CAR_Public/070619.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 19, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 120

                           Headlines
     

ALLIED TUBE: Ill. Lawsuit Alleges Unpaid Production Bonuses
AM APPLIANCE: Recalls Electronic Dishwashers that can Overheat
AMERICAN DAIRY: Tex. Suit Claims Franchise Agreements Violations
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: N.Y. Lawsuit Claims Unpaid Overtime
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Penna. Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime

AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Label Stock
AVERY DENNISON: Court Hears Motion to Certify Suit Over Merger
BERTUCCI’S CORP: Sued in Mass. Over Credit Card Info Disclosure
CALIFORNIA: Oceanside City Cops File Suit over Unpaid Overtime
CARRAMERICA REALTY: Aug. 31 Hearing Set for “Staer” Suit Deal

CLEAR CHANNEL: Plaintiffs Yet to File Amended Stock Complaint
CLEAR CHANNEL: Hearing Request in Suit Over Merger Withdrawn
EGL INC: Plaintiffs Bid to Block Termination Fee Payment Junked
EGL INC: Still Faces Calif. Suit by Pickup, Delivery Drivers
ELI LILLY: Aussies File Suit Over Zyprexa’s Negative Effects

FEMA: La. Court Orders Injunction in Suit Over Rental Assistance
IONATRON INC: Motion to Dismiss Ariz. Securities Suit Opposed
ISOLAGEN INC: Pa. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
JARJ CONSTRUCTION: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
JM ENGINEERS: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

JUPITERMEDIA CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Ad for Gambling Sites
LABRANCHE & CO: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Securities Lawsuit
LENOX GROUP: Faces Pa. Litigation Over Alleged FACTA Violations
LENOX GROUP: Seeks Court Approval of Settlement in Calif. Suit
LIFETIME BRANDS: Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Pennsylvania

MICHAELS STORES: Mass. Laborers’ Annuity Fund Amends Complaint
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Discovery Proceeding in “Williams” Litigation
RC2 CORP: Recalls Railway Toys Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
RIDLEY INC: Quebec Court Certifies Suit Over Beef Import Ban
SOUTH DAKOTA: Red Light Cameras Suit Against City Heard in Court


                            *********


ALLIED TUBE: Ill. Lawsuit Alleges Unpaid Production Bonuses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. and the United Steelworkers of America Local
9777-18 are facing a class action filed June 12 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois accusing it of failing to pay
production bonuses.

Named plaintiff Randy Freundt brings this suit under section 301 of the
Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. Section 185, to recover
damages arising out of Allied's failure to pay plaintiff and its other
employees the full amount of certain production bonuses due them under two
collective bargaining agreements and Local 9777-18's related breach of the
duty of fair representation that it owes plaintiff and the other union
members employed by Allied.

Plaintiff brings this case pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure as a class action on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons represented by Local 9777-18 and employed by
Allied.

Mr. Freundt demands judgment against both defendants for:

     -- a determination that Allied has breached the collective
        bargaining agreements in the manner in which it has
        calculated and paid production bonuses to its employees;

     -- the full amount of the production bonuses due to Mr.
        Freundt and the other employees of Allied pursuant to
        the collective bargaining agreements between Allied and
        Local 9777-18;

     -- the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in
        bringing this suit; and

     -- any and all other relief that the court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is “Freundt v. Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
03308,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge John F. Grady.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Geoffrey L. Gifford
          Pavalon, Gifford, Laatsch & Marino
          Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 419-7400
          E-mail: gifford@pglmlaw.com

          - and -
          
          Eugene J. Schiltz
          Robert F. Coleman & Associates
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4800
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 444-1000
          E-mail: eschiltz@colemanlawfirm.com


AM APPLIANCE: Recalls Electronic Dishwashers that can Overheat
--------------------------------------------------------------
AM Appliance Group Inc. of Richardson, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of
about 130,000 units of Asko DW95 Model Series Dishwashers.

According to the firm, an electrical component in the dishwasher can
overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

The firm has received 21 reports of dishwasher fires.  Product and property
damage has been reported.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled dishwashers include the ASKO model series DW95 with model
numbers 1355, 1375, 1385, 1475, 1485, 1555, 1585, 1595, 1655, 1805, 1885,
and 1895 manufactured from January 1995 through April 2000.  The model
number, serial numbers and manufacture date are printed on the name plate on
the right interior side of the dishwasher door.  Asko dishwashers
manufactured after April 2000 are not included in the recall.

These dishwashers were manufactured by Asko Cylinda AB of Vara in Sweden.  
These were sold at major kitchen appliance distributors/dealers nationwide
from January 1995 through April 2000 for between $750 and $1,300.

Click on the link to view photo:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07213.html

Consumers should stop using the dishwashers immediately and contact Asko to
arrange for a free inspection and repair or to participate in a rebate
program.

For additional information, contact Asko toll-free at (866) 309-9921 between
10 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at
http://www.askousa.com.


AMERICAN DAIRY: Tex. Suit Claims Franchise Agreements Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Dairy Queen Corp. (ADC) is facing a class-action complaint filed
June 13 at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
accusing it of violating franchise agreements by requiring franchisees to
sell Dairy Queen cakes or face default and termination.

Named plaintiffs -- Robert U. Mayfield, William P. Anderson and Anderson's
Dairy Queens of Kermit Inc. -- bring this class action, under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23, for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of
the class that shall include each operator member of the Texas Dairy Queen
Operators' Council (TDQOC), a not-for-profit corporation that is
incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas, that operates under a
certain form of franchise agreement known as the Klose Agreement.

The Klose Agreement provides:

     (a) the franchisee with the right to use the registered
         trade name "Dairy Queen" in connection with each Dairy
         queen store that the agreement authorizes the
         franchisee to open in the described territory;

     (b) a term of 25 years with additional unlimited 5-year
         renewal terms at franchisee's option;

     (c) that the franchisee shall purchase its supply of mix
         for use in the franchise only from suppliers that can
         furnish high quality ingredients in the proportions
         required under the franchisor's formula;

     (d) that all mix and supplies, including cones, cups,
         containers, toppings, flavoring, coloring and like
         supplies and materials, shall meet the standards and
         specifications approved by franchisor; and

     (e) that franchisee shall not use the name "Dairy Queen" in
         connection with any product other than the product of
         the freezers furnished by the franchisor; and that no
         other type of ice cream freezer or other freezing
         equipment shall be used in connection with any such
         "Dairy Queen" business operated by franchisee during
         the life of the contract except that furnished by the
         franchisor.

The class requests that the court:

     -- a declaration that the Klose Agreement preclude ADQ from
        requiring the class to sell cakes from their Dairy Queen
        restaurants;

     -- a declaration that the Minnesota Franchise Act precludes
        ADQ from requiring the class to sell cakes from their
        Dairy Queen restaurants;

     -- a declaration that the Klose Agreements preclude ADQ
        from terminating the franchise agreements of the class
        for a franchisee's failure to sell cakes;

     -- a declaration that the Minnesota Franchise Act precludes
        ADQ from terminating the franchise agreements of the
        class for a franchisee's failure to sell cakes;

     -- a permanent injunction enjoining ADQ from requiring
        franchisees within the class to sell cakes;

     -- a permanent injunction enjoining ADQ from terminating
        franchisees within the class for their failure to sell
        cakes;

     -- a judgment awarding the class its costs and attorneys'
        fees to the extent available under applicable law,
        including the Minnesota Franchise Act and Tex. Civ.
        Prac. & Rem. Code Sections 37.009 and 38.001;

     -- an award granting the class its prejudgment and post-
        judgment interest as allowed by law; and

     -- any other relief the court deems appropriate.

The suit is “Mayfield et al. v. American Dairy Queen Corp., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00468-LY,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas under Judge Lee Yeakel.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          J. Michael Dady
          Scott E. Korzenowski
          Dady & Garner, P.A.
          5100 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 359-9000
          Fax: 612) 359-3507

          - and -

          Lin Hughes
          Carlos R. Soltero
          McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore
          600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 495-6000 or (512)495-6033
          Fax: (512) 495-6093
          E-mail: lhughes@mcginnislaw.com or
                  csoltero@mcginnislaw.com


ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: N.Y. Lawsuit Claims Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P. is facing a class-action complaint filed
June 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging Labor Code violations.

Named plaintiff Holly Marie Hummel brings this action for violation of New
York wage and hour laws on behalf of "Covered Employees" of defendant.

