CAR_Public/070620.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, June 20, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 121

                           Headlines
     
ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeals Court Mulls N.C. Suits’ Consolidation
ADVANCE AMERICA: June 2007 Hearing Set in Fla. Consumer Lawsuit
ADVANCE AMERICA: To Oppose Class Arbitration in Ga. Litigation
ADVANCE AMERICA: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in “McGinnis” Case
ADVANCE AMERICA: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in “King” Lawsuit

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Faces Consolidated ERISA Litigation in Tex.
AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Del. Court Consolidates Suits Over Buyout
AMERI-PRIDE INC: Fla. Suit Aims to Claim Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Unit Appeals Rulings in “Gunderson” Case
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Lawsuit

BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Several Ovcon Antitrust Cases
BLUEGREEN CORP: New Plaintiffs Named in Suit Over LeisurePath
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Recalls Engines Posing Fire and Burn Hazards
COMMERCIAL PLASTERING: Faces Fla. Suit Claiming Unpaid Overtime
CONFIDENCE INC: Recalls Drug Supplement with Undeclared Compound

DELTA COMPUTER: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
EMACHINES INC: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over Empire Merger
FLORIDA: Lawsuit Accuses Doctor of Withholding Overtime Pay
HOGLA-KIMBERLY: Suit Over Content of "Titulim" Diapers Abandoned
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Court Partially Dismisses Securities Suit

MAINSTAR AMERICA: Recalls China-Made Toothpaste Containing DEG
NORDSTROM INC: Recalls Kids’ Jackets with Zipper That can Detach
NORDSTROM INC: Recalls Kids’ Sandals with Parts That can Detach
OMNICARE INC: Ky. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Complaint
PDI INC: Calif. Court Mulls Final OK for Labor Suit Settlement

RC2 CORP: Faces Ind. Lawsuit Over Recalled Railway Toys
SOUTH AFRICA: Indigent Parents Sue to Compel Fee Exemptions
T.U.S.A. INC: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
TW COMMUNITIES: Sued in Fla. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Appeals Court Rejects Suit by Physicians

VALU-LODGE: Lawsuit in Fla. Alleges Labor Code Violations
WHOLESOY & CO: Expands Recall of Yogurt with Undeclared Dairy


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                            *********


ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeals Court Mulls N.C. Suits’ Consolidation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has yet to rule on a motion to
consolidate the purported class action, "Kucan et al. v. Advance America,
Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc. et al.," with two other similar
cases filed in the state.

On July 27, 2004, John Kucan, Welsie Torrence and Terry Coates, each of whom
was a customer of Republic Bank & Trust Co., the lending bank for whom the
company marketed, processed and serviced payday cash advances in North
Carolina, filed a putative class action in the General Court of Justice for
the Superior Court Division for New Hanover County, North Carolina against
the company and William M. Webster, IV, its chief executive officer.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the relationship between the
company's North Carolina subsidiary and Republic was a "rent a charter"
relationship and therefore Republic was not the "true lender" on the payday
cash advances it offered.   

The lawsuit also claims that the payday cash advances were made,
administered and collected in violation of numerous North Carolina consumer
protection laws.  

It seeks an injunction barring the subsidiary from continuing to do business
in North Carolina, the return of the principal amount of the payday cash
advances made to the plaintiff class since August 2001, the return of any
interest or fees associated with those advances, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and other unspecified costs.  

On Dec. 30, 2005, the court issued an order granting defendants' motion for
arbitration, staying the proceedings and denying class certification.  
Plaintiffs have appealed the order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.   

The plaintiffs in this case and two other North Carolina cases currently
before the Court of Appeals filed a petition, which the company has opposed,
for discretionary review and consolidation of the cases.   

The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the consolidated cases in
January 2007.  The Company is awaiting a ruling from the Court of Appeals,
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.

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday cash advance  
services in the U.S.


ADVANCE AMERICA: June 2007 Hearing Set in Fla. Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2007 hearing is scheduled for oral arguments in a putative class
action commenced by former customers, Wendy Betts and Donna Reuter in
Florida against Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., its subsidiary
McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC, and certain officers, directors and
employees.

The suit was filed in February 2001 in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach
County and alleges that McKenzie, by and through the actions of certain
officers, directors and employees, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade
practices and violated Florida's criminal usury statute, the Florida
Consumer Finance Act and the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.  

The suit, "Betts and Reuter v. McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC et
al.," seeks unspecified damages, and McKenzie or the other defendants could
be required to refund fees and/or interest collected, refund the principal
amount of payday cash advances, pay multiple damages and pay other monetary
penalties.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment was originally granted as to Ms.
Betts' claims but later reversed by a Florida appellate court.   

On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in April  
2006, holding that the deferred presentment transactions between Ms. Betts
and the company were governed by Florida's usury laws and not governed by
the Florida Money Transmitters' Code as the company asserted.  

The 4th District Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Circuit Court,
where discovery is now ongoing.

Although this ruling by the Florida Supreme Court was adverse to the
company, it is too early in this proceeding to identify the amount of
potential losses to the company, if any, since the case is still in its
early stages and several material issues have yet to be addressed by the
courts.

Ms. Reuters' claims were subject to an arbitration agreement contained in
the contract; defendants' motion to compel arbitration was granted by the
state trial court, upheld by the state appeals court and affirmed by the
Florida Supreme Court declining to accept certiorari.  

Thus, the order to compel arbitration is final as to Ms. Reuter.  
The arbitration and litigation will likely proceed in parallel.

The Circuit Court recently permitted Tiffany Kelly to join as a plaintiff
and the Company is seeking to compel arbitration of her claims.  

Oral argument for class certification is currently scheduled for June 2007.

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday cash advance  
services in the U.S.


ADVANCE AMERICA: To Oppose Class Arbitration in Ga. Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Georgia, Inc. is resisting efforts
to conduct class arbitration in a purported class action "King and Strong v.
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Georgia, Inc., et al.," which was
filed in the state Court of Cobb County, Georgia.

On Aug. 6, 2004, Tahisha King and James E. Strong, who were customers of
BankWest, the lending bank for whom the company, marketed, processed and
serviced payday cash advances in Georgia, filed a putative class action
against the company, William M. Webster, IV, its chief executive officer,
and other unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders."  

The suit alleges various causes of action including that the company's
Georgia subsidiary made illegal payday loans in the state in violation of
Georgia's usury law, the Georgia  
Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and  
Corrupt Organizations Act.  

The complaint alleges that BankWest was not the "true lender" on the
advances that were marketed, processed and serviced for BankWest in Georgia
and the company, was the "de facto" lender. The complaint seeks compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any
compensatory damages.   

