch my husband develop a drug
addiction and now have to go through detoxification. I never thought a pain-
killer would have this kind of dangerous effect. It has been devastating."

"Oxycontin(R) addictions are destructive to the lives of these persons and
their families. The worst part of it is that had the manufacturers been
forthcoming, these addictions could have been prevented," said Joel P.
Rochon, a partner at Rochon Genova LLP.

Michael Peerless, a partner at Siskinds LLP added, "It is unbelievable that
these companies did nothing to prevent the harm to the class members when
they knew of the dangers of Oxycontin(R) and, instead, issued false and
misleading information. It took a criminal investigation to bring these facts
to light."

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in court. The
plaintiff and the prospective class members are represented by the Toronto
based law firm of Rochon Genova LLP and the London based law firm of Siskinds
LLP.

For more information, contact:

          Rochon Genova LLP
          121 Richmond St. W, Suite 900
          Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2K1
          Phone: (416) 363-1867 or 1-866-881-2292 (toll-free)
          Website: http://www.rochongenova.com

          - and -

          Siskinds LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          London, ON, N6A 3V8
          Phone: (519) 660-7872



WYETH: Settles PREMARIN Antitrust Suit in Calif. for $5.2M
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firms of Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP, Heins Mills & Olson PLC,
Hoffman & Edelson, LLC, and Cafferty Faucher LLP announce the proposed
settlement of a California Class of Consumers and Third Party Payors who
purchased or paid for Premarin(R) dispensed pursuant to prescriptions.

The lawsuit claims that the Defendants, Wyeth and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., the manufacturer of Premarin(R), violated a number of California laws
concerning unfair competition. Plaintiffs claim that Wyeth entered into
exclusive rebate contracts with managed care organizations such as HMOs,
insurance companies, and pharmacy benefit managers.

Premarin is a conjugated estrogens product prescribed by doctors to relieve
the symptoms associated with menopause and to prevent osteoporosis in
postmenopausal women.  

The Class includes all persons or entities who purchased or reimbursed others
for the purchase of Premarin from March 24, 1999 through April 3, 2007 in
California for consumption by themselves, family members or covered
individuals, and not for resale.  

Under the proposed settlement, defendants deny that they committed any
violation of law or any wrongdoing or that they have any liability with
respect to Plaintiff or the Class.  However, the parties have agreed to this
Proposed Settlement to avoid the risks and expense of continuing the case.

Wyeth has agreed to pay $5.2 million to settle this case. After deductions of
Court-approved costs and expenses from this Settlement Fund, forty percent
(40%) of the Settlement Fund will be paid to consumers, and sixty percent
(60%) of the Settlement Fund will be paid to Third-Party Payors.

The Settlement Fund will be used to pay reasonable attorneys' fees in an
amount not to exceed twenty-five (25%) percent of the Settlement Fund,
reimbursement of expenses not to exceed $325,000, and the costs of
administering the Proposed Settlement.

Deadline to file objections is on August 15, 2007. Deadline to file claims is
on October 1, 2007.  

The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco
entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Directing
Notice to the Class, and Scheduling Fairness Hearing.  The Court has
scheduled a Fairness Hearing on final settlement approval on September 10,
2007.

Premarin Class Action on the net:
http://www.premarinclassaction.com/premarin/welcome.htm

For more information, contact:

          Premarin Class Action
          P.O. Box 24634
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 800-760-6712 (toll free)
          E-mail: premarincainfo@completeclaimsolutions.com


YAHOO! INC: Disburses Settlement in Suit Over Budgeting Feature
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. is starting to pay clients covered by a $750,000 settlement of
the class action, "OMS v. Yahoo," according to E-consultancy.com.

Plaintiffs in the suit claims that Yahoo!’s Search Marketing System’s
Budgeting feature contained certain flaws and inadequate disclosures about
how it worked.

The Class is defined as:

All Persons or Entities which bid and paid for advertising placement in
Yahoo!’s Search Marketing System in an advertising auction containing at
least one bidder who used the Budgeting Feature at any time between October
1, 2004 and June 1, 2005.

The Class is divided into two Sub-Classes: those Class Members who bid and
paid for advertising placement at any time from October 1, 2004 to June 1,
2005 and used the budgeting feature themselves and those Class Members who
bid and paid for advertising placement during the Class Period but never used
the budgeting feature.

Under the Settlement, Yahoo! will pay a total of $750,000 in unrestricted
credits to the accounts of participating Class Members.