"Covered Employees" are all persons who have been, are, or in the future
will be employed by any of the defendants in any sales representative
position, including but not limited to any job whose title is or was
referred to by any of the following titles, and employees who performed
substantially the same work as employees with those titles:

     (a) sales representative,

     (b) professional sales representatives,

     (c) specialty sales representatives,

     (d) senior specialty sales representatives

and who were employed during the statute of limitations period for the
particular claim for relief in which the term Covered Employees is used,
including time during which the statute of limitation was or may have been
tolled or suspended.

Pursuant to a decision, policy and plan, these employees are unlawfully
classified by defendants as exempt from laws requiring overtime pay, but
actually were and are non-exempt and entitled to overtime pay.

Specifically, defendants' managers, with the knowledge and consent of
corporate management, systematically violated the law throughout New York,
in the following respects:

     (a) failing to pay employees overtime compensation for
         hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week;

     (b) failing to maintain accurate records of employees'
         time; and

     (c) failing to pay employees New York's "spread of hours"
         premium for days in which they worked more than 10
         hours.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all persons who were, are or will be
employed by defendant on or after the date that is six years before the
filing of the complaint.

Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

     -- certification of this action as class action pursuant to
        FRCP Section 23;

     -- designation of plaintiff as representative of the class;

     -- an award of damages, according to proof, including
        liquidated damages, to be paid by defendants;

     -- penalties available under applicable law;

     -- costs of this action incurred, including expert fees;

     -- attorneys' fees, including fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
        Section 216 and other applicable statutes;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by
        law; and

     -- such other and further legal and equitable relief as the
        court deems necessary, just and proper.

The suit is “Hummel v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Case No. 1:07-cv-
05473-VM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York under Judge Victor Marrero.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Charles Edward Joseph
          Joseph and Herzfeld
          757 3rd Avenue, 25th Fl
          NY, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-688-5640
          Fax: 212-688-2548
          E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Penna. Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P. is facing a class-action complaint filed
June 6 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania alleging Labor Code violations.

Named plaintiff Michelene Campagna brings this action for violation of state
wage and hour laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by and on behalf of
former and current employees referred to as "Covered Employees" of defendant.

"Covered Employees" are all persons who have been, are, or in the future
will be employed by any of the defendants in any sales representative
position, including but not limited to any job whose title is or was
referred to by any of the following titles, and employees who performed
substantially the same work as employees with those titles:

     (a) sales representative,

     (b) professional sales representatives,

     (c) specialty sales representatives,

     (d) senior specialty sales representatives

and who were employed during the statute of limitations period for the
particular claim for relief in which the term Covered Employees is used,
including time during which the statute of limitation was or may have been
tolled or suspended.

Pursuant to a decision, policy and plan, these employees are unlawfully
classified by defendants as exempt from laws requiring overtime pay, but
actually were and are non-exempt and entitled to overtime pay.

Specifically, Defendants' managers, with the knowledge and consent of
corporate management, systemically violated the law throughout the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including in the counties that comprise this
judicial district, by failing to pay Covered Employees in Covered Positions
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all persons who were, are' or will be
employed by Defendant in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on or after the
date that is three years before the fi1ing of the Complaint.

The proposed class seeks to represent all persons who have been, are, or in
the future will be employed in Pennsylvania by Defendants in any of
the "Covered Positions."

Questions of law and fact common raised by the plaintiffs include:

     (a) whether Defendant employed or jointly employed
         Plaintiff and the Class within the meaning of the
         Pennsylvania law;

     (b) what were the policies, practices, programs,
         procedures, protocols and plans of Defendant regarding
         payment of overtime wages;

     (c) what were the policies, practices, programs,
         procedures, protocols and plans of Defendant regarding
         payment of wages for all hours worked;

     (d) whether Defendant failed and/or refused to pay
         Plaintiff and the Class premium pay for hours worked in
         excess of forty per workweek or eight hours per workday
         within the meaning of Pennsylvania law;

     (e) what are and were the policies, practices, programs,
         procedures, protocols and plans of Defendant regarding
         the types of work and labor for which Defendant did not
         pay the Class members at all;

     (f) at what common rate, or rates subject to common methods
         of calculation, was and is defendant required to pay
         the Class members for their work;

     (g) what are the common conditions of employment and in the
         workplace, such as record keeping, breaks, and policies
         and practices regarding labor budgeting, that affect
         whether the Class was paid at overtime rates for
         overtime work; and

     (h) whether Defendants' conduct violate the Pennsylvania
         Minimum Wage Act and/or the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
         Collection Law.

Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the Covered Employees, prays for relief
as follows:

     -- Designation of this action as a class action pursuant to
        FRCP 23;

     -- Designation of Plaintiff as representative of the Class;

     -- An award of damages, according to proof, including
        liquidated damages, as a proximate result of the
        violations of Defendant and its domestic affiliates
and                 
        subsidiaries alleged to be paid by Defendant;

     -- Penalties available under applicable law;

     -- Costs of action incurred, including expert fees;

     -- Attorneys' fees;

     -- Pre-Judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by
        law; and

     -- Such other and further legal and equitable relief as
        the Court deems necessary, just and proper.

The suit is “Campagna v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00767-KRG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge Kim R. Gibson.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr.
          Specter, Specter, Evans & Manogue
          Koppers Building, 26th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 642-2300
          E-mail: jnk@ssem.com

    
AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Label Stock
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corp., UPM-Kymmene and UPM's subsidiary Raflatac remain
defendants in several class actions filed on behalf of indirect purchasers
of label stock in various state courts.   

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed in the Superior Court for the County
of Los Angeles, California, a purported class action on behalf of indirect
purchasers of label stock.  The suit asks treble damages and other relief
for alleged unlawful competitive practices.  

Three similar complaints were filed in various California courts.  In
November 2003, on petition from the parties, the California Judicial Council
ordered the cases coordinated for pretrial purposes.  

The cases were assigned to a coordination trial judge in the   Superior
Court for San Francisco County on March 30, 2004.  

A further similar complaint was filed in the Superior Court for  
Maricopa County, Arizona on Nov. 6, 2003.  Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
the Arizona complaint without prejudice on  
Oct. 4, 2004.  

On Jan. 21, 2005, American International Distribution Corp. filed a
purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers in the Superior
Court for Chittenden County, Vermont.  

Similar actions were filed by:

     -- Webtego on Feb. 16, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas
        for Cuyahoga County, Ohio;

     -- D.R. Ward Construction Co. on Feb. 17, 2005, in the
        Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona;

     -- Richard Wrobel on Feb. 16, 2005 in the District Court of
        Johnson County, Kansas; and

     -- Chad and Terry Muzzey, on Feb. 16, 2005 in the District
        Court of Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska.  

On Feb. 17, 2005, Judy Benson filed a purported multi-state class action on
behalf of indirect purchasers in the Circuit  
Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.  

On Oct. 7, 2005, Webtego voluntarily dismissed its complaint.  On Feb. 16,
2006, D.R. Ward voluntarily dismissed its complaint.

The company provided no development in this 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.

Avery Dennison Corp. -- http://www.averydennison.com-- is engaged in the  
production of pressure-sensitive materials, office products and a variety of
tickets, tags, labels and other converted products.  It also manufactures
and sells a variety of office products, and other converted products and
other items not involving pressure-sensitive components, such as binders,
organizing systems, markers, fasteners, business forms, as well as tickets,
tags, and imprinting equipment for retail and apparel manufacturers.  


AVERY DENNISON: Court Hears Motion to Certify Suit Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has heard
oral argument in a purported class action filed against Avery Dennison Corp.
in relation to the proposed merger of UPM-Kymmene (UPM) and the Morgan
Adhesives (MACtac) division of Bemis Co., Inc.  UPM is a supplier of paper
to Avery Dennison.

On April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc. filed the purported class
action against the company, UPM, Bemis and certain of their subsidiaries
seeking treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive
practices.  Ten similar complaints were filed in various federal district
courts.

In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania and consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On Jan. 21, 2004, plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily dismissed its
complaint, leaving a total of 10 named plaintiffs.   Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on Feb. 16, 2004, which the company answered on March
31, 2004.

On April 14, 2004, the court separated the proceedings as to class
certification and merits discovery, and limited the initial phase of
discovery to the issue of the appropriateness of class certification.

On Jan. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On Jan. 20, 2006,
the company filed an answer to the amended complaint.