The company removed the state court action to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, under the caption, "Strong v. Georgia Cash
America Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02611-WSD."  

However, the action was remanded back to the State  
Court of Cobb County in December 2005.  The action is thus proceeding in
state court.

The company and the other defendants denied the plaintiffs' claims and
asserted that all of the claims are subject to mandatory and binding
individual arbitration pursuant to arbitration agreements signed by each
plaintiff.  

In April 2006, the State Court of Cobb County entered a consent order, which
was jointly submitted by the parties, whereby the parties agreed and
consented to arbitration of all claims raised by plaintiffs in this action
and to stay all proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration on
plaintiffs’ claims.

The plaintiffs filed a demand for arbitration seeking to arbitrate their
claims in a class action or representative status.

In March 2007, the appointed arbitrator issued an interim order holding that
payday loans are not subject to Georgia law, that federal preemption applies
and that the mere existence of a contractual prohibition on class actions
does not violate Georgia public policy.

However, the arbitrator did not believe there was sufficient evidence to
determine if the arbitration agreements were procedurally or substantively
unconscionable and ordered additional discovery on that issue.  

Both parties have filed pleadings seeking reconsideration of the interim
order.  The Company intends to continue to deny plaintiffs’ claims and
resist plaintiffs’ efforts to conduct class arbitration, 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.

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday cash advance  
services in the U.S.  


ADVANCE AMERICA: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in “McGinnis” Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America Servicing of Arkansas, Inc. intends to compel arbitration in
the purported class action, “Brenda McGinnis v. Advance America Servicing of
Arkansas, Inc. et al.”

The putative class action was filed on Feb. 27, 2007 in the Circuit Court of
Clark County, Arkansas.  The suit is alleging violations of the Arkansas
usury law, the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and a 2001 class
action settlement agreement entered into by the Company’s prior subsidiary
in Arkansas.

The complaint alleges that the Company’s current subsidiary made usurious
loans under the Arkansas Check Cashers Act beginning on May 15, 2001.

It seeks compensatory damages in amount equal to twice the interest paid on
the loans, a declaration that the contracts are void, enforcement of the
2001 class action settlement agreement, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Ms. McGinnis’ claims are subject to an arbitration agreement and the Company
intends to seek to compel arbitration of her claims, 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.

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday cash advance  
services in the U.S.  


ADVANCE AMERICA: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in “King” Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. and Cash Advance
Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC seeks to compel arbitration in a purported
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The suit, "Raymond King and Sandra Coates v. Advance America,
Cash Advance Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC," was filed on Jan.
18.

Plaintiffs were customers of BankWest the lending bank for which the company
marketed, processed, and serviced payday cash advances in Pennsylvania.

They are alleging various causes of action, including that the
Pennsylvania subsidiary made illegal payday loans in the state in violation
of Pennsylvania's usury law, the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act,
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the
Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act and the Pennsylvania
Credit Services Act.

The complaint alleges that BankWest was not the "true lender" on the
advances that the company marketed, processed and serviced for BankWest in
Pennsylvania and that the company was the "lender in fact."  

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages
and the trebling of any compensatory damages.

The Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in March 2007, according to
the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "King et al. v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of
Pennsylvania, LLC, Case No. 2:07-cv-00237-JF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge John P. Fullam.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David A. Searles, Esq.
         Donovan Searles, LLC
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-732-6067
         Fax: 215-732-8060
         E-mail: dsearles@donovansearles.com

              - and -

         Deborah Zuckerman, Esq.
         AARP Foundation Litigation, 601 E. Street, NW         
         Washington, DC 20049
         Phone: 202-434-6045
         Fax: 202-434-6424
         E-mail: dzuckerman@aarp.org

Representing the defendants is:

         Mark J. Levin, Esq.
         Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll
         1735 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
         Phone: 215-864-8235
         E-mail: levinm@ballardspahr.com


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Faces Consolidated ERISA Litigation in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliated Computer Services Inc. is defendant in a consolidated class
action in Texas, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), 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.

Initially several suits were filed:

      -- “Terri Simeon, on behalf of Herself and All Others
         Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Affiliated Computer
         Services, Inc., Darwin Deason, Mark A. King, Lynn R.
         Blodgett, Jeffrey A. Rich, Joseph O’Neill, Frank Rossi,
         J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, The
         Retirement Committee of the ACS Savings Plan, and John
         Does 1-30, Civil Action No. 306-CV-1592P,” which was
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
         District of Texas on Aug. 31, 2006.

      -- “Kyle Burke, Individually and on behalf of All Others
         Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Affiliated Computer
         Services, Inc., the ACS Administrative Committee, Lora
         Villarreal, Kellar Nevill, Gladys Mitchell, Meg Cino,
         Mike Miller, John Crysler, Van Johnson, Scott Bell,
         Anne Meli, David Lotocki, Randall Booth, Pam Trutna,
         Brett Jakovac, Jeffrey A. Rich, Mark A. King, Darwin
         Deason, Joseph P. O’Neill and J. Livingston Kosberg,
         Case No. 306-CV-02379-M,” which was filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On Feb.12, 2007, the Simeon case and the Burke case were consolidated under
the caption, “In re Affiliated Computer Systems [sic] ERISA Litigation,
Master File No. 3:06-CV-1592-M.”

Plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint on March 21, 2007.  The Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint added Lynn Blodgett, Dennis McCuistion, Warren Edwards, John
Rexford, and John M. Brophy as defendants.

On April 6, 2007, the Court issued an order staying the litigation for 180
days or until either party requests that the stay be lifted, whichever
occurs first.  When the stay is lifted, ACS will have thirty days to answer
or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Complaint.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?114c

The suit is "Simeon v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc et al.,  
Case No. 3:06-cv-01592," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge Jorge A. Solis

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/227-7720
         Fax: 713/227-9404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

              - and -

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gainey & McKenna
         295 Madison Ave., 4th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-983-1300


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Del. Court Consolidates Suits Over Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. faces a consolidated class action, “In
re: Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action
No. 2821-VCL,” which is pending in a Delaware court in relation to the
attempted buyout of the company by founder Darwin Deason and Cerberus
Capital Management LP.

On March 21, 2007, the company was notified that two class actions had been
filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County, naming the company and certain of its directors as
defendants, in matters styled:

      -- “Momentum Partners v. Darwin Deason, Lynn R. Blodgett,
         Joseph P. O’Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston
         Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Dennis McCuistion,
         Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus
         Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2814-VCL
         filed March 20, 2007,” and

      -- “Mark Levy v. Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, John
         Rexford, Joseph P. O’Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J.
         Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Affiliated
         Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
         Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2816-VCL filed March
         21, 2007.