The suit is "Online Merchange Systems Inc. v. Overture Services, Inc. and
Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 05-4833-RGK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge R. Gary Klausner.

The Class Counsels are:

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP
          1610 Arden Way, Suite 290
          Sacramento, California 95815
          
          C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.
          Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP
          980 9th St., Suite 1900
          Sacramento, California 95814

Defendants’ Counsel is:

          Gayle M. Athanacio, Esq.
          Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
          525 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, California 94105-2708


                        New Securities Cases


STERLING FINANCIAL: Cohen, Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has filed a class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Sterling Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: SLFI)
shares during the period from April 27, 2004 through May 25, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Sterling Financial and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class
Period, Defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed quarterly
reports with the SEC which described the Company’s increasing financial
performance.

These statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (i) that the Company was materially overstating its
         financial results by artificially inflating revenues in
         its Commercial Finance division, which represented
         approximately 41% of Sterling Financial’s net income;

    (ii) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

   (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company’s net income and earnings were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

On April 30, 2007, the Company announced that it expected to be restating its
financial statements for the years 2004 through 2006 as a result
of “irregularities in certain financing contracts” at Equipment Finance, the
sole affiliate within its Commercial Finance division. Moreover, the Company
announced that two senior executives of Equipment Finance had been placed on
leave. Upon this announcement, shares of the Company’s stock fell $4.07 per
share or almost 20% to close at $16.65 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Then, on May 24, 2007, Sterling Financial announced that the “previously
reported irregularities” at Equipment Finance were a “direct result of
collusion” by certain Equipment Finance employees and that the Company
expected to record a cumulative after-tax charge to its December 31, 2006
financial statements of at least $145 million to $165 million. Moreover, five
Equipment Finance employees were terminated, including the Chief Operating
Officer and Executive Vice President.

In response to this announcement, on the next trading day, shares of the
Company’s stock fell $6.19 per share, or almost 40%, to close at $9.97 share,
on extremely heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 24, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C.  20005
          Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cmht.com


TELIK INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all common
stock purchasers of Telik, Inc. from March 27, 2003 to June 4, 2007,
inclusive, including purchasers in the Company's November 5, 2003 stock
offering, and the Company's January 8, 2005 stock offering.

The Complaint charges Telik 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 TELCYTA clinical trials were not conducted
         pursuant to FDA clinical trial standards;

     (2) as such, the study data that was being gathered and
         analyzed would be unusable and therefore meaningless to
         the FDA;

     (3) that participants in the TELCYTA clinical trials were
         actually dying faster than those that were not using
         the drug; and

     (4) that as a result, the defendants had no reason to
         believe the Company's TELCYTA New Drug Application
         would be accepted, and therefore the defendants knew or
         should have known that TELCYTA would not be a
         commercially viable drug candidate.

The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose that its clinical
studies showed that test subjects had died at an increased rate when compared
to those participants that were not given the drug, and that physicians
pulled other test subjects out of the study early, which compromised the data
that was being gathered and analyzed. As a result of the false and misleading
statements issued by the defendants, shares of the Company's common stock
were artificially inflated during the Class Period.

The Company's scheme came to a screeching halt on December 26, 2006 when the
Company reported preliminary data revealing that TELCYTA had failed all three
of its clinical trials. In one trial, the Company stated that "TELCYTA did
not achieve a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, the
primary endpoint."

In another trial, the Company stated that TELCYTA "did not achieve its
primary endpoint of demonstrating a statistically significant improvement in
overall survival for TELCYTA as compared to the active controls."

Additionally, the Company disclosed that in the third clinical trial,
approximately 25 percent of the patients were prematurely discontinued from
the assigned study treatment. On this news, shares of the Company's stock
declined $11.49 per share, or over 70.6 percent, to close on December 26,
2006 at $4.77 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on June 3, 2007, the Company revealed for the first time that
participants in the study groups actually died sooner when they used TELCYTA,
at an average of five months sooner than those who did not receive the drug.
The following day, the FDA placed a clinical hold on the Company's
Investigational New Drug Application for TELCYTA. Following the Company's
news and the FDA announcement, shares of the Company's stock declined an
additional 41 percent, to close on June 5, 2007 at $3.42 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Telik is a biopharmaceutical company that works to develop and commercialize
innovative small molecule drugs to treat diseases. The Company's most
advanced drug development candidate is TELCYTA (TLK286), a tumor-activated
small molecule.

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

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


                            *********


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  * * *