On March 1, 2007, the court heard oral argument on the issue of the
appropriateness of class certification, 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 "Sentry Business Products, Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., et al.,
Case No. 3:03-cv-01999-TIV," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
         39 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-357-0370
         E-mail: sweltman@cmht.com

Representing the company are:

         Joshua N. Holian, Esq.
         J. Thomas Rosch, Esq.
         Latham & Watkins LLP
         505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-646-8343
         Fax: 415-395-8095
         E-mail: joshua.holian@lw.com
                 Tom.Rosch@lw.com


BERTUCCI’S CORP: Sued in Mass. Over Credit Card Info Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bertucci's Corp., an Italian eatery chain, is facing a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for allegedly failing
to follow a federal law that prohibits retailers from printing certain
credit card information on customers' receipts, Craig M. Douglas of the
Boston Business Journal reports.

Amended in 2003, the federal law gave retailers three years to invest in new
technologies and credit-processing equipment to combat identity theft.

The suit aims to block Bertucci's from electronically printing such receipts
until it complies with the rules laid out in the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The suit is “Benetti v. Bertucci's Corp., Case No. 4:07-cv-40159-FDS,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge F.
Dennis Saylor, IV.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Carlin J Phillips
          Phillips & Garcia, LLP
          13 Ventura Drive
          North Dartmouth, MA 02747
          Phone: 508-998-0800
          Fax: 508-998-0919
          E-mail: cphillips@phillipsgarcia.com


CALIFORNIA: Oceanside City Cops File Suit over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seven Oceanside (California) police K-9 handlers filed a federal suit
against the city on April 5 for alleged non-payment of overtime,
SignOnSanDiego.com reports.

The officers allege in court documents that they didn’t earn overtime pay
for the time they spent exercising, grooming and training their dogs.  They
assert that the city violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the plaintiffs’ attorney, Dan Padova, the lawsuit joins a
handful of others that have been filed by police K-9 handlers across the
country in recent years seeking similar overtime compensation.

Mr. Padova’s firm also represents about 35 Oceanside police officers in a
separate class action against the city, claiming they weren’t paid for work-
related tasks such as writing arrest reports, going to court appearances as
well as maintaining their firearms.

In an agreement signed by the department and the police officers
association, Oceanside officers are paid for four hours they spend to care
for their dogs.  

The officers filed a claim for damages with the city on March 19; the city
denied the claim in a letter dated May 8, based on a report by Kristina
Davis of SignOnSanDiego.com.    

They are seeking unpaid regular and overtime wages, damages and attorney
fees as well.  The amount has to be determined in court.

Attorney John Mullen, Oceanside lawyer, refused to comment, saying he has
not seen the suit yet.

For more information, contact:

          Daniel J. Padova, Esq.
          Padova Law Corporation  
          One World Trade Center 8th Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90831
          Phone:  (562) 983-8040
          Fax:  (562) 983-8041


CARRAMERICA REALTY: Aug. 31 Hearing Set for “Staer” Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia will hold a fairness hearing
on Aug. 31, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the
matter, "Doris Staer v. CarrAmerica Realty Corp., et al., Case No. 06-
0001918."

The hearing will be held before Judge Mary A. Gooden-Terrell at the District
of Columbia Superior Court, Moultrie Courthouse, 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20001.

Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before July 25, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons or entities that held Carramerica Realty
Corp. common stock as of March 6, 2006, through and including July 13, 2006.

Generally, the class action is alleging that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the shareholders of CarrAmerica common stock in
connection with acquisition of the company by affiliates of The Blackstone
Group.

Defendants in the suit are:
      
      -- The company,
      -- Thomas A. Carr,
      -- Wesley S. Williams, Jr.,
      -- Philip L. Hawkins,
      -- Andrew F. Brimmer,
      -- Robert E. Torray,
      -- Joan Carter,
      -- Bryce Blair,
      -- K. Dane Brooksher, and
      -- Patricia Diaz Dennis.

The suit sought to stop defendants from proceeding with the acquisition and
challenged the terms of the acquisition agreement and the omission of
information Plaintiff believed necessary for CarrAmerica shareholders to
make an informed vote on the proposed acquisition.

The settlement provides for the disclosure of additional information by
CarrAmerica in a Supplemental Proxy that was filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about June 27, 2006, and disseminated to
CarrAmerica shareholders, as well as for the amendment to certain clauses of
the merger agreement.  It also provides for payment of plaintiff’s
attorneys’ fees and expenses.

For more details, contact:

         CarrAmerica Shareholder Litigation
         Notice Administrator
         c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
         P.O Box 990
         Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990
         Phone: 415-461-0410
         Web site: http://www.gilardi.com/

              - and -

         Rick Nelson, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/


CLEAR CHANNEL: Plaintiffs Yet to File Amended Stock Complaint  
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported securities fraud class action against Clear
Channel Communications, Inc. and its officers and directors related to an
agreement and plan of merger that the company entered with BT Triple Crown
Merger Co., Inc., B Triple Crown Finco, LLC, and T Triple Crown Finco, LLC,
have not filed an amended complaint in their case.

Initially, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas.  They are:

      -- "Alaska Laborers Employees Retirement Fund v. Clear
         Channel Communications, Inc., et al., No. SA07CA0042RF
         (filed Jan. 11, 2007);" and

      -- "Pioneer Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v.
          Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.," (filed
          Jan. 30, 2007).

Plaintiffs in the federal lawsuits allege that the company's directors
violated federal securities laws in the preparation and issuance of the
proxy statement.  

In addition, the Alaska Fund plaintiff alleges shareholder derivative claims
and class action claims against Clear Channel's officers and directors for
breach of fiduciary duties and gross mismanagement.

The class action pleadings seek certification of a class of all of the
company's stockholders whose stock will be acquired in connection with the
merger, and all of the pleadings seek injunctive relief that would, if
granted, prevent the completion of the merger.  

In addition, the pleadings also seek unspecified damages attorneys' fees and
other relief.

Judge Royal Furgeson, who is the presiding judge for Alaska Laborers
Employees Retirement Fund action, requested that the Pioneer Investments
action pending in federal court be transferred to his court.

In February 2007, the defendants in the Alaska Laborers Employees Retirement
Fund action filed motions to dismiss the complaint filed in that action.

On March 29, 2007, a hearing was held on defendants’ motions to dismiss.  At
the March 29 hearing, the court dismissed from the Alaska Laborers Employees
Retirement Fund action BT Triple Crown Merger Co., Inc., B Triple Crown
Finco, LLC, T Triple Crown Finco, LLC, Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Thomas
H. Lee Partners, L.P.

The court also ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  To the
date of 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
plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint, according to the.

San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel Communications, Inc. --
http://www.clearchannel.com/-- is a diversified media company with four  
segments: radio broadcasting; Americas outdoor advertising; international
outdoor advertising, and other, which contributed 52%, 19%, 22% and 7%,
respectively, of the Company’s total revenue, during the year ended Dec. 31,
2006.  The Company owns 1,176 radio stations and a national radio network
operating in the U.S., and also owns or operates approximately 195,000
Americas outdoor advertising display faces and approximately 717,000
international outdoor advertising display faces.  In addition it had equity
interests in various international radio broadcasting companies.  


CLEAR CHANNEL: Hearing Request in Suit Over Merger Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. continues to face a consolidated lawsuit
in Texas regarding a merger agreement it entered with BT Triple Crown
companies, 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 company had entered into an agreement and plan of merger with BT Triple
Crown Merger Co., Inc., B Triple Crown Finco,
LLC, and T Triple Crown Finco, LLC.

Initially, several putative class actions were filed in the
408th District Court of Bexar County, Texas, challenging the merger.  They
are:

      -- "Teitelbaum v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et
         al., No. 2006CI17492 (filed Nov. 14, 2006),"

      -- "Manson v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,
         No. 2006CI17656 (filed Nov. 16, 2006),"

      -- "City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement
         System v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,
         No. 2006CI17660 (filed Nov. 16, 2006),"

      -- "Levy Investments, Ltd. v. Clear Channel
         Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI17669 (filed
         Nov. 16, 2006),"

      -- "DD Equity Partners LLC v. Clear Channel
         Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI7914 (filed
         Nov. 22, 2006)," and

      -- "Pioneer Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH v.              
         L. Lowry Mays, et al. (filed Dec. 7, 2006)."

The suits all raise substantially similar allegations on behalf of a
purported class of the company's shareholders against the defendants for
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of the merger.