Subsequent to the filing of those cases, the following additional cases have
been filed (collectively with the Momentum and Levy actions, the Class
Actions):


      -- “Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v.
         Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, Joseph P. O’Neill, Frank       
         A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
         Robert B. Holland, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.,
         Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Affiliated Computer
         Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2821-VCL” in the Court
         of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
         Castle County, filed on March 22, 2007.

      -- “Steamship Trade Association/International
         Longshoreman’s Association Pension Fund v Affiliated
         Computer Services, Inc., Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett,
         John Rexford, Joseph P. O’Neill, Gerardo I. Lopez,
         Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis
         McCuistion, Robert B. Holland, and Cereberus [sic]
         Capital Management, L.P., Cause No. 07-02691” in the
         District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 44th Judicial
         District, filed on March 22, 2007.

      -- “Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement
         System v. Darwin Deason, Joseph P. O’Neill, Frank A.
         Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Robert
         B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and
         Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No.
         2839-VCL” in the Court of Chancery of the State of
         Delaware in and for New Castle County, filed on March
         26, 2007.

      -- “The City of Birmingham, Alabama Retirement and Relief
         System v. Darwin Deason, Robert B. Holland, III, J.
         Livingston Kosberg, Frank A. Rossi, Joseph P. O’Neill,
         Lynn R. Blodgett, John H. Rexford, Dennis McCuistion,
         Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus
         Capital Management, L.P., Cause No. 07-02768” in the
         District Court of Dallas, Texas, 160th Judicial
         District, filed on March 28, 2007.

      -- “Edward R. Koller v. Darwin Deason, Frank A. Rossi, J.
         Livingston Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated
         Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
         Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2908-VCL” in the
         Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for
         New Castle County, filed on April 20, 2007.

      -- “Suzanne Sweeney Living Trust v. Darwin Deason, Lynn R.
         Blodgett, John H. Rexford, Joseph P. O’Neill, Frank A.
         Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Robert
         B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and
         Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No.
         2915-VCL in the Court of Chancery of the State of
         Delaware in and for New Castle County,” filed on April
         24, 2007.

The plaintiff in each of the Class Actions purports to be an Affiliated
Computer stockholder bringing a class action on behalf of all of our public
stockholders.

Each plaintiff alleges that the proposal presented to the company by Darwin
Deason and Cerberus on March 20, 2007, to acquire our outstanding stock is
unfair to shareholders because the consideration offered in the Proposal is
alleged to be inadequate and to have resulted from an unfair process. We
have not yet filed an answer or other responsive pleading in any of the
Class Actions.

On May 9, 2007, all of the Class Actions pending before the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware were consolidated into a single action
as, “In re: Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Civil
Action No. 2821-VCL.”

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. -- http://www.acs-inc.com--provides  
business process outsourcing and information technology services to
commercial and government clients.  The Company has two segments based on
the clients it serves: commercial and government.  The commercial segment
accounted for approximately 59% of its revenues during the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2006. The Company provides services to a variety of clients
worldwide, including healthcare providers and payers, manufacturers,
retailers, wholesale distributors, utilities, entertainment companies,
higher education institutions, financial institutions, insurance and
transportation companies.


AMERI-PRIDE INC: Fla. Suit Aims to Claim Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameri-Pride, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 15 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff David M. Dixon alleges denial of overtime compensation, in
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Dixon v. Ameri-Pride, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-01038-JDW-
TBM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
under Judge James D. Whittemore, with referral to Judge Thomas B. McCoun,
III.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Peter Bober
          Bober & Bober, PA
          1930 Tyler St
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Phone: 954/922-2298
          Fax: 954/922-5455
          E-mail: peter@boberlaw.com


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Unit Appeals Rulings in “Gunderson” Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is appealing a
ruling that were made in a putative class action filed against the company
in the 14th Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana.

The Gunderson complaint alleges failure to comply with certain provisions of
the Louisiana Any Willing Provider Act relating to discounts taken by
defendants on bills submitted by Louisiana medical providers and hospitals
that provided treatment or services to workers compensation claimants and
seeks monetary penalties and injunctive relief.

On July 20, 2006, the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment
and granted plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment, holding that
the AIG subsidiary was a “group purchaser” and, therefore, potentially
subject to liability under the Act.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the court issued an order certifying a class of providers
and hospitals.

In an unrelated action, also arising under the Act, a Louisiana appellate
court ruled that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the
claims at issue.

In response, defendants in “Gunderson” filed an exception for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.  On Jan. 19, 2007, the court denied the motion,
holding that it has jurisdiction over the putative class claims.

The AIG subsidiary is appealing the class certification ruling and is
seeking an appeal from the jurisdictional ruling, 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.

New York, New York-based American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aig.com/gateway/home-- is a holding company which, through its  
subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and insurance-related
activities in the U.S. and abroad.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fact and class discovery is currently ongoing in a consolidated class action
filed against American International Group, Inc. (AIG).

Beginning in October 2004, a number of putative securities fraud class
actions were filed against AIG and consolidated as “In re American
International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation.”

The lead plaintiff in the class action is a group of public retirement
systems and pension funds benefiting Ohio state employees, suing on behalf
of themselves and all purchasers of AIG’s publicly traded securities between
October 28, 1999 and April 1, 2005.

The named defendants are AIG and a number of present and former AIG officers
and directors, as well as Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO) --  which
has provided a series of two-year Deferred Compensation Profit Participation
Plans (SICO Plans) to certain AIG employees -- SICO, General Reinsurance
Corp., and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, among others.

The lead plaintiff alleges, among other things, that AIG:

      -- concealed that it engaged in anti-competitive conduct
         through alleged payment of contingent commissions to
         brokers and participation in illegal bid-rigging;

      -- concealed that it used “income smoothing” products and
         other techniques to inflate its earnings;

      -- concealed that it marketed and sold “income smoothing”
         insurance products to other companies; and

      -- misled investors about the scope of government
         investigations.

In addition, the lead plaintiff alleges that AIG’s former Chief Executive
Officer manipulated AIG’s stock price.  The lead plaintiff asserts claims
for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

In April 2006, the court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the
second amended class action complaint and the Florida complaint.

In December 2006, a third amended class action complaint was filed, which
does not differ substantially from the prior complaint.

Fact and class discovery is currently ongoing, 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 American International Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
John E. Sprizzo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
         Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0700
         Fax: 212-818-0477
         E-mail: tdubbs@glrslaw.com

              - and -

         Louis Gottlieb, Esq.
         Goldman Gruder & Wood
         200 Connecticut Avenue
         Norwalk, CT 06854
         Phone: (212) 907-0872
         Fax: (212) 883-7072
         E-mail: lgottlieb@glrslaw.com


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Several Ovcon Antitrust Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to face various antitrust lawsuits
filed with regards to the Ovcon-35 drug, 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.