The plaintiff in the Manson litigation has voluntarily dismissed the matter.

The remaining complaints have been consolidated into one proceeding and all
raise substantially similar allegations on behalf of a purported class of
its shareholders against the defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the approval of the merger.

Plaintiffs in these consolidated class actions have sought from the court a
date for a hearing on a motion to temporarily enjoin the shareholder vote
that is scheduled for May 8, 2007.

In response to that request, the court scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs’
application for a temporary injunction on May 7, 2007, but the plaintiffs
subsequently withdrew their request for such hearing and no new date for
such hearing has been requested or scheduled.

San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel Communications, Inc. --
http://www.clearchannel.com/-- is a diversified media company with four  
segments: radio broadcasting; Americas outdoor advertising; international
outdoor advertising, and other, which contributed 52%, 19%, 22% and 7%,
respectively, of the Company’s total revenue, during the year ended Dec. 31,
2006.  The Company owns 1,176 radio stations and a national radio network
operating in the U.S., and also owns or operates approximately 195,000
Americas outdoor advertising display faces and approximately 717,000
international outdoor advertising display faces.  In addition it had equity
interests in various international radio broadcasting companies.


EGL INC: Plaintiffs Bid to Block Termination Fee Payment Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
EGL, Inc. is facing several purported class actions that challenge the
proposal made by James R. Crane, the company's largest shareholder, and
others to acquire all outstanding equity interests of in the company.

The company is aware of six lawsuits that challenge the proposal made.  

“Vivian Golombuski v. EGL, Inc. et al., Cause No. 2007-00139,” was filed in
the 125th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.  

Plaintiff filed the suit against company, all of its directors other than
director Sherman Wolff, Centerbridge Partners LP, and The Woodbridge Company
Ltd. as a class action on behalf of all company shareholders except those
affiliated with any of the defendants.  

Plaintiff alleges that the Proposal is unfair and grossly inadequate and
that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
shareholders.  

Plaintiff alleges that Centerbridge Partners LP and The Woodbridge Company
Ltd. aided and abetted the director defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty.  

Plaintiff brings causes of action against all defendants for abuse of
control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets.  

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendants from effectuating the Proposal,
costs, and attorneys fees.

The following four cases have been consolidated with Golombuski:

      -- “Platinum PVA Fund v. Milton Carroll, et al.,” which
         was filed in the 125th Judicial District Court of
         Harris County, Texas.

Plaintiff filed this suit against the Company and all of its directors other
than Mr. Wolff on behalf of a class of all Company shareholders except those
affiliated with any of the defendants.  Plaintiff alleges that the Proposal
offers grossly inadequate compensation to the Company’s shareholders and
that the director defendants must take other measures to maximize value to
shareholders.  Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Proposal and to recover
damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

      -- “Raymond Somers v. James R. Crane, et al.,” which was
         filed in the 125th Judicial District Court of Harris
         County, Texas.  

Plaintiff brings this action derivatively on behalf of the Company against
all of its directors other than Mr. Wolff, Centerbridge Partners LP, and The
Woodbridge Company Ltd.  Plaintiff alleges that the Proposal is for a
grossly inadequate and unfair price; that the Board and the Special
Committee of the Board are dominated and controlled by Mr. Crane; and that
the individual defendants have engaged in self-dealing.  

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Company against the
individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, and against General Atlantic
for aiding and abetting the director defendants in their alleged breaches of
duty.  

Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the Proposal, a constructive trust,
and costs including attorneys’ fees.

      -- “Jim Roberts v. EGL, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2007-
         05941,” which was filed in the 125th Judicial District
         Court of Harris County, Texas.  

Plaintiff filed this suit against the Company, all of its directors other
than Mr. Wolff, and General Atlantic LLC on behalf of a class of all Company
shareholders except those affiliated with any of the defendants.  Plaintiff
alleges that the Proposal is unfair and grossly inadequate, and that the
individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by not taking
measures to ensure that the interests of the Company’s public shareholders
are properly protected.  Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Proposal.

      -- “Federated Kaufmann Small Cap Fund v. James R. Crane,
         et al., Cause No. 2007-05941,” which was filed in the
         125th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.  

Plaintiff filed this suit against the Company and all of its directors other
than Mr. Wolff.  Plaintiff alleges that the Proposal is for a grossly unfair
and inadequate price and brings causes of action for shareholder oppression
against all defendants. Further, Plaintiff questions the independence of the
Special Committee.  Plaintiff also asserts that it is the most qualified
class representative because of its large financial stake in the litigation
due to its ownership of approximately 900,000 shares of the Company.  

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Proposal and to recover damages, costs, and
attorney’s fees.

On April 11, 2007, Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a Motion for
Appointment of Receiver and Temporary Injunction and Memorandum in Support
Thereof.  

In addition, on May 7, 2007, Plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek
an order from the Court temporarily restraining the Company and its Board of
Directors from paying any termination fee contemplated by the merger
agreement governing the Proposal.

At a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order on May
10, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion.

“Apollo Management VI, L.P. v. EGL, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2007-18386,”
which was filed in the 190th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Plaintiff filed this suit against the Company and all of its directors.   

Plaintiff does not allege that it is a shareholder.  Plaintiff alleges that
the Proposal is for a grossly unfair and inadequate price and alleges that
the bid process is flawed.  Plaintiff brings causes of action for breach of
fiduciary duties against all defendants and alleges a second count of breach
of fiduciary duty against only Mr. Crane.  

Plaintiff brings one count of tortious interference with prospective
business relations against all defendants and a second count of prospective
business relations against only Mr. Crane.  

Plaintiff further alleges that the directors have allowed Mr. Crane to
dominate and control the bid process.  Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
Proposal.

Plaintiffs in “Apollo” have filed a Motion to Consolidate with the
Golombuski cases.

Texas-based EGL, Inc. -- http://www.eaglegl.com/-- is a global  
transportation, supply chain management and information services company
that provides a range of logistics solutions.  The Company's services
include air and ocean freight forwarding, customs brokerage, local pick-up
and delivery service, materials management, warehousing, trade facilitation
and procurement, and integrated logistics and supply chain management
services.  EGL, Inc. provides value-added services in addition to those
customarily provided by traditional airfreight forwarders, ocean freight
forwarders and customs brokers.  EGL, Inc. provides its services primarily
through its network comprising approximately 400 facilities, agents and
distribution centers located in over 100 countries on six continents.


EGL INC: Still Faces Calif. Suit by Pickup, Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
EGL, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action filed by one
former and two current independent contractor pickup and delivery (P&D)
drivers of the company on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
drivers in California.

The suit alleges various causes of action based on their theory that the
drivers are employees and not independent contractors.   

Filed in California state court on Sept. 12, 2005, the complaint requests:  

      -- the matter be designated as a class action on behalf of  
         all independent contractor P&D drivers working for EGL  
         in California;  

      -- a declaratory judgment that EGL has violated the law;  
  
      -- an equitable accounting and an unspecified amount of  
         damages; and  

      -- restitution in the form of business expenses, unpaid  
         overtime, meal period compensation, unlawful deductions  
         from wages, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys'  
         fees and costs.  

The company removed the case to U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, and the parties agreed to focus only on the
individual claims of the three named defendants in the first phase of the
proceedings.   

In the event one or more of the plaintiffs' claims survive the summary
judgment phase, the next phase would focus on whether the action is
maintainable as a class action.  

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

The suit is "Narayan et al. v. EGL, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:05 cv-04181-
RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Howard R.
Lloyd.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Lorraine Grindstaff, Esq.
         Jules Sandford, Esq.
         Patten Faith and Sandford
         635 West Foothill Blvd.
         Monrovia, CA 91016-2097
         Phone: 626-359-9335
         Fax: 626-303-2391
         E-mail: lgrindstaff@pfslaw.com
                 jsandford@pfslaw.com

              - and -

         Aaron D. Kaufmann, Esq.
         Hinton, Alfert & Sumner
         1646 N. California Blvd., Suite 600
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Phone: (925) 932-6006
         Fax: (925) 932-3412
         E-mail: kaufmann@hinton-law.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Karen J. Kubin, Esq.
         Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
         580 California Street, Suite 1500  
         San Francisco, CA 94104-1036
         Phone: 415-765-9522
         Fax: 415-765-9501
         E-mail: kkubin@akingump.com


ELI LILLY: Aussies File Suit Over Zyprexa’s Negative Effects
------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Australians has filed a class action against pharmaceutical giant
Eli Lilly & Co. over the drug Zyprexa, The Australian reports.