To date, the company has been named as a co-defendant with Warner Chilcott
Holdings, Co. III, Ltd., and others in complaints filed in federal courts by
the Federal Trade Commission, 34 state Attorneys General and nine private
class action plaintiffs claiming to be direct and indirect purchasers of
Ovcon-35.  

These actions allege, among other things, that a March 24, 2004 agreement
between the company and Warner Chilcott, then known as Galen Holdings PLC,
constitutes an unfair method of competition, is anticompetitive and
restrains trade in the market for Ovcon-35 and its generic equivalents.  

These cases, the first of which was filed by the FTC on or about Dec. 2,
2005, allege, among other things, that a March 24, 2004 agreement between
the Company and Warner Chilcott (then known as Galen Holdings PLC)
constitutes an unfair method of competition; is anticompetitive; and
restrains trade in the market for Ovcon-35 and its generic equivalents.

Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.barrlabs.com/-- is primarily a  
holding company.  The Company's subsidiaries, Barr Laboratories, Inc. and
Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develop, manufacture and market generic and
proprietary pharmaceutical products, respectively. It operates in two
business segments.  In the generic pharmaceutical segment, it manufactures
and distributes approximately 150 different dosage forms and strengths of
approximately 75 different generic pharmaceutical products, including 22
oral contraceptive products that represent the largest category of its
generic product portfolio.


BLUEGREEN CORP: New Plaintiffs Named in Suit Over LeisurePath
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Corp. is a defendant in the purported class action, filed by
Michelle Alamo, Ernest Alamo, Toniann Quinn and Terrance Quinn against
Vacation Station, LLC, LeisurePath Vacation Club, LeisurePath, Inc.,
Bluegreen Corp. (Docket No. L-6716-05) in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Bergen County.

Plaintiffs filed a purported "Class Action Complaint" on Sept. 23, 2005.  
The Complaint raises allegations concerning the marketing of the LeisurePath
Travel Services Network product to the public, and, in particular, New
Jersey residents by Vacation Station, LLC, an independent distributor of
travel products.  

Vacation Station, LLC purchased LeisurePath membership kits from
LeisurePath, Inc.'s Master Distributor, Mini Vacations, Inc. and then sold
the memberships to consumers.  

The initial Plaintiffs (none of whom actually bought the Leisure Path
product) assert claims for violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, fraud, nuisance, negligence and for equitable relief all
stemming from the sale and marketing by Vacation Station, LLC of the
LeisurePath Travel Services Network.  

Plaintiffs are seeking the gifts and prizes they were allegedly told by
Vacation Station, LLC that they won as part of the sales promotion, and that
they be given the opportunity to rescind their agreement with LeisurePath
along with a full refund.

Plaintiffs further seek punitive damages, compensatory damages, attorney's
fees and treble damages of unspecified amounts.  

In February 2007, the Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add two additional
Plaintiffs/proposed class representatives, Bruce Doxey and Karen Smith-Doxey.

Unlike the initial Plaintiffs who were first contacted by Vacation Station,
LLC some seven months after LeisurePath terminated its relationship with
Vacation Station, LLC and did not purchase LeisurePath products, the Doxeys
purchased a participation in the LeisurePath Travel Services Network.  

On March 16, 2007, the Court denied a motion filed by Leisure Path and
Bluegreen Corp. to dismiss the Doxeys as parties to the lawsuit.

Bluegreen Corp. -- http://www.bluegreencorp.com/-- is a provider of  
vacation and residential lifestyle choices through its resorts and
residential community businesses.  The Company is organized into two
divisions: Bluegreen Resorts and Bluegreen Communities.  Bluegreen Resorts
acquires, develops and markets vacation ownership interests (VOIs) in
resorts generally located in drive-to vacation destinations.  Bluegreen
Communities acquires, develops and subdivides property and markets
residential land homesites, the majority of which are sold directly to
retail customers who seek to build a home in a residential setting, in some
cases on properties featuring a golf course and related amenities.  
Bluegreen Corp. also generates interest income through its financing of
individual purchasers of VOIs, and to a nominal extent, homesites sold by
Bluegreen Communities.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Recalls Engines Posing Fire and Burn Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corp. of Wauwatosa, Wis., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling 480,000 units
of Briggs & Stratton OHV Snow Thrower Engines.

According to the company, when the engines are primed, excess fuel can
overflow into the carburetor and ignite, posing fire and burn hazards to
consumers.

Briggs & Stratton has received 48 reports of fire.  There have been no
reports of injury.  The firm has received one report of minor property
damage.

The recall includes snow equipment with Briggs & Stratton OHV engines that
have model numbers beginning with 12, 15, 20, or 21, and a date of
manufacture (DOM) code between 000601xx and 070301xx.  The engines were
installed on the following brand snow throwers: Ariens, Canadiana,
Craftsman, Frontier Equipment, Husqvarna, Poulan Pro, Simplicity and
Snapper.  The engine model number and DOM information are located on the
cylinder shield or rocker cover.  Call for more information about
determining if your snow thrower engine is included in the recall.

These engines were manufactured in the U.S. and were sold through various
snow thrower dealers nationwide from June 2000 through February 2007 for
between $630 and $2,350 for the snow thrower.

Consumers should immediately stop using the snow throwers.  Call or contact
the firms listed below to arrange for the free repair.

To view the photo, click on:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07558.html

For more information, consumers can contact Briggs & Stratton toll-free at
(866) 478-7855 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
the company’s Website at http://www.briggsandstratton.com - Dealers can be  
found by using the Dealer Locator at the Briggs & Stratton’s Web site.  
Consumers with Craftsman brand snow throwers should call Sears toll-free at
(877) 659-7017 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday.


COMMERCIAL PLASTERING: Faces Fla. Suit Claiming Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Plastering, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 15
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Thomas Bashaw alleges denial of overtime compensation, in
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Bashaw v. Commercial Plastering, Inc., Case No. 8:07-cv-01041-
JDW-TBM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida under Judge James D. Whittemore with referral to Judge Thomas B.
McCoun, III.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Kelly Allyssha Amritt
          Morgan & Morgan
          7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Phone: 954/318-0268
          Fax: 954/333-3515
          E-mail: KAmritt@forthepeople.com


CONFIDENCE INC: Recalls Drug Supplement with Undeclared Compound
----------------------------------------------------------------
Confidence, Inc. of Port Washington, NY, is conducting a voluntary
nationwide recall of the company's supplement product sold under the name
Long Weekend.

The company has been informed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
that lab analysis of Long Weekend samples found that the product contains
undeclared tadalafil, an FDA approved drug used as treatment for male
Erectile Dysfunction (ED).  The FDA has not approved Long Weekend as a drug;
therefore the safety and effectiveness of this product is unknown.

FDA advises that this poses a threat to consumers because tadalafil may
interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs (such as
nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels.  According
to the FDA, consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol,
or heart disease often take nitrates.  FDA advises that ED is a common
problem in men with these conditions, and they may seek products to enhance
sexual performance.  FDA advises that tadalafil, may cause side effects,
such as headaches and flushing.

The recalled Long Weekend is sold in 3-capsule boxes.  The capsules are
sealed in a foil blister-pack, and the blister-pack is stamped with the LOT
# and EXP date.  The product is sold under the American Best Nutrition label
and bears UPC 809515-0542.

No illnesses have been reported to the Company to date in connection with
this product.

Confidence, Inc. has taken this voluntary action because it is committed to
providing accurate information about its products and because of the concern
for the health and safety of consumers.  Confidence Inc. is working with the
FDA in the recall process.  It sincerely regrets any inconvenience to
customers.

Consumers should discontinue use of Long Weekend and consult their health
care professional about approved treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED).  
FDA encourages men who experience ED to seek guidance from a health care
professional.

The product was sold through mail orders and retailers located nationwide,
in Puerto Rico, Canada, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China.

Consumers should return any unused Long Weekend, for a refund of the full
purchase price or price for the unused portion, to the Company's address in
Port Washington, NY, or contact Jim Chao at 516-767-1870 or e-mail
jim@confidenceusa.com to receive further instructions for returning the
product or with any questions.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this
product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting
program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Online: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm   

Regular Mail: use postage-paid FDA form 3500 available at:
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm

Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178

Mail to:
     MedWatch 5600 Fishers Lane
     Rockville, MD 20852-9787


DELTA COMPUTER: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Computer Services Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June
15 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Anthony Pallini alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Pallini v. Delta Computer Services Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-02430-JFB-ETB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York under Judge Joseph F. Bianco with referral to Judge E. Thomas
Boyle.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Neil Frank
          Frank & Associates, P.C.
          500 Bi-county Boulevard, Suite 112N
          Farmingdale, NY 11735
          Phone: (631) 756-0400
          Fax: (631) 756-0547 (fax)
          E-mail: nfrank@laborlaws.com


EMACHINES INC: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over Empire Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached for the shareholder class
action, "Dvorchak v. eMachines, Inc., et al.," which was filed in California
State Superior Court, County of Orange.

Former rival Gateway, Inc. acquired eMachines for approximately $235 million
in cash and stock in 2004.

The suit, filed against eMachines and others in November 2001, relates to a
plan to privatize the company through a merger with
Empire Acquisition Corp.  The merger was consummated after a court denied a
requested injunction on Dec. 27, 2001.

After the merger, plaintiffs filed amended complaints seeking unspecified
monetary damages and/or rescission relating to the negotiations for and
terms of the merger through allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties by
eMachines, its board members prior to the merger, and certain of its
officers.  The court certified the suit Aug. 25, 2003.

In April 2007, the parties to the lawsuit and eMachines’ insurance carriers
negotiated a settlement expected to result in the dismissal of the action,
according to Gateway, Inc.’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

eMachines, Inc., -- http://www.emachines.com/-- sells personal computers  
and peripheral displays.  Marketed toward budget-conscious consumers, its
desktop and notebook PCs are sold by retailers such as Best Buy, Circuit
City, and Office Depot.


FLORIDA: Lawsuit Accuses Doctor of Withholding Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rahim Perwaiz, M.D., P.A. of the Central Florida Sleep Diagnosis & Treatment
Center is facing a class-action complaint filed June 15 in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Marcus Rutledge alleges denial of overtime compensation, in
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Rutledge v. Rahim Perwaiz, M.D., P.A., Case No. 8:07-cv-01040-
RAL-TBM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, under Judge Richard A. Lazzara, with referral to Judge Thomas B.
McCoun, III.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Kelly Allyssha Amritt
          Morgan & Morgan
          7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Phone: 954/318-0268
          954/333-3515
          E-mail: KAmritt@forthepeople.com


HOGLA-KIMBERLY: Suit Over Content of "Titulim" Diapers Abandoned
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hogla-Kimberly Ltd. reported that a court approved plaintiff's abandonment
from the petition for the approval of a class action filed against the
company regarding the reduction of the number of units of diapers in a
package of its "Titulim" brand.

The court also ordered the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal action,
with no expenses order.

In January, American Israeli Paper Mills Ltd. announced that a petition for
approval of a class action was filed against Hogla-Kimberly Ltd., an
affiliated company (Class Action Reporter Jan. 18, 2007)

According to the petition, three and a half years ago Hogla-Kimberly reduced
the quantity of wipes in the baby wipes packages of its "Titulim Premium"
brand and thus misled the public according to the Israeli Consumer
Protection Act.

The plaintiff estimates the scope of the class action to be approximately
$6.6 million.

For more information, contact:

          Philip Y. Sardoff
          American Israeli Paper Mills Ltd.
          Phone: +1-908-686-7500


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Court Partially Dismisses Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York partially
dismisses a securities fraud lawsuit against IAC/InterActiveCorp, 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 case arose out of the company's Aug. 4, 2004 announcement of its
earnings for the second quarter of 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 20, 2005, generally alleges
that the value of the company's stock was artificially inflated by pre-
announcement statements about it financial results and forecasts that were
false and misleading due to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose
various problems faced by the company's travel businesses.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders who purchased IAC
common stock between March 21, 2003 and Aug. 3,
2004.  The defendants are IAC and 14 current or former officers or directors
of the company or its former Expedia travel business.  

The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Two related shareholder derivative actions Garber and Butler have been
consolidated with the securities class action for pre- trial purposes.  

The consolidated shareholder derivative complaint, filed on July 5, 2005
against IAC (as a nominal defendant) and 16 current or former officers or
directors of the company or its former Expedia travel business, is based
upon factual allegations similar to those in the securities class action.  

It purports to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, violation
of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and contribution and indemnification.

The complaint seeks an order voiding the election of the company's current
Board of Directors, as well as damages in an unspecified amount, various
forms of equitable relief, restitution, and disgorgement of remuneration
received by the individual defendants from the company.