The suit alleges plaintiffs have suffered dangerous or life-threatening side
effects including weight gain, pancreatitis and diabetes after taking the
anti-psychotic drug.

According to the report, the class action, the first over the allegedly
negative affects of Zyprexa outside the U.S., started on behalf of a 32-year-
old Tweed Heads saxophonist who developed pancreatitis after taking the
drug.

Brisbane law firm Nicol Robinson Halletts expanded the case into a class
action after others claimed their health had been harmed by Zyprexa.

Nicol Robinson Halletts can be contacted at:

          Nicol Robinson Halletts
          Level 10, 175 Eagle Street
          Brisbane Qld 4000
          GPO Box 380, Brisbane Q 4001
          Phone: (07) 3853 8888
          Fax: (07) 3853 8800
          International 617 3853 8888
          E-mail: enquiry@nrh.com.au
          Website: http://www.nrh.com.au


FEMA: La. Court Orders Injunction in Suit Over Rental Assistance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Helen Berrigan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction in “Ridgley, et al. v. Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Case No. 2:07-cv-02146-HGB-KWR.”

On April 19, the law firm of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steptoe & Johnson
LLP, and a coalition of public interest organizations filed a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana against the FEMA and other federal officials on behalf of a group
of low-income individuals displaced from their homes by Hurricane Katrina
(Class Action Reporter, April 20, 2007).

Plaintiffs are individuals who were displaced from their homes by hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, who received financial housing assistance, and have been
(or may be) terminated from continued housing assistance, as well as
individuals who have received notice that FEMA believes they have been
overpaid disaster benefits.

The lawsuit alleges plaintiffs were terminated from FEMA's rental assistance
program before being provided an opportunity to appeal the termination, in
violation of their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, placing them at risk of homelessness and increased
poverty.

More specifically, the lawsuit contends that FEMA operates an unresponsive
system of administrative review and fails to adequately inform people of the
reasons that they are being cut off from housing assistance, and that FEMA
has failed to publish standards setting forth the eligibility requirements.

Also challenged in the suit are FEMA's practices regarding recovery of
alleged overpayments to aid recipients. The lawsuit alleges FEMA violates
the Constitution by failing to provide aid recipients with clear notice of
the reasons why it is seeking repayment of assistance and by terminating or
withholding continued rental assistance before recipients are given an
opportunity to dispute FEMA's demands for repayment.

Judge Helen Berrigan's June 15 order prohibits FEMA from terminating people
from its rental assistance program without providing them due process,
including a meaningful explanation of the reason for termination, a
meaningful opportunity to appeal FEMA's decision, and a hearing.

The judge's order gives relief to two classes of hurricane victims:

     (1) people who have been or will be denied continued FEMA  
         rental assistance; and

     (2) people who received from FEMA a demand for repayment of  
         benefits.

Judge Berrigan urges FEMA to "return to their original mandate of
alleviating their suffering and focus its substantial powers on continuing
to help those entitled to relief, including affording them the minimal due
process needed to assure that they do."

In her decision Judge Berrigan noted, “The FEMA appellate process, if it can
be navigated at all, takes months. In the meantime, the defendants appear to
treat the plaintiffs and their prospects of homelessness and the despair and
stress of such added worries as if it were gnats to be brushed away while
the defendants busy themselves with creating more bureaucratic regulations.
To brush off the correction of errors to the appellate process under these
circumstances of real human suffering is simply unacceptable.”

"This ruling will affect thousands of families who were devastated by the
disaster and who are still in desperate need of assistance,” said Adam
Strochak of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP who represents the plaintiffs along
with lawyers from the Public Interest Law Project, the National Center For
Law And Economic Justice, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty,
Texas Appleseed, the Mississippi Center for Justice, the Legal Clinic at the
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, and Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

"We are gratified that Judge Berrigan acted swiftly and decisively to bring
some order to FEMA's chaotic continuing rental assistance and repayment
procedures."

The suit is “Ridgely et al. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-02146-HGB-KWR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Helen G. Berrigan with referral to
Judge Karen Wells Roby.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Adam P. Strochak
          Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
          1300 Eye St., NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-682-7001
          E-mail: adam.strochak@weil.com

          Steven S. Cherensky
          Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
          201 Redwood Shores Parkway
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Phone: 650-802-3126

          - and -

          Bradley E. Black
          Davida Finger
          Loyola Law School Clinic
          7214 St. Charles Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Phone: 504-525-1020 or 504-861-5596
          E-mail: beblack@loyno.edu or dfinger@loyno.edu

Representing defendants are:

          Christopher Randall Hall
          Julia Jaewon Yoo
          U. S. Department of Justice, Federal Programs Branch
          Civil Division
          20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Phone: 202-514-4778 or 202-514-3313
          Fax: 202-318-2627 or 202-616-8202
          E-mail: christopher.hall@usdoj.gov or
                  julia.yoo@usdoj.gov


IONATRON INC: Motion to Dismiss Ariz. Securities Suit Opposed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action pending against
Ionatron, Inc. and its founders in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona are opposing a motion seeking for the dismissal of the matter.

In July 2006, George Wood and Raymond Veedon filed two purported class
action complaints.  Each of the class actions allege, among other things,
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, claiming that the company issued false and misleading
statements concerning the development of its counter improvised explosive
device (IED) product.

The court has consolidated these cases, and a consolidated amended complaint
has been served.  

On Feb. 16, 2007 the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state of cause of action.

On March 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed papers in opposition to the
company’s motion to dismiss, 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 first identified complaint is "George Wood, et al. v.
Ionatron, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00354," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

         Federman & Sherwood
         120 North Robinson, Suite 2720
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         E-mail: wfederman@aol.com

         Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
         330 Main Street
         Hartford, CT 06106
         Phone: 800.797.5499
         Fax: 860.493.6290
         E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com

         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
         3 Bala Plaza E
         Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
         Phone: 610.667.7706
         Fax: 610.667.7056
         E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Scott & Scott, LLC
         P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT 06415
         Phone: 860.537.5537
         Fax: 860.537.4432
         E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


ISOLAGEN INC: Pa. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has yet to
rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against Isolagen, Inc.
  
Initially, the company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors were named as defendants in several purported securities class
actions in federal district courts in Texas and Pennsylvania.  
  
On Aug. 18, 2005, Elliot Liff brought an action, "Elliot Liff v.   
Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No. H-05-2887," in the U.S. District   
Court for the Southern District of Texas.   

In this action, the plaintiff purports to bring a federal securities fraud
class action on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of
the company between March 3, 2004 and Aug. 1, 2005, including purchasers of
Isolagen stock issued in connection with and traceable to the company's June
2004 common stock offering.   
  
The action asserts that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by making certain false statements and omissions
to the investing public regarding the company's business operations,
management, and intrinsic value of Isolagen's publicly traded securities.  
It also alleges liability against the individual defendants under Section 20
(a) of the Exchange Act.  
  
Subsequent cases filed against the company are:  
   
     -- "Michael Cummisky v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 05-  
        cv-03105," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern   
        District of Texas filed on Sept. 6, 2005;  
  
     -- "Ronald A. Gargiulo v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No.   
        05-cv-4983," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern   
        District of Pennsylvania filed on Sept. 16, 2005; and  
  
     -- "Gregory J. Newman v. Frank M. DeLape, et al., C.A. No.   
        05-cv-5090," in the U.S, District Court for the Eastern   
        District of Pennsylvania filed on Sept. 23, 2005.  
  
These actions make allegations against the defendants   substantially
similar to those made in the Liff action.   
Together, the Liff, Cummiskey, Gargiulo and Newman actions comprise
the "Federal Securities Actions."  
  
The Liff and Cummiskey actions were consolidated on Oct. 7,   
2005.  The Gargiolo and Newman actions were consolidated on Nov. 29,
2005.    
  
On Nov. 18, 2005, the company filed a motion with the Judicial   
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the Federal   
Securities Actions plus a derivative action to the U.S. District   
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.    
  
The Liff and Cummiskey actions were stayed on Nov. 23, 2005 pending
resolution of the MDL Motion.  The Gargiulo and Newman actions were stayed
on Dec. 7, 2005 pending resolution of the   
MDL Motion.   
  