On Sept. 15, 2005, IAC and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint in the securities class action.  On
Nov. 30, 2005, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motions.  

On Jan. 6, 2006, the defendants filed reply papers in further support of the
dismissal motion.  On October 12, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the
motions to dismiss.

On March 22, 2007, the Court issued an opinion and order:

      -- granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the
         complaint in the securities class action, with leave to
         replead, and

      -- granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the
         complaint in the shareholder derivative suits, with
         prejudice.

The suit is "In re IAC/InteractiveCorp Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:04-cv-07447-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Richard J.
Holwell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
         Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz L.L.P.
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016;

              - and -

         Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
         Schatz & Nobel
         One Corporate Center, 20 Church Street, Suite 1700
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-493-6292

Representing the defendants is
        
         Stephen R. DiPrima, Esq.
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 403-1382
         Fax: (212) 403-2000
         E-mail: srdiprima@wlrk.com


MAINSTAR AMERICA: Recalls China-Made Toothpaste Containing DEG
--------------------------------------------------------------
MainStar America, LLC, Miami, Florida, is initiating a nationwide recall in
accordance with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the
toothpaste made in China involving:

Lot #20060708 – Item # 160-850 Dr. Cool Toothpaste 120 GR./4 OZ.
                UPC # 6926597170008;

Lot #20060708 – Item # 160-852 Superdent Toothpaste 120 GR./4 OZ
                UPC # 6926597170015; and

Lot #20060708 – Item # 160-860 Everfresh Smile2 Toothpaste
25                 
                GR./ 1 OZ UPC # 6926597089539.

This recall has been initiated because the products may contain the
poisonous chemical diethylene glycol (DEG).  DEG is used in antifreeze and
as a solvent, and is a Central Nervous System depressant and potent kidney
and liver toxin.

This voluntarily nationwide recall is being made with the knowledge of the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  No injuries or illnesses have been
reported to date in connection with this problem.

Adverse Reactions or quality problems experience with the use of this
product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting
program either online, by regular mail or fax.

Consumers who have the products should stop using/ return / throw away or
return the products to the place of purchase right away.

Retailers immediately examine your inventory and quarantine product subject
to recall.  In addition, if you may have further distributed this product,
please identify your customers and notify them at once of this product
recall.  Your notification to your customers may be enhanced by including a
copy of this recall notification.

FDA contact information:

     Online: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

     Regular Mail: use postage-paid FDA form 3500 available at              
     http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm

     Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178

     Mail to:
     
          MedWatch 5600 Fishers Lane
          Rockville, MD 20852-9787


NORDSTROM INC: Recalls Kids’ Jackets with Zipper That can Detach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nordstrom Inc. of Seattle, Wash., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, voluntarily recalls 1,900 Pine Peak Blues
Children’s Jackets.

According to the firm, the zipper pull can detach from the jacket’s zipper,
posing a choking hazard to young children.

Nordstrom has received one report of the zipper pull detaching.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recalled jackets were sold in infant, toddler and youth sizes.  They are
navy-colored and long-sleeved.  They have a zipper-front with the flag of
England embroidered on the left shoulder and an “England” patch on the left
chest.  There are two zipper front pockets in addition to the zipper
front.  “Pine Peak Blues” is printed on a label inside the jacket.

These jackets were manufactured in China and sold via Nordstrom stores from
November 2006 through April 2007 for about $35.

Click on the link to view the photo of the recalled jacket:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07215.html

Consumers should immediately take the recalled jacket away from children and
return it to any Nordstrom store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Nordstrom toll-free at (800) 933-3365
anytime, visit the firm’s Web site at http://www.nordstrom.com,or e-mail  
the firm at contact@nordstrom.com.


NORDSTROM INC: Recalls Kids’ Sandals with Parts That can Detach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nordstrom Inc. of Seattle, Wash., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of about 1,800
Calypso Sandals.

The company said the jewel decorations on the shoes can detach, posing a
choking hazard to young children.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Nordstrom brand sandals sold in toddler and little
girl’s sizes.  The Calypso-style shoes are tan and white with gold straps
that have three jeweled flowers on the top.  “Nordstrom” and a flower
pattern are embossed on the upper sole of the shoes.  Toddler sizes were
sold with an ankle strap.

These sandals were manufactured in China and were sold through Nordstrom
stores nationwide and on Nordstrom.com during February 2007 for about $27.

Click on the link to view the photo of the sandal:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07214.html

Consumers should immediately return the recalled sandals to any Nordstrom
store or Nordstrom.com for a full refund.

For additional information, call Nordstrom at (888) 282-6060 anytime, or
visit the firm’s Web site at http://www.nordstrom.com.


OMNICARE INC: Ky. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has yet to rule
on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a second amended complaint in a
purported securities fraud class action filed against Omnicare Inc. in
relation to the company's December 2005 public offering.  

On Feb. 2 and Feb. 13, 2006, respectively, two substantially similar
putative class actions were filed against the company:

     -- "Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers   
        Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No.   
        2:06cv26," and   

     -- "Chi v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv31"  

These suits were filed against the company and two of its officers in the
U.S. District Court For the Eastern District of Kentucky, purporting to
assert claims for violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaints, which purport to be brought on behalf of all company
shareholders, allege that the company artificially inflated its earnings by
engaging in improper generic drug substitution and that the defendants have
made false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
prospects.

Thus, the suit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
injunctive relief.

On March 7, 2006, the parties to both actions filed stipulations agreeing
that the cases should be consolidated and proposing a scheduling order for
the conduct of the actions upon consolidation.   

Those scheduling orders were entered on March 10, 2006.  On  
April 3, 2006 plaintiffs in the HOD Carriers case formally moved for
consolidation and the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act  of 1995.   

On May 22, 2006, that motion was granted, the cases were consolidated, and a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed.  

On July 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, adding
a third officer as a defendant and new factual allegations relating
primarily to revenue recognition, the valuation of receivables and the
valuation of inventories.  

On Oct. 31, 2006, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended
complaint, which was granted on January 26, 2007, on the condition that no
further amendments would be permitted absent extraordinary circumstances.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed their second amended complaint on Jan. 29, 2007.

The second amended complaint:

      -- expands the putative class to include all purchasers of
         Omnicare common stock from Aug. 3, 2005 through July
         27, 2006,

      -- names two members of the Company’s board of directors
         as additional defendants,

      -- adds a new plaintiff and a new claim for violation of
         Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
         alleged false and misleading statements in the
         registration statement filed in connection with the
         Company’s December 2005 public offering,

      -- alleges that the Company failed to timely disclose its
         contractual dispute with UnitedHealth, and

      -- alleges that the Company failed to timely record
         certain special litigation reserves.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March
12, 2007, claiming that plaintiffs had failed adequately to plead loss
causation, scienter or any actionable misstatement or omission.  