The MDL Motion was heard on Jan. 7, 2006 and a ruling was issued on Feb. 23,
2006 transferring the actions pending in the Southern District of Texas to
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  
  
On April 4, 2006, the court appointed as lead plaintiffs:  
  
      -- Silverback Asset Management, LLC,   
      -- Silverback Master, Ltd.,   
      -- Silverback Life Sciences Master Fund, Ltd.,   
      -- Context Capital Management, LLC   
      -- Michael F. McNulty.   

It also appointed as lead counsel in the Federal Securities Actions, the law
firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and Kirby McInerney &
Squire LLP.

On July 14, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint in the federal securities litigation on behalf of a putative class
of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Isolagen common
stock or convertible debt securities between March 3, 2004 and Aug. 9,
2005.  

The complaint purports to assert claims for securities fraud in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
Isolagen and certain of its former officers and directors.   

It also purports to assert claims for violations of Section 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers in connection with the registration and sale
of certain shares of Isolagen common stock and certain convertible debt
securities.  

The complaint also purports to assert claims against the following, as
underwriters in connection with an April 2004 public offering of Isolagen
common stock and a 2005 sale of convertible notes:  

      -- CIBC World Markets Corp.,  
      -- Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc.,  
      -- Canaccord Adams, Inc., and  
      -- UBS Securities, LLC.  

On Nov. 1, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion
is fully briefed and is pending before the court, according to the company’s
May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
  
The suit is "Isolagen, Inc., Securities & Derivative Litigation,  
Case No. 2:06-md-01741-RB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter.  
  
Representing the plaintiffs are:  
  
         Richard Eugene Norman, Esq.
         Crowley Douglas, et al.
         1301 McKinney, Suite 3500
         Houston, TX 77010
         Phone: 713-651-1771

              - and -
  
         Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
         Peter E. Seidman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: 212-594-5300
     
Representing the company are:  
  
         Charles W. Schwartz, Esq.
         Skadden Arps, et al.
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 6800
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-655-5160

              - and -
  
    (ii) Robert W. Hayes, Esq.
         Cozen O'Connor
         1900 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-665-2094
         Fax: 215-665-2013
         E-mail: rhayes@cozen.com


JARJ CONSTRUCTION: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jarj Construction Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 14 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor
Code violations.

Named plaintiffs  Enrique Ponimansky, Mauricio Ponimansky and Julio Guadamuz
bring this action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under
the laws of the U.S., as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages,
costs, and reasonable attorneys' fess under the provisions of 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et. seq., and specifically under the provisions of 29 U.S.C.
Section 207.

29 U.S.C. Section 207 states, "No employer shall employ any of his employees
for a work week longer than 40 hours unless such employee receives
compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above-specified at a
rate of not less than one and a half times the regular rate at which he is
employed."

Plaintiffs claim that while employed by the defendant, they worked an
average of 60 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not
less than one and one half times the regular rate at which they were
employed.

Plaintiffs, who worked as shutter installers, bring this action on behalf of
all persons who are weekly-paid employees and/or former employees of
defendant who are and who were subject to the unlawful payroll practices and
procedures of defendant and were not paid time and one half of their regular
rate of pay for all overtime hours and straight time hours worked in excess
of 40.

They further claim defendant knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the
provisions of the Act concerning the payment of overtime wages as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act and remains owing plaintiff and those
similarly-situated these overtime wages since the commencement of their
employment.

Plaintiffs request that the Honorable court:

     -- enter judgment for plaintiffs against defendant, on the
        basis of defendant's willful violations of the Fair
        Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. and
        other Federal Regulations;

     -- award plaintiffs actual damages in the amount shown to
        be due for unpaid wages and overtime compensation for
        hours worked in exewss of 40 weekly, with interest;

     -- award plaintiffs an equal amount in double
        damages/liquidated damages;

     -- award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of
        suit; and

     -- grant such other and further relief as the court deems
        equitable and just and/or available pursuant to Federal           
        Law.

The suit is “Ponimansky et al. v. Jarj Construction Corp. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21530-SH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Shelby Highsmith.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre
          Remer & Georges-Pierre
          New World Tower
          100 N Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: 305-416-5000
          Fax: 416-5005 (fax)
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


JM ENGINEERS: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JM Engineers, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 14 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code
violations.

Named plaintiff Manuel Encalada brings this action to redress the
deprivation of rights secured to be paid and to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29
U.S.C. Section 201(b), et. seq.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all hourly employees and/or former
employees of defendants and/or those who are paid a flat periodic wage or
salary who are or who were subject to the payroll practices and procedures
of defendants and who worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks
within the past years period preceding the filing of this action and through
to the present.

Mr. Encalada pray that judgment be entered against defendant for the amounts
due and all other individuals similarly situated for unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages/penalties under The Act and interest as the
court may determine under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and pray that the court award to
plaintiff and all others similarly situated, the reasonable attorney's fees
and costs to be paid by defendant to plaintiffs' attorneys and any other
relief the court deems proper.

The suit is “Encalada v. JM Engineers, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21525-
JEM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
under Judge Jose E. Martinez.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jay Mitchell Levy
          Jay M. Levy, P.A.
          9130 S Dadeland Boulevard
          Suite 1510 Two Datran Center
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: 305-670-8100
          Fax: 670-4827
          E-mail: jay@jaylevylaw.com


JUPITERMEDIA CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Ad for Gambling Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jupitermedia Corp. continues to face a putative antitrust class action in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco over
advertisements for gambling-related Web sites.

On Aug. 3, 2004, Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight filed a class action on
behalf of themselves and all others situated and/or the general public
against the company and 12 co-defendant companies that operate Internet
search engines.  

The suit alleges that defendants posting of paid advertising providing links
to Internet gambling Web sites constitute unfair competition and unlawful
business acts and practices under  
California law.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits and restitution.  

On Sept. 3, 2004, Jupitermedia blocked all advertisements from being
published on its Web properties from third-party search engines for the
gambling-related terms specified in the complaint.  

Moreover, Jupitermedia refused to accept advertisements for gambling-related
Web sites directly from companies that operate them.   

Jupitermedia has demanded contractual indemnity from two companies that
supplied advertisements that are the subject matter of the lawsuit.  

The company provided no material 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 "Mario Cisneros et al., v. Yahoo! Inc., et al., Case  
No. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court in  
San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Ira P. Rothken, Esq.
         The Rothken Law Firm
         1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 520
         San Rafael, CA 94903
         Phone: (415) 924-4250
         E-mail: feedback@techfirm.com
         Web site: http://www.techfirm.com/


LABRANCHE & CO: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted class-
action status to a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against
LaBranche & Co., Inc.  

On Oct. 16, 2003 through Dec. 16, 2003, purchasers of the company's common
stock filed nine purported class actions.

On March 22, 2004, the court consolidated these lawsuits under the caption,
then named these lead plaintiffs:

      -- Anthony Johnson,
      -- Clyde Farmer,
      -- Edwin Walthall,
      -- Donald Stahl, and
      -- City of Harper Woods Retirement System.

On June 7, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint.  On
July 12, 2004, plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated class action
complaint.  

Plaintiffs alleged that they represent a class consisting of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock
during the period beginning on Aug. 19, 1999 and concluding on Oct. 15, 2003.

Plaintiffs alleged that the company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, and certain of its
and/or LaBranche & Co. LLC's past or present officers and/or directors,
including George M.L. LaBranche, IV, William J. Burke, III, James G.
Gallagher, Alfred O. Hayward, Jr., Robert M. Murphy and Harvey S. Traison,
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to disclose
improper specialist trading.  

Plaintiffs also allege that two other past or present officers and/or
directors, S. Lawrence Prendergast and George E. Robb, Jr., also violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.   Plaintiffs seek unspecified money
damages, attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

On Dec. 12, 2005, motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied in
part.  The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claims in their entirety
against Messrs. Burke, Gallagher and Traison, dismissed the Section 10(b)
claims for the period Aug. 19, 1999 through Dec. 30, 2001 against Messrs.
LaBranche, Murphy and
Hayward, and dismissed the Section 20A claim against Mr.
Gallagher.

On April 4, 2007, the Court certified the proposed class in the 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.

The suit is "In re LaBranche Securities Litigation, No. 03 CV
8201," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York under Judge Robert W. Sweet.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert Craig Finkel, Esq.
         James Abram Harrod, III, Esq.
         Wolf Popper, LLP
         845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 759-4600
         Fax: (212) 486-2093
         E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
                 jharrod@wolfpopper.com

              - and -

         Mark Casser Gardy, Esq.
         Abbey, Gardy, L.L.P.
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 889-3700
         E-mail: mgardy@abbeygardy.com

Representing the defendants are:

         E. Michael Bradley, Esq.
         John E. Lavelle, Esq.
         38 Willis Avenue
         Mineola, NY 11501
         Phone: (212) 326-3863
         Fax: (212) 755-7306
         E-mail: embradley@jonesday.com

              - and -

         Irwin Howard Warren, Esq.
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: (212) 310-8000
         Fax: (212) 310-8007
         E-mail: mark.ribaudo@weil.com


LENOX GROUP: Faces Pa. Litigation Over Alleged FACTA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lenox Group, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA.

On April 12, 2007, Amanda Curiale filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which is a purported class
action alleging that the Company willfully violated FACTA by continuing to
print more than the last five digits of the credit card number and/or the
expiration date on receipts provided to debit card and credit cardholders
transacting business with the Company.

The Company understands that similar complaints have recently been filed
against a large number of retailers.  

The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and the class, statutory damages
of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each violation, as well
as unspecified punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees and a permanent
injunction from further engaging in violations of FACTA.

The suit is “Curiale v. Lenox Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01432-
RBS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
         Schiffin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
         280 King Of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706

              - and -

         Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
         Carlson Lynch, Ltd.
         36 N. Jefferson Street
         P.O. BOX 7635
         New Castle, PA 16107
         Phone: 724-656-1555
         Fax: 724-656-1556
         E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Wilson M. Brown, III, Esq.
         Drinker Biddle And Reath L.L.P.
         One Logan Square
         18th And Cherry Streets,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-988-2700
         E-mail: wilson.brown@dbr.com


LENOX GROUP: Seeks Court Approval of Settlement in Calif. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lenox Group, Inc. seeks court approval for a proposed settlement of a
purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

In August 2004, plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of consumers who
purchased tableware sold in the U.S. filed suit against Federated Department
Stores, the May Department Stores Company, Waterford Wedgwood U.S.A. and
Lenox, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

In November 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging
that, for the period beginning at least as early as May 1 2001, through the
filing of the amended complaint on Nov. 12, 2004, defendants violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to fix prices and to boycott
sales to Bed, Bath & Beyond.

Plaintiffs seek to recover an undisclosed amount of damages, trebled in
accordance with antitrust laws, as well as costs, attorney’s fees and
injunctive relief.

On Feb. 22, 2007, without admitting any violation of any statute or law or
any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever, Lenox entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiff class representatives.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Lenox has agreed to pay
$0.5 million, in return for which Lenox and its affiliates will be
completely released from any and all claims, demands and actions concerning
the Action and any claims that could have been alleged in the Action.

The settlement agreement is subject to final approval of the court and a
final judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice as to Lenox.  

Plaintiffs and Lenox have agreed to use their best efforts promptly to seek
court approval of the settlement agreement and dismissal of the Action with
prejudice.

Lenox Group, Inc. -- http://www.department56.com-- is a designer,  
distributor, wholesaler and retailer of tableware, collectible and other
giftware products.  The Company's tabletop business sells dinnerware,
crystal stemware and giftware, stainless steel flatware, and silver-plated
and metal giftware under the Lenox and Gorham brands.  Dansk is its
contemporary tabletop, housewares and giftware brand.  The Company sells
casual dinnerware and fine china dinnerware, giftware and collectibles under
the Lenox trademark, and sterling silver flatware and sterling silver
giftware under the Gorham trademark.  Lenox Group Inc. offers a range of
other decorative giftware and home accessory items under the Department 56
brand, including the Snowbabies line of figurines, and holiday and seasonal
decorative items. The Company operates through three segments: Wholesale,
Retail and Direct.


LIFETIME BRANDS: Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime Brands, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Company
violated various provisions of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit
Transaction Act of 2003 (FACTA).

Jennifer Ehrheart filed the suit, “Ehrheart v. Lifetime Brands, Inc., No. 07-
01433,” on April 10, 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.

Plaintiff seeks an order certifying the case as a class action, statutory
damages on behalf of herself and the proposed class, punitive damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.  

The suit is “Ehrheart v. Lifetime Brands, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
01433-JP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge John R. Padova.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
         Schiffin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
         280 King Of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706

              - and -

         Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
         Carlson Lynch, Ltd.
         36 N. Jefferson Street
         P.O. BOX 7635
         New Castle, PA 16107
         Phone: 724-656-1555
         Fax: 724-656-1556
         E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Peter Breslauer, Esq.
         Montgomery Mccracken Walker & Rhoads LLP
         123 South Broad Street, 24th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19109
         Phone: 215-772-7271
         Fax: 215-731-3733
         E-mail: pbreslauer@mmwr.com


MICHAELS STORES: Mass. Laborers’ Annuity Fund Amends Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. continues to face a consolidated securities fraud
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
according to the company’s June 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 5,
2007.

Initially, on Sept. 6, 2006, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund filed a
putative class action on behalf of itself and former holders of Michaels
Common Stock.  

The lawsuit named Michaels and all of its then-current directors as
defendants.  

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or omitted
material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements for
2004, 2005 and 2006, including, among other things:

     -- that Michaels' reported financial results inflated its
        reported earnings by not properly recording stock-based
        compensation expense relating to the granting of stock
        options;

     -- that problems with Michaels' internal controls prevented
        it from issuing accurate financial reports and
        projections; and

     -- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in
        the granting of backdated stock options.  

The plaintiff asserted claims against all of the defendants of violations of
Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and violations of Section
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The plaintiff sought, among other relief, an indeterminate amount of damages
from the defendants and equitable or injunctive relief, including the
rescission of stock option grants.  

By an order dated Dec. 8, 2006, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity
Fund was named the lead plaintiff in this action.

On Nov. 27, 2006, Albert Hulliung and James and Christine Ziolkowski (who
had previously filed two separate stockholder derivative actions, which were
consolidated on Nov. 7, 2006) filed a consolidated class action complaint
against Michaels and certain of its former officers and directors on behalf
of a class of other former shareholders.  

The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or
omitted material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements for 1993 through
2006, including, among other things, failing to disclose Michaels' and the
defendants' alleged option backdating practices and the fact that Michaels
and the defendants had reported false financial statements as a result of
those practices.  

The consolidated complaint also alleged that the proxy statements failed to
disclose:

      -- that Michaels had problems with its internal controls
         that prevented it from issuing accurate financial
         reports and projections;

      -- that because of improperly recorded stock-based
         compensation expenses, Michaels' reported financial
         results violated GAAP;

      -- that Michaels' public disclosures presented an inflated
         view of Michaels' earnings by understating Michaels's
         past compensation expenses;

      -- that Michaels faced substantial liability for its past
         and ongoing backdating practices; and

      -- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in
         the granting of backdated stock options.  

The plaintiffs asserted claims against all defendants for violations of
Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, and sought, among other relief, an indeterminate
amount of damages from the defendants, as well as an award of attorneys fees
and costs.

By an order dated Feb. 1, 2007, the Massachusetts Laborers'
Annuity Fund action was consolidated with the
Hulliung/Ziolkowski action.

In that action, on May 21, 2007 the lead plaintiff, Massachusetts Laborers’
Annuity Fund, filed a motion for leave to file a first amended consolidated
class action complaint.  

As proposed, the Amended Complaint names Michaels and certain of its current
and former officers and directors as defendants.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented and/or
omitted material facts in Michaels’ annual proxy statements for 2004, 2005
and 2006, including, among others, failing to disclose:

      -- Michaels’ and the defendants’ alleged option backdating   
         practices

      -- information regarding transactions and holdings of
         Michaels Common Stock by certain trusts owned by or for
         the benefit of two of Michaels’ former officers and
         directors and their family members; and

      -- that Michaels and the defendants had reported false
         financial statements as a result of those practices.

Further, the Amended Complaint makes allegations regarding the Company’s
financial restatement of periods prior to 2006, as well as the recently
completed merger with entities affiliated with Bain Capital Partners LLC and
The Blackstone Group.  

In the Amended Complaint, the lead plaintiff asserts claims against all
defendants for violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The plaintiff seeks, among other relief:

      -- an indeterminate amount of damages,

      -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,

      -- an award of attorneys fees and costs, and

      -- equitable or injunctive relief, including the
         rescission of stock option grants.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts   and crafts  
specialty retailer in North America providing materials, ideas and education
for creative activities.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Discovery Proceeding in “Williams” Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the purported class action, "Shirley Williams, et
al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc.," which was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia against Mohawk Industries Inc.

Four plaintiffs filed the suit back in January 2004.  The case purports that
plaintiffs are former and current employees of the company and that the
actions and conduct of the company, including the employment of persons who
are not permitted to work in the U.S., have damaged them and the other
members of the purported class by suppressing the wages of the company's
hourly employees in Georgia.

Plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including:

      -- treble damages;
      -- return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and
      -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

According to the original complaint, the company sent its employees "to the
U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville,
Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the
U.S. in violation of federal law" and transport them to North
Georgia.

The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters provided
these illegal immigrants with housing and found them jobs with the company.  
It even charges that although some of the illegal workers were arrested,
Mohawk's supervisors helped others evade detection.

Additionally, the suit claims that even though the company fired several
illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work force during
internal audits, it soon rehired them under different names.  It claims that
the company destroyed documents in an effort to conceal the fact that it
employed illegal workers.

One of the company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to inflate the size
of the pool from which it hires hourly workers, thereby depressing wages.  
Another was to reduce the number and expense of workers' compensation
claims, since "illegal employees are unlikely to file," the suit states.

In February 2004, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, which
was denied by the District Court in April 2004.  

Following appellate review, the case has been returned to the District Court
and discovery is proceeding, 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 May 10, 2007.

The suit is "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-
HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Georgia
under Judge Harold L. Murphy.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Bobby Lee Cook, Esq.
         Cook & Connelly
         P.O. Box 370
         Summerville, GA 30747-0370
         Phone: 706-857-3421
         E-mail: LisaDodd@alltel.net

              - and -

         Ronan P. Doherty, Esq.
         John Earl Floyd, Esq.
         Nicole G. Iannarone, Esq.
         Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq.
         Bondurant Mixson & Elmore
         1201 West Peachtree St., N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Ctr.
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
         Phone: 404-881-4100
         E-mail: doherty@bmelaw.com
                 floyd@bmelaw.com
                 iannarone@bmelaw.com
                 thorpe@bmelaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven Thomas Cottreau, Esq.
         Juan P. Morillo, Esq.
         Virginia A. Seitz, Esq.
         Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
         1501 K. St., NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-736-8000
         E-mail: scottreau@sidley.com

              - and -

         R. Carl Cannon, Esq.
         Rosemary C. Lumpkins, Esq.
         Constangy Brooks & Smith
         230 Peachtree St., N.W., 2400 Peachtree Center Tower
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1557
         Phone: 404-525-8622
         E-mail: ccannon@constangy.com


RC2 CORP: Recalls Railway Toys Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
RC2 Corp. of Oak Brook, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling nearly 1.5 million Various
Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway Toys.

The firm said the surface paints on the recalled products contain lead.  
Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health
effects.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves wooden vehicles, buildings and other train set
components for young children listed in the chart below.  The front of the
packaging has the logo “Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway” on the upper left-
hand corner.  A manufacturing code may be located on the bottom of the
product or inside the battery cover.  Toys marked with codes containing “WJ”
or “AZ” are not included in this recall.

Recalled Product Name:

     - Red James Engine & Red James’ # 5 Coal Tender
     - Red Lights & Sounds James Engine & Red James’ #5 Lights &    
       Sounds Coal Tender
     - James with Team Colors Engine & James with Team Colors #5
       Coal Tender
     - Red Skarloey Engine
     - Brown & Yellow Old Slow Coach
     - Red Hook & Ladder Truck & Red Water Tanker Truck
     - Red Musical Caboose
     - Red Sodor Line Caboose
     - Red Coal Car labeled “2006 Day Out With Thomas” on the
       Side
     - Red Baggage Car
     - Red Holiday Caboose
     - Red “Sodor Mail” Car
     - Red Fire Brigade Truck
     - Red Fire Brigade Train
     - Deluxe Sodor Fire Station
     - Red Coal Car
     - Yellow Box Car  
     - Red Stop Sign
     - Yellow Railroad Crossing Sign
     - Yellow “Sodor Cargo Company” Cargo Piece
     - Smelting Yard
     - Ice Cream Factory

These toys were manufactured in China and sold at toy stores and various
retailers nationwide from January 2005 through June 2007 for between $10 and
$70.

Photo of the recalled products can be found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07212.html

Consumers should take the recalled toys away from young children immediately
and contact RC2 Corp. for a replacement toy.

For additional information, contact RC2 Corp. toll-free at (866) 725-4407
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Thursday and between 8 a.m. and
11 a.m. CT Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at
http://www.recalls.rc2.com.


RIDLEY INC: Quebec Court Certifies Suit Over Beef Import Ban
------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Superior Court granted class-action status to a suit filed
against Ridley Inc. and the Government of Canada over bovine spongiform
encephalopathy.  The suit was filed in the Province of Quebec.

The court's ruling only relates to the action in Quebec and is not a
decision on the merits of the claims. The ruling only allows a lawsuit to be
filed in Quebec by the representative plaintiff, a Quebec cattle farmer, to
proceed as a class action in Quebec. There is no right to appeal the
decision.

The proceedings, which commenced April, 2005, are still at an early stage
and the representative plaintiff has not yet filed a statement of claim.
Neither Ridley nor the Government of Canada has filed a statement of
defense.

Four lawsuits were commenced in April 2005 against Ridley Inc. and the
Government of Canada in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec.  The
lawsuits each seek damages, including punitive damages, for losses allegedly
incurred by Canadian cattle farmers as a result of international bans on the
importation of Canadian beef and cattle following the May 2003 announcement
of a bovine spongiform encephalopathy diagnosis in an Alberta cow.  

Ridley Inc. applied to the Quebec Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the
June 2, 2006 refusal of the Quebec Superior Court to stay the proposed class
action against Ridley and the government of Canada in the province of Quebec
(Class Action Reporter, June 28, 2006).

Ridley believes the June 2 ruling was in error and raises important public
interest issues and novel points of law regarding the judicial management of
multi-jurisdictional, quasi-identical class actions.  

Motions by Ridley and the Government of Canada seeking leave to appeal that
ruling were heard in the Court of Appeal for the District of Montreal on
June 22.  The Court has reserved its decision on both applications for leave
to appeal.  

The Quebec Superior Court’s ruling, in a judgment released June 15, affects
only Quebec farmers who meet the class requirements for the Quebec lawsuit.

"While we are disappointed that the case will proceed in Quebec, we do look
forward to the opportunity of defending this case on the merits," said Steve
VanRoekel, President and CEO of Ridley Inc.

A related action in Ontario, in which Ridley is seeking an early dismissal,
is presently on appeal, while similar actions in Saskatchewan and Alberta
are in abeyance. The decision in the Quebec case does not impact those other
actions.

Ridley Inc., headquartered in Mankato, Minnesota and Winnipeg, Manitoba, is
one of North America's leading commercial animal nutrition companies.  
Ridley manufactures and/or distributes a full range of animal nutrition
products under a number of highly regarded trade names.

For more information, contact:

          Steve VanRoekel
          Ridley Inc.
          Phone: (507) 388-9618
          Website: http://www.ridleyinc.com


SOUTH DAKOTA: Red Light Cameras Suit Against City Heard in Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Circuit Court judge heard arguments last week about a class action filed
against the city over red light cameras, according to keloland.com.

The suit was filed by Sioux Falls, South Dakota resident, I.L. Wiedermann,
who alleges that the city conspired with the camera company to alter the
traffic signals so more people get caught.  It also questions whether Sioux
Falls even has the authority to even impose the tickets on drivers (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006).

The suit centers on the issue whether red light cameras are constitutional.

The action seeks class status and inclusion of Redflex, provider of cameras
and equipment in the city, as defendant.

Redflex lawyer Richard Casey said the company has nothing to do with the
suit because it only provides a tool for the city to use to help protect
people’s lives.

The lawyer for Sioux Falls City said that some paid their tickets without
objections, renouncing their right to question it.  

Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Caldwell has two weeks to decide on the issue.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Aaron D. Eiesland, Esq.
          Johnson Eiesland Law Offices, P.C.
          4020 Jackson Boulevard PO Box 6900
          Rapid City, SD 57702-6900
          Phone:  348 7300
          Fax:  3484757


                            *********


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  * * *