That motion has been fully briefed and is awaiting a date for an argument
and decision, 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 "Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers
Pension and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
00026-WOB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky under Judge William O. Bertelsman.  

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Shirley Huang, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: shirleyh@lerachlaw.com

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: rmaniskas@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Kevin L. Murphy, Esq.
         Graydon, Head & Ritchey, LLP
         2500 Chamber Center Drive, Suite 300, P.O. Box 17070
         Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017
         Phone: 859-344-0330
         Fax: 859-344-0886
         E-mail: kmurphy@graydon.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Richard W. Reinthaler, Esq.
         Dewey Ballantine LLP
         1301 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019-6092
         Phone: 212-258-8000
         Fax: 212-259-6333
         E-mail: lpmco@dbllp.com


PDI INC: Calif. Court Mulls Final OK for Labor Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco has yet to grant final approval to a settlement of a labor-related
class action filed against PDI, Inc.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the company was served with a complaint in a purported
class action that was commenced against the company in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Francisco on behalf of certain
of its current and former employees, alleging violations of certain sections
of the California Labor Code.

During the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2005, the company accrued approximately
$3.3 million for potential penalties and other settlement costs relating to
both asserted and unasserted claims relating to this matter.

In October 2005, the company filed an answer generally denying the
allegations set forth in the complaint.  

In December 2005, the company reached a tentative settlement of this action,
subject to court approval.  As a result, the company reduced its accrual
relating to asserted and unasserted claims relating to this matter to
$600,000 during the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005.

In October 2006, the company received preliminary settlement approval from
the court and the final approval hearing was held in January 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.

PDI, Inc. -- http://www.pdi-inc.com-- is a sales and marketing services  
company serving the biopharmaceutical and life sciences industries.  In
addition, the Company develops and executes continuing medical education
activities.


RC2 CORP: Faces Ind. Lawsuit Over Recalled Railway Toys
-------------------------------------------------------
RC2 Corp., Racing Champions ERTL Corp., and Learning Curve Brands are facing
a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana seeking damages for the “Thomas & Friends” toys, which
were recalled for lead paint hazard.

Earlier, RC2 Corp. of Oak Brook, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, voluntarily recalled nearly 1.5 million Various
Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway Toys (Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2007).

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.

Named plaintiffs -- Chad J. Sweeney, Gregg Theobald, Shay Theobald, Robert
MIller and Rachel Miller -- bring this action for equitable, injunctive, and
declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages.  

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs seek
certification of a national consumer class defined as all consumers who
purchased or paid for various Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway Toys --
included in the June 13 recall -- researched, manufactured, marketed,
promoted, advertised, sold, distributed, and/or placed into the stream of
commerce by the defendants.

RC2 Corp., Racing Champions, ERTL Corp., and Learning Curve Brands, Inc.
formally used to do business as The ERTL Company, Inc., Racing Champions
ERTL, Inc., RC ERTL, Inc. and RC2 Brands, Inc.

The purported class wants the court to determine:

     (a) whether and when defendants knew or should have known
         of its toys dangerous defects;

     (b) whether defendants knowingly, recklessly, or
         negligently concealed, suppressed or failed to disclose
         the health risks of their toys from regulators and the
         public;

     (c) whether defendants' conduct violated state consumer
         protection statutes and state fraud and deceptive
         practice acts;

     (d) whether defendants breached implied warranties covering
         its toys;

     (e) whether defendants acted negligently in the sale and
         promotion of their toys;

     (f) whether defendants were unjustly enriched at the
         expense of plaintiffs and the class; and

     (g) whether a national class or statewide classes, and/or
         other subclasses, are superior, within the requirements
         of Rule 23(b)(3), on any of the class claims.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter a judgment against defendants and in
favor of plaintiffs and grant the following relief:

     -- determine that this action may be maintained as a class
        action with respect to a national class or with
        subclasses corresponding to the several states' laws,
        or, in the alternative, an Indiana statewide class,
        pursuant to the appropriate subsections of Rule 23 of
        the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; that the court
        certify a class action with respect to particular issues
        if appropriate, and that the court designate and appoint
        plaintiff and counsel to serve as class representatives
        and class counsel;

     -- declare, adjudge and decree the conduct of the
        defendants as alleged herein to be unlawful;

     -- grant class members awards of actual, compensatory,
        punitive and/or exemplary damages in such amount to be
        determined at trial and as provided by applicable law;

     -- grant class members their costs of suit, including
        reasonable attorneys' fees, and expenses as provided by
        law; and

     -- grant class members such other, further, and indifferent
        relief as the nature of the case may require or as may
        be determined to be just, equitable, and proper by this
        court.

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

The suit is “Sweeney et al. v. RC2 Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00772-LJM-
WTL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
under Judge Larry J. McKinney with referral to Judge William T. Lawrence.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Aaron Cooke
          The Cooke Law Office
          PO Box 188
          331 Columbia Street
          Lafayette, IN 47902
          Phone: (765)423-5628
          Fax: (765-423-1373
          E-mail: aaron@cookelaw.com

          - and -

          William N. Riley
          Jamie Ranah Kendall
          Price WAicukauski & Riley
          301 Massachusetts Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: 317-633-8787
          Fax: 317-633-8797
          E-mail: jkendall@price-law.com or wriley@price-law.com


SOUTH AFRICA: Indigent Parents Sue to Compel Fee Exemptions
-----------------------------------------------------------
A school in Durban, South Africa and its officers are facing a legal
challenge aimed to ensure that schools apply legislation providing for
exemption from the payment of fees, Mail and Guardian Online’s David
Macfarlane reports.

Centre for Applied Legal Studies (Cals) brought the suit in the Durban High
Court on behalf of indigent parents at Hunt Road Secondary School.  The
South African Human Rights Commission is supporting the action.

The named plaintiffs include the Cals at Wits University, single parents
Audrey Ngubane and Emily Ngwira.  Both women are unemployed and have
children attending Hunt Road.

Cals seeks to represent other poor parents who are eligible for exemptions
from school fees but cannot act in their own names because of poverty, lack
of awareness of their rights and fear of their children being stigmatized or
discriminated against by the [school] authorities”.

The defendants are Hunt Road, school officers KwaZulu-Natal, Ina Cronje and
Naledi Pandor.

The class action claims that Hunt Road violated its legal duties by not
notifying two mothers of their rights to be exempted from school fees, by
not granting them exemptions despite their eligibility, and by unlawfully
suing them for unpaid fees.

Hunt Road opposed the claims, saying they face acute financial difficulties
because the government fails to financially support the schools for
exemptions they grant.

The suit also questions the effectiveness of the enforcement of the
citizens’ constitutional rights “as well as the effective enforcement of the
legal framework, which is in place to protect poor parents who cannot afford
to pay school fees, by ensuring that school principals and school governing
bodies implement the legal framework”.

The school denies the allegations, claiming it abided by the law.  The
school principal said in a statement that those parents in dire financial
situations must first apply relief from paying fees.

But according to the complaint, when Ms. Ngubane and Ms. Nwgira asked about
the exemptions, the school turned away, telling them to transfer their
children to township schools were they wouldn’t have to pay.


T.U.S.A. INC: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
T.U.S.A. Inc., Furniture Palace Inc., Universal Varieties Inc. and Nedal
Tayeh are facing a class-action complaint filed June 14 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Eugenio Suescun alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Suescun v. T.U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02400-BMC-
MDG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under
Judge Brian M. Cogan, with referral to Judge Marilyn D. Go.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Helen F Dalton
          Helen F. Dalton & Associates PC
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718)263-9591
          Fax: (718)263-9598
          E-mail: hfdalton6912@yahoo.com


TW COMMUNITIES: Sued in Fla. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
TW Communities, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed June 15 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Tom Dailey alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Dailey v. TW Communities, LLC et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-01034-
RAL-EAJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, under Judge Richard A. Lazzara, with referral to Judge Elizabeth A.
Jenkins.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Carlos V. Leach
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Phone: 407/420-1414
          Fax: 407/423-7928
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Appeals Court Rejects Suit by Physicians
------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group announced that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in
a two-page opinion, unanimously upheld a summary judgment in favor of the
company in a class action, “Shane v. Humana” filed by a group of physicians.

Beginning in 1999, a series of class actions were filed against both
UnitedHealthcare and PacifiCare Health Systems, and virtually all major
entities in the health benefits business.

In December 2000, a multidistrict litigation panel consolidated several
litigation cases involving the company and its affiliates in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District
Court of Florida.  

Generally, the health care provider plaintiffs alleged violations of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organization Act in connection with alleged undisclosed policies intended to
maximize profits.

Other allegations include breach of state prompt payment laws and breach of
contract claims for failure to timely reimburse providers for medical
services rendered.  

The consolidated suits sought injunctive, compensatory and equitable relief
as well as restitution, costs, fees and interest payments.

The trial court granted the health care providers' motion for class
certification and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit reviewed that order.  

During the course of the litigation, there have been co-defendant
settlements.  On Jan. 31, 2006, the trial court dismissed all remaining
claims against PacifiCare, and on June 19, 2006, the trial court dismissed
all remaining claims against
UnitedHealthcare brought by the lead plaintiff.

On July 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the dismissal of the claims
against UnitedHealthcare (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 16, 2007).

Recently the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a summary
judgment in favor of the company.  

Thomas L. Strickland, executive vice president and chief legal officer of
UnitedHealth Group, said: "We are pleased that this decision puts the ‘Shane
v. Humana’ class action claims behind us.  

“This ruling affirms the Southern District Court of Florida's finding in
support of our position that there was no evidence of improper conduct by
UnitedHealth Group.  UnitedHealth Group looks forward to continuing to work
collegially with physicians and their professional organizations to improve
the quality of care delivery and to simplify health care administration."

                    About UnitedHealth Group

UnitedHealth Group (http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com)is a diversified  
health and well-being company dedicated to making health care work better.  
Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minn., UnitedHealth Group offers a broad
spectrum of products and services through six operating businesses:
UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice, Uniprise, Specialized Care Services
and Ingenix. Through its family of businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves
approximately 70 million individuals nationwide.


VALU-LODGE: Lawsuit in Fla. Alleges Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Valu-Lodge of New Port Richey, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
June 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Theresa Herron alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Herron v. Valu-Lodge of New Port Richey, Inc. et al., Case No.
8:07-cv-01035-EAK-TGW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, under Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich, with referral to
Judge Thomas G. Wilson.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Carlos V. Leach
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Phone: 407/420-1414
          Fax: 407/423-7928
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


WHOLESOY & CO: Expands Recall of Yogurt with Undeclared Dairy
-------------------------------------------------------------
WholeSoy & Co. of San Francisco, Calif. is expanding their allergy alert to
include an additional batch of WholeSoy & Co. Blueberry yogurt and two
additional batches of WholeSoy & Co. Mixed Berry yogurt.  Previously, only
one batch of Blueberry yogurt was recalled.

WholeSoy & Co. is recalling 71,508 cups of WholeSoy & Co. Blueberry yogurt
and 17,112 cups of WholeSoy & Co. Mixed Berry yogurt because they may
contain undeclared dairy.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity
to dairy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

The affected batches of Blueberry yogurt have "best by" date of June 22
and "best by" date of June 29.  The UPC code is 664372600086.  The
containers are 6oz plastic yogurt cups.

The affected batches of Mixed Berry yogurt have "best by" date of June 22
and "best by" date of June 29.  The UPC code is 664372600222.  The
containers are 6oz plastic yogurt cups.

The recall was initiated after allergy tests confirmed the presence of dairy
in samples sent for testing after two customers reported allergic
reactions.  Subsequent tests indicate the source of the dairy to be a batch
of blueberry fruit used in both of these flavors.  No other flavors of
WholeSoy & Co. soy yogurts contain this ingredient.

The yogurt was distributed nationwide through retailers.

Consumers who have purchased WholeSoy & Co. Blueberry yogurt or WholeSoy &
Co. Mixed Berry yogurt with "best by" date June 22 or June 29 are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-877-569-6376.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
June 21-22, 2007
ASBESTOS CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Las Vegas
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

July 11-13, 2007
Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts CN009
ALI-ABA
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

July 18-19, 2007
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE ON TRIAL
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

October 11-12, 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 8-9, 2007
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT SECURITIES, TAX,
ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

June 20, 2007
MEALEY'S ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ETHICS AND SETTLEMENTS-THE ETHICAL
PITFALLS IN MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 20, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: FOOD LIABILITY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 21, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: IDENTIFYING AND PROVING INFRINGEMENT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 26, 2007
MEALEY'S TOXIC TORT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 27, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE SERIES: REINSURANCE ARBITRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE SERIES: INSURANCE ISSUES REGARDING SUBPRIME
MORTGAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR
CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND
ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org


________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.                        


                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, and Mary
Grace Durana, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication
in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and
photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the
publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of
the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For subscription
information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *