CAR_Public/070621.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 21, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 122

                           Headlines
     
3M CO: Minn. Court Refuses to Certify PCF Pollution Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: NSW Irrigators Seek Better Water Cut Compensation
AWB LTD: Faces New U.N. Oil-for-Food Fraud Suit in New York
BOSTON BEER: Nixing of Certain Underage Drinking Suits Appealed
CALIFORNIA: Dept. of Health Sued Over “Fee Schedule Areas”

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Ark. Supreme Court Rules Over Jurisdiction
COSMETICS FIRMS: Face $407M Suit in Israel Over Wrinkle Creams
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: N.C. Court Certifies Suit Over Dodge Durango
EFUNDS CORP: Sued in Tenn. Over “Inaccurate” Check Verification
GEOCENTRAL: Recalls Children’s Necklaces with High Lead Content

INDONESIA: Health Advocates Mull Suit Over Poor Tobacco Laws
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces PROPULSID-Related Litigation in Canada
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over DITROPAN XL
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: June 2007 Trial Set for Mass. AWP Litigation
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suits Over Endo-Mechanical Contracts

LIBERTY GLOBAL: Consolidated Suit Over UGC Merger in Discovery
NEENAH PAPER: Faces Canadian Litigation Over Retiree Benefits
NORTH SHORE: No Amended Complaint Filed in Ill. Fees Litigation
NUVELO INC: Asks N.Y. Court to Send Securities Suits to Calif.
OSI RESTAURANT: Settles Lawsuits Over Disposal to Bain Capital

OSI RESTAURANT: Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuits in Pa., Calif.
OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Still Faces Job Discrimination Suit in Colo.
PAMPANGA FOODS: Recalls Pork Rolls with Undeclared Allergens
PEOPLES ENERGY: Ill. Consumers’ Fraud Suit Denied Certification
QUANTA CAPITAL: Lead Plaintiffs Appointed in Securities Lawsuits

RADIAN GROUP: Plaintiff in “Rubery” Moves to Remand Lawsuit
RAILROADS: Dakota Granite Files Suit Over Alleged Price Fixing
SOUTH DAKOTA: District Settles Suit over Indian Discrimination
WAL-MART STORES: Mo. Appeals Court Lets Workers Sue as Group
WAL-MART STORES: N.M. Court Upholds Class in Workers’ Lawsuit

WAL-MART STORES: N.Y. Court Refuses to Certify Workers’ Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Leave to Appeal Truckers’ Suit in Ark.
WASHINGTON: WTO Protesters Get Compensated for Illegal Arrest
WEB.COM INC: Plaintiffs in TCPA Suit to Appeal Pa. Court Ruling
WIZARD OF CLAWS: Puppy Dealer Sued for Selling Sick Pets


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Lerach Files Calif. Securities Lawsuit


                            *********


3M CO: Minn. Court Refuses to Certify PCF Pollution Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Hannon of Washington County (Minn.) rejected a motion to grant
class-action status to a suit accusing 3M Co. of contaminating drinking
water in Washington County, The Associated Press reports.

                           Case Background

In October 2004, two residents of Washington County filed a purported class
action on behalf of other residents in the area whose properties were
allegedly harmed and who have allegedly suffered personal injury due to
emissions from the company's former perfluorooctanyl production facility at
Cottage Grove.  

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages in excess of $50,000 per plaintiff and
class member.  After the District Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the claims for medical monitoring and public nuisance in April 2005,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding additional allegations
involving other perfluoronated compounds manufactured by the company.  

The amended complaint is alleging additional legal theories in support of
their claims, adding four plaintiffs, and seeking relief based on alleged
contamination of the City of Oakdale municipal water supply and certain
private wells in the vicinity of Lake Elmo, Minnesota.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding two additional plaintiffs.  The two original plaintiffs
thereafter dismissed their claims against the company.

Plaintiffs' counsel has amended their definition of the purported class.  
The current (and fourth) definition includes all individuals whose
residential drinking water in Minnesota is or has been supplied by one or
more wells containing one or more carboxylated perfluorochemicals at a
concentration exceeding 1.0 part per billion, or containing one or more
sulfonated perfluorochemicals at a concentration exceeding 0.6 part per
billion.

                       Certification Hearing

During a certification hearing on March 27, plaintiff lawyer Marti Wivell
produced a timeline showing that 3M knew as early as 1976 that massive doses
of PFCs cause liver changes" in rats.  Her team wanted 67,700 residents of
Washington County included in the suit (Class Action Reporter, March 29,
2007).  The class she wanted to establish would exclude Woodbury and
Hastings, but include Lake Elmo, Oakdale, Cottage Grove and St. Paul Park.

3M attorneys claim the plaintiffs' allegations are bogus.  "There was no
illness, disease, injury or bodily harm caused by PFCs recognized by any
licensed professional," said 3M attorney Cooper Ashley.  3M wants the case
to go ahead with only six plaintiffs.

The judge recently ruled that the plaintiffs failed to meet the extensive
legal requirements under Minnesota law to get the lawsuit certified as a
class action.

But she wrote that the lawsuit can still go forward on behalf of the
plaintiffs who filed it.

3M Co. on the Net: http://www.mmm.com/.


AUSTRALIA: NSW Irrigators Seek Better Water Cut Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Irrigators in New South Wales who seek compensation for water cuts made last
year have renewed hope for a class action against the government, FarmOnline
reports.

The planned suit stems from a sudden 52 percent cut of their water
allocations late last year.

Despite the AUS$20 million ex gratia package announced early this year,
these irrigators feel they deserve a better compensatory package.

Attorney John Taylor said that although the government insists the
compensatory package was for drought assistance, not “compensation”
or “structural adjustment, a deed of release which waive rights of
irrigators for future legal action for the suspension of water indicates
otherwise.  He added the deed could be invalid if irrigators sign the
agreement.

Mr. Taylor said that since it is an ex gratia payment and not compensation,
the government should not expect anything in return.

For more information, contact the plaintiffs’ counsel:

          John Taylor, Esq.
          39 High Street
          Cobram VIC 3644
          Phone: 03 5872 1966
          Fax: 03 5872 1963


AWB LTD: Faces New U.N. Oil-for-Food Fraud Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wheat exporter and rural services provider AWB Ltd. received notification of
a third class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Sydney Morning Herald reports.

The complaint, brought on behalf of Dennis Brothers and U.S. wheat growers,
alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
and U.S. anti-trust laws.

From 1999 until 2003, AWB allegedly paid bribes and kickbacks to the Saddam
Hussein regime in exchange for exclusive contracts for wheat sales under the
U.N.'s "Oil for Food Program" and to keep its competition -- American-grown
wheat -- out of the Iraqi market.

As a result, American farmers were stuck with an oversupply of wheat during
that period which depressed the prices at which they could sell their wheat
(Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2007).

The complaint didn’t quantify the amount of damages.

The firm said the suit is similar to two complaints filed earlier by other
U.S. wheat growers.  AWB seeks to have all three consolidated into “US Wheat
grower’ class action.

AWB added it will defend itself vigorously.

The suit is “Brothers v. AWB Limited et al, Case No: 1:07-cv-05649-UA.”  No
judge has been assigned to case yet.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steven A. Asher, Esq.
          Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC
          1845 Walnut Street Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 299-2000
          Fax: (215) 545-6535
          E-mail: asher@wka-law.com

               -  and  -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Fax: (612) 339-0981


BOSTON BEER: Nixing of Certain Underage Drinking Suits Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in several class actions in various states relating to
advertising practices and under-age consumption have appealed the dismissal
of their cases against Boston Beer Co., Inc. and other alcoholic beverage
producers as defendants.

Each complaint contains substantially the same allegations that each
defendant marketed its products to underage consumers and seeks an
injunction and unspecified money damages on behalf of a class of parents and
guardians.  The Company has been fighting this litigation.

In September 2005, the plaintiffs withdrew one of the complaints.  In
February 2006, two of the complaints were dismissed.

However, the plaintiffs are appealing one action's dismissal.
The actions are in their earliest stages.

The Company, along with numerous other beverage alcohol producers, has been
named as a defendant in a number of class actions in several states relating
to advertising practices and under-age consumption.

Each complaint contains substantially the same allegations that each
defendant marketed its products to under-age drinkers and seeks an
injunction and unspecified money damages on behalf of a class of parents and
guardians.

The Company has been defending this litigation vigorously.  The plaintiffs
have withdrawn two of the complaints and all of the other active complaints
have been dismissed with prejudice.

However, the plaintiffs have appealed each of those dismissals, 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 Boston Beer Co., Inc. -- http://www.bostonbeer.com/-- is engaged in the  
business of producing and selling low-alcoholic beverages.  


CALIFORNIA: Dept. of Health Sued Over “Fee Schedule Areas”
----------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Health and Human Services is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California over alleged overcharging of Medicare patients and underserving
them by using outdated payment schedules based on geographical “fee schedule
areas” that have not been revised since 1996, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Yolanda Marchetti claims Medicare patients have been
overcharged by $500 million because of HHS’ refusal to respond to numerous
requests to update the fee schedule areas.

According to the complaint, Medicare makes payments to physician for
providing services to Medicare beneficiaries based on the average costs
incurred by physicians in providing similar services in the same geographic
area relative to the national average costs.  Medicare beneficiaries are
charged a deductible of 20% of the cost of services and supplies received.

Plaintiff seeks compensation for overpayments from March 16, 2001 to the
present made by them under the U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter
XVIII, Part B, "Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled."

Plaintiff's action challenges the constitutional and statutory validity of
an agency rule or policy, and is not a challenge to the accuracy of the
agency's calculation of benefits or a challenge to a carrier's
misapplication or misrepresentation of valid rules and regulations.

Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

     -- for a declaration or finding that Medicare has acted
        unconstitutionally and without authority in failing and
        refusing to modify the fee schedule areas to ensure that
        Medicare beneficiaries are appropriately and equitably
        charged for services and supplies and supplies received
        by Medicare beneficiaries;

     -- for a declaration or finding that Medicare has denied
        plaintiffs and members of the class equal protection of
        the law;

     -- for a declaration or finding that Medicare has deprived
        plaintiffs and members of the class of property
        interests without due process of law;

     -- for a declaration or finding that 42 U.S.C. Section
        1395w-4(j)(2) is unconstitutional as applied to
        plaintiffs and members of the class;

     -- for a declaration or finding that 42 C.F.R. Section
        414.4 is unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs and
        members of the class;

     -- for a declaration or finding that Medicare has
        unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed the
        reconfiguration of the current locality structure;

     -- for an order requiring Medicare to initiate appropriate
        action to modify the current payment locality structure
        to rectify overpayments by plaintiffs and members of the
        class;

     -- for a declaration or finding that Medicare's failure to
        reconfigure the current locality structure is arbitrary,
        capricious, or an abuse of discretion;

     -- for a declaration or finding that Medicare's failure to
        reconfigure the current locality structure has denied
        plaintiffs and members of the class a statutory right
        under 42 U.S.C. Section 1395w-a to be charged for
        services and supplies and supplies provided under Part B
        of Medicare at a rate that reflects the true economic
        costs of the services and supplies they provide relative
        to the national average of those costs;

     -- for a declaration or finding that Medicare has
        unlawfully delegated its duty to reconfigure localities
        to state medical associations;

     -- for a declaration or finding that Medicare has
        unlawfully delegated its duty to reconfigure localities
        to state medical associations;

     -- for a declaration or finding that Medicare has no
        authority to find or conclude that it may impose
        statewide budget neutrality on a locality conversion,
        and for an order setting aside such findings or
        conclusions;

     -- for a declaration or finding that Medicare has no
        authority to find or conclude that it may not modify
        GPCIs in conjunction with locality changes;

     -- for a declaration or finding that Medicare has no
        authority to find or conclude that it may delegate any
        part of the process of creating or modifying localities
        to state medical associations;

     -- for damages in the approximate amount of $500,000,000
        from March 16, 2001, to date, the exact amount of which
        will be determined according to proof;

     -- for a declaration or finding that the Department of
        Health and Human Services and supplies lacks the
        authority to determine the legal issues involved in the
        claims made;

     -- for such other and further relief as is just and
        appropriate;

     -- for an award of attorneys fees and costs as authorized
        by law.

The suit is “Marchetti, et al., v. Leavitt, Case No. 2:07-cv-01179-FCD-KJM,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of California, under
Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr., with referral to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          William H. Parish
          Parish & Small
          1919 Grand Canal Blvd., Suite A-1
          Stockton, CA 95207
          Phone: 209-952-1992
          Fax: 209-952-0250
          E-mail: whparish@parishsmall.com


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Ark. Supreme Court Rules Over Jurisdiction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s Public Service Commission
has the jurisdiction for plaintiffs in an antitrust class action filed
against Centerpoint Energy, Texarkana Gazette’s Lynn Larowe reports.

CenterPoint Energy is accused of fraudulently fixing the price of natural
gas, conspiring to artificially inflate the cost of natural gas, and passing
the cost to residential and commercial customers as a regular "add on" to
their base charges.  The scheme allegedly allowed CenterPoint to buy cheaper
gas to sell at greater profits to manufacturers, industrial users and oil
refineries (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2006).

The suit affects about 5 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas,
Oklahoma and Mississippi.

In June 2006, the utility companies sought for dismissal saying the matter
can be handled by state regulators and asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to
decide whether the state indeed had jurisdiction.

The defendants in the suit further asserted that the Texas Railroad
Commission and similar agencies in other states involved must have
jurisdiction over the issue in their respective states.  But the Supreme
Court refused to decide regarding jurisdiction in other states.

In a ruling this month, Judge Jim Hudson keeps the out-of-state plaintiffs
under his turf but hands the jurisdiction over the Arkansas plaintiffs from
Miller County Circuit to the Arkansas Public Service Commission, a state
regulatory agency.

A class certification hearing was initially scheduled for May but was
postponed until the Supreme Court’s decision.  A new date for granting class
status for the other states will have to be scheduled soon.

Except for residential customers in Arkansas, all those involved in other
states will be notified whether they are eligible to join the suit if the
court grants class-action status.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Phillip Cockrell, Esq.
          Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw
          Century Plaza, Suite 400, 2900
          St. Michael Drive, P.O. Box 6128
          Texarkana, Texas 75505-6128
          Phone: 903-334-7000
          Fax: 903-334-7007
          Web Site: http://www.pattonroberts.com

Representing the defendant is:

          B. Daryl Bristow, Esq.
          Baker Botts L.L.P.
          One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana
          Houston, Texas 77002  
          Phone: 713-229-1234
          Fax: 713-229-1522


COSMETICS FIRMS: Face $407M Suit in Israel Over Wrinkle Creams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cosmetics companies are facing a $406,926,061 class action in a Tel Aviv
court over the claimed capabilities of their anti-wrinkle products, Carmel
Ben-Zour of Haaretz.com reports.

Named in the suit are:

          -- L'Oreal,
          -- Lancome, and
          -- InterBeauty Cosmetics Israel

The suit alleges that the companies making or distributing cosmetics
products for women promise that their products will smooth wrinkles in the
face, or fill or repair facial wrinkles.  However, there is no scientific
evidence to back the companies' promises, the plaintiffs argue that it is
outright fraud.

The claims caused a number of women in Israel to buy these products, wasting
their money on an illusion that the cosmetic product can actually reduce
their wrinkles, Ms. Ben-Zour reports.

The companies are violating the law that prohibits them from misleading
consumers, say the plaintiffs, adding that there is a causative relationship
between the violation and the harm that the consumers suffer.

The suit appends an opinion by a dermatology expert, who ruled that
moisturizers can reduce wrinkles only marginally and temporarily, by wetting
the outermost layer of skin with water and trapping the water in the layer
with oily compounds.

According to Ms. Ben-Zour’s report, the claim amount was reached based on
the assumption that 50% of the women in Israel aged 30 to 50, or 447,000
women, used or still use these products, and that 40% of them bought
products from the defendants at an average monthly cost of $65.85 per
consumer.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: N.C. Court Certifies Suit Over Dodge Durango
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Osteen of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina certified a lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler AG over alleged
defects in its Dodge Durangos made between 1998 and 2003.

In 2003, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration started
investigating Durangos after four drivers reported the failure of a ball
joint in the front suspension.  The agency said 749 complaints allege that
those ball joints are wearing out prematurely.

In 2004, North Carolina attorney John Bussian filed a lawsuit in Durham
County Superior Court claiming DaimlerChrysler should repair alleged defects
in the Dodge Durangos (Class Action Reporter, March 12, 2004).  The suit was
moved to the U.S. District Court in Greensboro.

The case involves all 1998 and 1999 model Durangos and two-wheel drive
versions of the vehicle from 2000 to 2003.  The lawsuit accuses
DaimlerChrysler of putting faulty ball joints on the trucks.

The class action certification allows residents who can show "actual
injury," to join in the lawsuit.  Judge Osteen’s ruling defines actual
injury as having sold the vehicle at a reduced amount, having had to replace
the ball joint or having suffered property damage as a result of the ball
joint’s failure.

The suit is “Bussian v. DaimlerChrysler AG et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00387-
WLO,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina, under Judge William Osteen.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          John F. Bloss, Sr.
          David M. Clark
          Clark Bloss & Wall, PLLC
          POB 1349
          Greensboro, NC 27402
          Phone: 336-275-7275
          Fax: 336-275-7276
          E-mail: jblosslaw@gmail.com or cbw@cbw-law.com

          - and -

          Jonathan Wall
          Robertson Medlin & Troutman, PLLC
          125 S. Elm St., STE. 100
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Phone: 336-378-9881
          Fax: 336-378-9886
          E-mail: jwall@robertsonmedlin.com

Representing defendants are:

          Christopher Terry Graebe
          Burley Bayard Mitchell, Jr.
          Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
          POB 831
          Rasleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: 919-755-2158 or 919-755-8166
          Fax: 919-755-6769
          E-mail: bmitchell@wcsr.com

          Michael Montecalvo
          Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
          One West Fourth Street
          Winston-Salem, NC 27101
          Phone: 336-721-3770
          Fax: 336-726-6912
          E-mail: mmontecalvo@wcsr.com

          - and -

          Charles A. Newman
          Kathy A. Wisniewski
          Bryan Cave LLP
          One Metropolitan Sq.
          211 N. Broadway, 3600
          ST. Louis, MI 63102
          Phone: 314-259-2000 or 314-259-2523
          Fax: 919-755-6048 or 314-259-2020
          E-mail: cgraebe@wcsr.com or kawisniewski@bryancave.com


EFUNDS CORP: Sued in Tenn. Over “Inaccurate” Check Verification
---------------------------------------------------------------
eFunds Corp., dba Deposit Payment Protection Services is accused of
providing inaccurate check verification and consumer reports in a class
action filed June 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee.

Named plaintiffs Kimberly Sammons and Cheryl Beaudry bring this action for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et.
seq.  They contend that defendants willfully violated and continue to
violate the FCRA.

Under the FCRA, a "consumer reporting agency" is defined as "any person
which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative non-profit basis,
regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or
evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for
the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses
any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or
furnishing consumer reports."

Further, the FCRA provides that consumers have the right to obtain a
disclosure from a consumer reporting agency at any time.  If a consumer
requests a disclosure from a consumer reporting agency, the consumer
reporting agency is required to provide the following:

     (a) all information in the consumer's file at the time of
         request (15 U.S.C. Section 1681g(a)(1);

     (b) the sources of the information in the consumer's file
         (15 U.S.C. Section 1681g(a)(2); and

     (c) the name of the persons, or trade names of the persons
         if applicable, who procured a consumer report from the
         consumer reporting agency during the 1-year period
         preceding the consumer's request for a disclosure (15
         U.S.C. Section 1681g(a)(3).

The plaintiffs claim the defendants:

     (1) refused or failed to provide all information in the
         consumer's file at the time of the request;

    (2) refused or failed to provide the sources of the
        information in the consumer's file at that time of the
        request; and/or

    (3) refused or failed to identify each person (or trade name
        if applicable) that procured a consumer report regarding
        the consumer from defendants during the 1-year period
        preceding the date on which the consumer's request was
        made.

Thus the common questions of law are:

     (a) whether defendants' reports provided consumers violate
         the FCRA;

     (b) whether defendants' noncompliance was a willful
         violation of the FCRA;

     (c) if willful, whether plaintiffs and members of the class
         are entitled to statutory damages; and

     (d) if not willful, whether defendants' violations of the
         FCRA were negligent.

Plaintiffs request the following relief:

     -- acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause;

     -- certification of the case as a class action maintained
        under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
        23(b)(2);

     -- in addition to or in the alternative, certification of
        the case as a class action maintained under Fed. R. Civ.
        P 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3);

     -- in addition to or in the alternative, certification of
        the case as a class action maintained under Fed. R. Civ.
        P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4);

     -- designation of the plaintiffs, as representative of the
        class, and their counsel of record as class counsel;

     -- a declaratory judgment that defendant's policies,
        practices and procedures challenged, as well as
        defendant's standard and uniform consumer disclosures,
        violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act;

     -- a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs' and the class'
        rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act were violated
        by defendants;

     -- a declaratory judgment that defendants' violations of
        the Fair Credit Reporting Act were willful or in the
        alternative, negligent;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction against
        defendants from further violations of the Fair Credit
        Reporting Act;

     -- an order requiring defendant to initiate and implement
        policies, practices and procedures that:

          (1) remedy defendants' past and present violations of
              the Fair Credit Reporting Act; and

         (ii) eliminate the continuing violations of the Fair
              Credit Reporting Act;

     -- an order requiring defendants to initiate and implement
        policies, practices and procedures for complying with
        the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including those to
        provide disclosure to plaintiffs, class members and
        future consumers that comply with requirements contained
        in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681g;

     -- an award statutory damages if defendants are found to
        have willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act;

     -- an award of punitive damages if defendants are found to
        have willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act;

     -- an award of prejudgment interest if defendants are found
        to have willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting
        Act;

     -- an award of prejudgment interest if defendants are found
        to have willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting
        Act;

     -- an award of litigation, costs and expenses, including
        reasonable attorney's fees to the plaintiffs and to the
        members of the class;

     -- that jury try this cause; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court may deem just
        and proper.

The suit is “Sammons et al v. eFunds Corporation, Case No. 3:07-cv-00656,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, under
Judge Robert Echols, with referral to Judge John S. Bryant.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Martin D. Holmes
          Stewart, Estes & Donnell, PLC
          Fifth Third Center
          424 Church Street, Suite 1401
          Nashville, TN 37219-2392
          Phone: (615) 244-6538
          E-mail: mdholmes@sedlaw.com


GEOCENTRAL: Recalls Children’s Necklaces with High Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
GeoCentral of Napa, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of nearly 19,000
Butterfly Necklaces.

The company said metal clasp on the necklace contains high levels of lead.  
Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health
effects.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled necklaces consist of a multi-colored butterfly pendant on a
multi-colored seed bead 16-inch necklace.  The product’s packaging includes
a white hang card with “GeoJewelry” printed on the front
underneath “GeoCentral.”

These necklaces were manufactured in China and were sold at souvenir and
gift stores nationwide from January 2006 through May 2007 for about $2.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled jewelry away from children
and return them to store where purchased for a full refund or contact
GeoCentral for information on how to obtain a full refund.

For additional information, contact GeoCentral at (800) 231-6083 between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at
http://www.geocentral.com.


INDONESIA: Health Advocates Mull Suit Over Poor Tobacco Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
A prominent consumer group said Monday it would file a class action against
the government if it failed to impose stricter tobacco regulations
protecting children from cigarettes before the year ends, Alvin Darlanika
Soedarjo of the Jakarta Post reports.

The Indonesian Consumers Foundation coordinator Tulus Abadi said the
Indonesian government needs to do something about tightening tobacco laws by
ratifying the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

He added that "The government is reluctant to implement a comprehensive
regulation. They focus on the economic factors rather than the health
factors of tobacco consumption."

Based on the data the foundation gathered in 2004, about 78 percent of
smokers began smoking before reaching 19.  In addition, the percentage of
children between five and nine who smoke rose from 0.35 percent to 1.65
percent.

The FCTC makes governments block the advertising of cigarettes and ascertain
that 30 percent of tobacco packaging bears health warnings.

Hakim Sorimuda Pohan, Deputy Chairman of the Indonesian Forum of
Parliamentarians on Population and Development, agreed that the country
needs to have better tobacco laws as soon as possible, according to the
report.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces PROPULSID-Related Litigation in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is facing a purported class action pending in Canada with
regards to the heartburn drug, PROPULSID, 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 April 1, 2007.

Purported class is alleging adverse reactions to the drug, which was
withdrawn from general sale by the company's Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.
subsidiary in 2000.

Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com-- is engaged in the research and  
development, manufacture and sale of a range of products in the healthcare
field.  Johnson & Johnson has more than 250 operating companies.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over DITROPAN XL
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson and ALZA Corp. received seven antitrust class action
complaints filed by purchasers of the DITROPAN XL product, 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 April 1, 2007.

The suits allege that Johnson & Johnson and ALZA violated federal and state
antitrust laws by knowingly pursuing baseless patent litigation, and thereby
delaying entry into the market by other companies with regards to the
product.

Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com-- is engaged in the research and  
development, manufacture and sale of a range of products in the healthcare
field.  Johnson & Johnson has more than 250 operating companies.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: June 2007 Trial Set for Mass. AWP Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2007 trial is slated for a national class action on behalf of
individuals who paid co-payments for Medicare Part B drugs in the litigation
related to the inflation Average Wholesale Price (AWP) of certain drugs.

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries, along with
numerous other pharmaceutical companies, are defendants in a series of
lawsuits in state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing
and marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and
otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies
allegedly reported an inflated AWP for the drugs at issue.

Most of these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed to
federal court, have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-
District Litigation (MDL) in Federal District Court in Boston,
Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs in these cases include classes of private persons or entities
that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs at issue based on
AWP, and state government entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs
at issue based on AWP.

In the MDL proceeding in Boston, plaintiffs moved for class certification of
all or some portion of their claims. On August 16, 2005, the trial judge
certified Massachusetts-only classes of private insurers providing "Medi-
gap" insurance coverage and private payers for physician-administered drugs
where payments were based on AWP.

The judge also allowed plaintiffs to file a new complaint seeking to name
proper parties to represent a national class of individuals who made co-
payments for physician-administered drugs covered by Medicare.

The Court of Appeals declined to allow an appeal of those issues and in
January 2006, the court certified the national class as noted above.

A trial of the two Massachusetts-only class actions concluded before the
Massachusetts District Court in December 2006.  A decision is expected in
the third or fourth quarter of 2007.

The trial judge has scheduled jury trials to begin in June 2007 in the
national class action on behalf of individuals who paid co-payments for
Medicare Part B drugs.

Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com-- is engaged in the research and  
development, manufacture and sale of a range of products in the healthcare
field.  Johnson & Johnson has more than 250 operating companies.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suits Over Endo-Mechanical Contracts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson, along with its wholly owned Ethicon and Ethicon Endo-
Surgery subsidiaries, remain defendants in several federal suits pending in
California relating to endo-mechanical contracts, 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 April 1, 2007.

In late December of 2005 and early 2006, three purported class actions were
filed on behalf of purchasers of endo-mechanical instruments against the
Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon Endo-
Surgery, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc.

These challenge suture and endo-mechanical contracts with Group Purchasing
Organizations and hospitals, in which discounts are predicated on a hospital
achieving specified market share targets for both categories of products.  

These actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com-- is engaged in the research and  
development, manufacture and sale of a range of products in the healthcare
field.  Johnson & Johnson has more than 250 operating companies.


LIBERTY GLOBAL: Consolidated Suit Over UGC Merger in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Global, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class action in the
Delaware Court of Chancery regarding its announcement on January 18, 2005 of
the execution by UnitedGlobalCom, Inc. and the company of the agreement and
plan of merger for the combination of the two companies under Liberty Global.

Since Jan. 18, 2005, 21 lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, and one lawsuit was filed in the Denver District Court, State of
Colorado, all purportedly on behalf of public stockholders.  

The defendants named in these actions include UnitedGlobalCom and former
directors of UnitedGlobalCom and Liberty Global.

The allegations in each of the complaints, which were substantially similar,
assert that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty,
care, good faith and candor and that various defendants have engaged in self-
dealing and unjust enrichment, approved an unfair price, and impeded or
discouraged other offers for UnitedGlobalCom or its assets in bad faith and
for improper motives.

The complaints sought various remedies, including damages for the public
holders of UnitedGlobalCom's stock and an award of attorney's fees to
plaintiffs' counsel.

On Feb. 11, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated all 21
Delaware lawsuits into a single action.  Also, on April 20, 2005, the Denver
District Court, State of Colorado, issued an order granting a joint
stipulation for stay of the action filed in this court, pending the final
resolution of the consolidated action in Delaware.

On May 5, 2005, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a consolidated
amended complaint containing allegations substantially similar to those
found in, and naming the same defendants named in, the original complaints.

The defendants filed their answers to the consolidated amended complaint on
September 30, 2005.  The parties are proceeding with pre-trial discovery
activity.

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

Liberty Global, Inc. -- http://www.lgi.com/-- is an international broadband  
communications provider of video, voice and Internet access services, with
consolidated broadband operations in 16 countries (excluding Belgium).  
LGI’s operations are primarily in Europe, Japan and Chile. Through its
indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, UPC Holding BV (UPC Holding) and Liberty
Global Switzerland, Inc. (LG Switzerland), LGI provides broadband
communications services in 10 European countries (excluding Belgium).


NEENAH PAPER: Faces Canadian Litigation Over Retiree Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neenah Paper, Inc. (NPI) faces a purported class action in Canada over the
wrongful reduction and/or elimination of certain retiree benefits.

On Dec. 21, 2006, certain retirees of Neenah Paper Company of Canada (NPCC)
brought a proposed class action against the NPCC, NPI, and Kimberly-Clark
Inc. alleging the wrongful reduction and/or elimination of certain retiree
benefits following Neenah Canada’s transfer of the Terrace Bay pulp and
woodlands operations to Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. and Eagle Logging Inc.  

The purported class has not been certified, 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.

Neenah Paper, Inc. -- http://www.neenah.com-- is a North American producer  
of fine papers and technical products.  Neenah also produces bleached kraft
market pulp in Canada, where the Company owns approximately one million
acres of timberlands and has rights to harvest wood of approximately 4.8
million acres of other timberlands.  Neenah has three primary operations:
fine paper business, technical products business and pulp business. The fine
paper business is a producer of writing, text, cover and specialty papers
used in corporate annual reports, corporate identity packages, invitations,
personal stationery and packaging.  The technical products business is a
producer of saturated and coated base papers and films for a range of end
uses.  The pulp business primarily produces northern bleached softwood kraft
pulp used by paper mills to manufacturer tissue and printing and writing
papers.


NORTH SHORE: No Amended Complaint Filed in Ill. Fees Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action against North Shore Gas Co. (NSG),
and several other companies, which accuses them of improperly charging
connection and disconnection fees to several Chicago-based builders, have
yet to file an amended complaint in the matter.

In June 2005, a purported class action was filed against Peoples Energy
Corp. (PEC) and its utility subsidiaries, including NSG by Birchwood
Builders, LLC, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging that
NSG was fraudulently and improperly charging fees to customers with respect
to utility connections, disconnections, reconnections, relocations,
extensions of gas service pipes and extensions of distribution gas mains and
failing to return related customer deposits.  

The suit was initially filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois.

NSG filed two motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  On Jan. 25, 2007, the judge
entered an order dismissing the complaint, but allowing the plaintiffs the
option of filing an amended complaint (except as to the plaintiffs’ seeking
of declaratory relief, which was dismissed with prejudice).

The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs could file their claims directly
with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC).  The plaintiffs have not yet
filed a new complaint with the court, nor have they filed complaints at the
ICC, according to North Shore Gas Co.’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007.

For more details, contact Michael Johnson of Halunen & Associates, 415 North
LaSalle St., Suite 203, Chicago, IL 60610,
Phone: 312-222-0660, Fax: (312) 222-1656, Web site:
http://www.youhaverights.info/.


NUVELO INC: Asks N.Y. Court to Send Securities Suits to Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to
rule on a motion seeking the transfer of several purported securities fraud
class actions against Nuvelo, Inc. to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On Feb. 9, 2007, the company and certain of its former and current officers
and directors were named as defendants in a purported securities class
action.

The suit alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which the company
announced on Dec. 11, 2006.  

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related
to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which the company announced on
Dec. 11, 2006, and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of company’s common
stock during the period between Jan. 5, 2006 and Dec. 8, 2006.

Specifically, the suit alleges that we misled investors regarding the
efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug’s likelihood of success.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York on
Feb. 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and March 6, 2007, respectively.

On April 10, 2007, three separate motions to consolidate the cases, appoint
lead plaintiff, and appoint lead plaintiff’s counsel were filed.

On April 18, 2007, the company filed a motion to transfer the four cases to
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The Court will
rule on the motions to transfer the cases before it decides the motions for
consolidation, lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel.

The first identified complaint is "Electrical Workers Pension
Fund, Local 103, IBEW, et al. v. Nuvelo, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

         Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross
         1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102
         Phone: 215-561-3600
         Fax: 215-561-3000
         E-mail: bmgross@bernardmgross.com

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY, 11747
         Phone: 631-367-710
         Fax: 631-367-1173

              - and -

         Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
         2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
         Walnut Creek, CA 94598
         Phone: 925.945.0200
         Fax: 925.945.8792
         E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


OSI RESTAURANT: Settles Lawsuits Over Disposal to Bain Capital
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. is working to settle purported class actions
over a Nov. 5, 2006, definitive agreement the company entered into, wherein
it agreed to be acquired by an investor group comprised of affiliates of
Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Catterton Partners and Company founders Chris
T. Sullivan, Robert D. Basham and J. Timothy Gannon, for $40.00 per share in
cash, 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.

                         Florida Litigation

On Nov. 8, 2006, a putative class action complaint captioned, “Charter
Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System v. OSI Restaurant
Partners, Inc., et al., No. 06-CA-010348,” was filed in the Circuit Court of
the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida against
the company, each of its directors, J. Timothy Gannon, Bain Capital
Partners, LLC, and Catterton Partners, challenging the proposed transaction
as unfair and inadequate to the company’s public stockholders.

On Jan. 25, 2007, plaintiff’s counsel in the Florida action voluntarily
dismissed the action as to Mr. Gannon and filed an amended complaint, which
did not name Mr. Gannon as a defendant, against the remaining defendants.

The amended complaint alleges that:

      -- company directors breached their fiduciary duties in
         connection with the proposed transaction by failing to
         maximize stockholder value and by approving a
         transaction that purportedly benefits the investor
         group at the expense of the company’s public
         stockholders;

      -- company directors breached their fiduciary duties by
         failing to disclose certain allegedly material
         information to stockholders; and

      -- the company, Bain Capital and Catterton aided and
         abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches.

The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, an injunction against the proposed transaction, declaratory relief,
compensatory and/or rescissory damages to the putative class, and an award
of attorneys’ fees and expenses to plaintiffs.

Following a case management conference, the court granted plaintiff
discovery from the defendants.  

On Feb. 23, 2007, defendants answered the amended complaint and asserted
affirmative defenses.  The other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint on the same date.

                        Delaware Litigation

On Jan. 30, 2007, a class action complaint captioned, “Robert Mann v. Chris
T. Sullivan, et al., No. CA2709-N,” was filed in the Court of Chancery of
Delaware in and for New Castle County against the same defendants stated
above, including Mr. Gannon and except that Catterton Management Company LLC
was named as a defendant rather than Catterton Partners.

Paul E. Avery, Joseph J. Kadow, and Dirk A. Montgomery were also named as
defendants.  The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed transaction, and that Mr. Gannon,
Bain Capital and Catterton aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, an injunction against the proposed
transaction, declaratory relief, compensatory and/or rescissory damages to
the putative class, and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to
plaintiffs.

                         Settlement

Counsel for the parties to these two suits have reached an agreement in
principle, expressed in a memorandum of understanding, providing for the
settlement of the suits subject to Florida court approval and on terms and
conditions that include, among other things, certain supplemental disclosure
in the proxy statement prepared in connection with the special meeting of
stockholders at which the adoption of the merger agreement will be voted
upon and, in the event that any termination fee becomes due and payable by
the company, an agreement by Bain Capital and Catterton to waive a portion
of such company termination fee.

Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. --
http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com-- which was formerly known as Outback  
Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant company, with eight
restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system-wide restaurants.  The Company
operates in all 50 states and in 20 countries internationally, predominantly
through company-owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of
partnerships and franchises.  The Company's restaurant system includes
service restaurants with several types of ownership structures, such as
Outback Steakhouse, Outback Steakhouse International, Carrabba's Italian
Grill, Bonefish Grill, Fleming's Prime Steakhouse and Wine Bar, Roy's,
Cheeseburger in Paradise, and Lee Roy Selmon's.

OSI RESTAURANT: Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuits in Pa., Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. faces two purported class actions in
Pennsylvania and California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), 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 first suit was served on the company in April 2007.  That putative class-
action complaint, captioned, “Gerald D. Wells, Jr. et al. v. OSI Restaurant
Partners, Inc., Case No. 07-1431,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Pennsylvania.

Previously, the company had been provided with a copy of a putative class-
action complaint, captioned, “Saunders v. Roy’s Family of Restaurants, Inc.,
Case No. SACV07-164 CJC (ANx),” which was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  It has yet to be formally served.

FACTA restricts, among other things, the credit and debit card data that may
be included on the electronically printed receipts provided to retail
customers at the point of sale.

The suits allege that the defendants violated a provision of FACTA by
including more information on the electronically printed credit and debit
card receipts provided to customers than is permitted under FACTA.

Both complaints seek monetary damages, including statutory damages, punitive
damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief.

These lawsuits are among a number of lawsuits with similar allegations that
have been filed recently against large retailers and foodservice operators,
among others, as a result of the implementation of FACTA, which became fully
effective as of Dec. 4, 2006.

Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. --
http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com-- which was formerly known as Outback  
Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant company, with eight
restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system-wide restaurants.  The Company
operates in all 50 states and in 20 countries internationally, predominantly
through company-owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of
partnerships and franchises.  The Company's restaurant system includes
service restaurants with several types of ownership structures, such as
Outback Steakhouse, Outback Steakhouse International, Carrabba's Italian
Grill, Bonefish Grill, Fleming's Prime Steakhouse and Wine Bar, Roy's,
Cheeseburger in Paradise, and Lee Roy Selmon's.


OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Still Faces Job Discrimination Suit in Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. and OS Restaurant Services, Inc., both
subsidiaries of OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. continue to face a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
alleging discrimination against women in promotions, 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 U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought the suit on Sept.
28, 2006 under the caption, “EEOC v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. and
OS Restaurant Services, Inc. Case No. 06-cv-1935.”

Generally, the suit alleges that defendants have engaged in a nationwide
pattern or practice of discrimination against women on the basis of their
gender with respect to hiring and promoting into management positions as
well as discrimination against women in terms and condition of their
employment.

In addition to the EEOC, two former employees have successfully intervened
as party plaintiffs in the case.  The case is currently in the motion stage.

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Outback Steakhouse
of Florida, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01935-EWN," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Edward W. Nottingham.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ann Louise Fuller, Esq.
         Rita Byrnes Kittle, Esq.
         Nancy A. Weeks, Esq.
         Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
         303 East 17th Avenue, #510
         Denver, CO 80203
         Phone: 303-866-1319 or 303-866-1347 or 303-866-1947
         Fax: 303-866-1375
         E-mail: ann.fuller@eeoc.gov
                 rita.kittle@eeoc.gov
                 nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov

PAMPANGA FOODS: Recalls Pork Rolls with Undeclared Allergens
------------------------------------------------------------
Pampanga Foods, an Anaheim, Calif., firm, is recalling approximately 2,762
pounds of pork egg roll products that are mislabeled, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.

The product label does not include an ingredient statement.  The product
contains egg and bleached wheat flour, both known allergens.

The products subject to recall are:
"14-ounce packages of "PAMPANGA PORK (CURED) LUMPIA EGG ROLL, SHANGHAI
BRAND."  Each label bears the establishment number "EST. 0405A" inside the
USDA mark of inspection.

The pork egg roll products were produced on various dates between March 16
and June 15, 2007 and were distributed to retail establishments and
distribution warehouses in California, Florida, New Jersey and New York.

The problem was discovered by FSIS.  FSIS has received no reports of illness
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an allergic
reaction should contact a physician.

Click on the link to view product label:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images_recalls/029_2007_labels.pdf

Media with questions about the recall should contact company Media Relations
Manager Janette Negal at (714) 773-1832.  Consumers with questions about the
recall should contact company Sales Manager Hector Mariano at (714) 292-
6880.

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


PEOPLES ENERGY: Ill. Consumers’ Fraud Suit Denied Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cook County (Ill.) Circuit Court denied, without prejudice, plaintiffs’
motion for class certification in a suit alleging Peoples Energy Corp. (PEC)
violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in
relation to matters at issue in the utilities’ fiscal year 2001 Gas Charge
reconciliation proceedings.

In February 2004, customers of The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co. (PGL) and
North Shore Gas Co. (NSG) filed a purported class action in Cook County
Circuit Court against PEC, PGL and NSG.

The suit, “Alport et al. v. Peoples Energy Corp.,” seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.  PGL and NSG have been dismissed as
defendants and the only remaining counts of the suit allege violations of
the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and that PEC acted
in concert with others to commit a tortious act.  PEC denies the allegations
and is vigorously defending the suit.

On Sept. 25, 2006, the court granted in part PEC's motion to dismiss the
case by limiting the potential class members in the suit to those persons
who were customers during the time that PEC’s joint venture with Enron was
in operation and did not receive part of the settlement proceeds from the
reconciliation cases.

However, the court denied PEC’s motion to dismiss the case to the extent
that the complaint seeks punitive damages (regardless of whether such
customers received part of the settlement proceeds from the reconciliation
cases).

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and a motion for class
certification, to which PEC provided an opposing answer.

On April 25, 2007, the court denied, without prejudice, plaintiffs’ motion
for class certification.  

Peoples Energy Corp. -- http://www.pecorp.com-- is a holding company and  
does not engage directly in any business of its own. It operates through its
regulated utility subsidiaries, The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., and
North Shore Gas Co.  Peoples Energy's other subsidiaries are Peoples Energy
Resources Company, LLC, Peoples Energy Services Corporation, Peoples Energy
Production Co. and Peoples District Energy Corp.  It has five segments: Gas
Distribution, Oil and Gas Production, Energy Marketing, Energy Assets, and
Corporate and Other.


QUANTA CAPITAL: Lead Plaintiffs Appointed in Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs were appointed in two purported securities fraud class
actions filed against Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, 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.

                        First Litigation

On Feb. 5, 2007 a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, James J. Ritchie, the
Company’s Executive Chairman, Jonathan J. R. Dodd, the Company’s Chief
Financial Officer, Robert Lippincott III, a director and formerly the
Company’s Interim Chief Executive Officer and President, Michael J. Murphy,
Nigel W. Morris, W. Russell Ramsey and Wallace L. Timmeny, all former
directors, Friedman Billings Ramsey & Co., Ltd and BB&T Capital Markets on
behalf of a putative class consisting of investors who purchased our
publicly traded Series A preferred securities and common shares between Dec.
14, 2005 and March 2, 2006.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that we made false, misleading
and incomplete statements and that the prospectuses we issued in connection
with the sale of Series A preferred shares and common shares in December
2005, at the time they became effective, were inaccurate or misleading,
contained untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to state
material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading,
in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

The class action litigation seeks an unspecified amount of damages, as well
as other forms of relief.  

                        Second Litigation

On Feb. 26, 2007, a second class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company, Tobey J. Russ,
the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, John Brittain, the former
Chief Financial Officer, Jonathan Dodd, James J. Ritchie and Robert
Lippincott III.  

This class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of a putative class consisting
of investors who purchased our publicly traded common shares between May 14,
2004 and March 2, 2006.  

The complaint alleges that the company’s disclosures about its reserves and
other matters were inadequate in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under.  

This class action lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief.  

                   Lead Plaintiff Appointments

Following the end of the first quarter of 2007, Washington State Plumbers
and Pipefitters Pension Trust filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff.

Following a number of filings on behalf of potential plaintiffs and a
hearing, the Court ordered that discovery in the two class actions will be
coordinated.

The Court appointed the Washington State Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension
Trust as lead plaintiff for purchasers of the Company’s common stock, and
Zirkin-Cutler Investments as lead plaintiff for purchasers of the Company’s
preferred stock.

Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.quantaholdings.com/-- has been  
formed to provide specialty lines insurance, reinsurance, risk assessment
and risk technical services on a global basis through its affiliated
companies.  The Company participates in the A.M. Best A rated Lloyd’s market
through Syndicate 4000.  It is also conducting a self-managed run-off of its
remaining insurance and reinsurance businesses.  Quanta Capital Holdings
Ltd. conducts its operations principally through its subsidiaries domiciled
in Bermuda, Ireland, the United States and the United Kingdom.  The
Company’s subsidiaries include Quanta Reinsurance Ltd., Quanta U.S. Holdings
Inc., Quanta Reinsurance U.S. Ltd., Quanta Indemnity Company, Quanta
Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Quanta Europe Ltd., Quanta 4000 Ltd. and
Quanta Technical Services LLC.


RADIAN GROUP: Plaintiff in “Rubery” Moves to Remand Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has yet to
rule on a motion seeking for the remand to a lower court of a purported
class action against Radian Group, Inc., according to the company’s May 10,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

On Feb. 8, 2007, a purported stockholder class action related to the
company’s pending merger with MGIC Investment Corp. was filed in the Court
of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Trial Division in the State of
Pennsylvania by Catherine Rubery against Radian and its directors.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the merger consideration to be
received by Radian stockholders was inadequate and that the individual
defendants, among other things, breached their duties of care, loyalty, good
faith and independence to the stockholders in connection with the merger.

The complaint seeks class action status as well as injunctive, declaratory
and other equitable relief.

On March 19, 2007, defendants removed the suit to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and on March 26, 2007, defendants
moved to dismiss the suit, or, in the alternative, for a briefing schedule
in connection with any potential motion by the plaintiff to remand the suit
to the Court of Common Pleas.

On April 18, 2007, plaintiff moved to remand the suit to the Court of Common
Pleas, which motion defendants opposed.  The motion is presently pending in
federal court, and a briefing schedule for the motion has been established.

The suit is “Rubery v. Radian Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01068-
PD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
         The Weiser Law Firm
         121 N. Wayne Avenue
         Wayne, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-225-0273
         Fax: 610-225-2678
         E-mail: dsg@weiserlawfirm.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joel Mchugh, Esq.
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
         1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286
         Phone: 215-751-2437
         Fax: 215-751-2205
         E-mail: jmchugh@schnader.com


RAILROADS: Dakota Granite Files Suit Over Alleged Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Granite Co. filed an antitrust class-action complaint on June 15 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia accusing railroads of
fixing freight prices.

Named defendants in the complaint are:

          -- Association of American Railroads,
          -- BNSF Railway Co.,
          -- CSX Transportation, Inc.
          -- Kansas City Southern Railway Co.,
          -- Norkfolk Southern Railway Co.,
          -- Union Pacific Railroad Co.,

Dakota Granite Co. claims the member railroads have fixed “rail fuel
surcharges” since July 1, 2003 to the present, in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.

Rail fuel surcharge is a separate fee charged to shippers by the defendant
railroads for agreed-upon freight transportation, ostensibly to compensate
for unforeseen increases in the cost of fuel.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants computed the Rail Fuel Surcharges as a
percentage of the customers' base freight rate and agreed upon the use of
common indices and trigger points for adjusting the percentages monthly.
Defendants also published Rail Fuel Surcharges on the internet to facilitate
coordination and the detection of any deviation from collusive pricing, the
suit claims.

Defendants maintained uniformity of Rail Fuel Surcharges throughout the
class period by agreeing to compute the surcharges as a percentage of the
rail freight transport base rate by agreeing upon common indices, timing and
trigger points for adjusting the percentages.

As a result of this price-fixing conspiracy, defendants restrained
competition for unregulated rail freight transportation services and caused
injury to the business and property of plaintiff and members of the proposed
class.  

Plaintiff and the class members paid higher prices for unregulated rail
freight transportation than would have been the case in the absence of
defendants' unlawful activities alleged.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all purchasers of rail freight
transportation services from defendants, through use of private railroad-
shipper contracts or throught other means exempt from rate regulation under
federal law, as to which defendants assessed a rail fuel surcharge, at any
time from at least as early as July 2003 to the present.

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of itself and the proposed class for rail
fuel surcharges imposed on rail freight shipments made pursuant to private
transportation contracts and through other means exempt from rate regulation
under federal law.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) whether defendants conspired, contracted or combined
         with others, for the purpose of and with the effect of
         raising, fixing, maintaining, pegging, or stabilizing
         the price of rail fuel surcharges applied to
         unregulated rail freight transportation services
         purchased by the class;

     (b) whether defendants' conduct violated the federal
         antitrust laws; and

     (c) whether defendants' conduct caused injury to the
         business and property of plaintiff and the class, and
         if so, the proper measure of damages.

Plaintiff prays for the relief as follows:

     -- that the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class action under Rules 23(b)(2) and
        (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that
        plaintiff be denominated as class representative, and
        that plaintiff's counsel be appointed as counsel for the
        class;

     -- that the unlawful contract, combination and conspiracy
        alleged be adjudged and decreed to be an unreasonable
        restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1
        of the Sherman Act;

     -- that plaintiff and the class recover compensatory
        damages, as provided by law, determined to have been
        sustained as to each of them, and that judgment be
        entered against defendants on behalf of plaintiff and
        each and every member of the class;

     -- that each of the defendants' respective officers,
        directors, agents and employees, and all other persons
        acting on behalf of or in concert with them, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from, directly or
        indirectly, continuing or maintaining the combination,
        conspiracy, or agreement alleged in the case;

     -- that plaintiff and the class recover treble damages, as
        provided by law;

     -- that plaintiff and the class recover their costs of the
        suit, including attorney's fees, as provided by law; and

-- for such further relief as the court may deem just and
    proper.

The suit is “Dakota Granite Co. v. Association of American Railroads et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-01078-RMC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge Rosemary M. Collyer.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Benjamin D. Brown
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Suie 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 589-2288
          E-mail: bbrown@cmht.com




SOUTH DAKOTA: District Settles Suit over Indian Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Winner/Ideal Native American community and the Winner School District in
South Dakota reached an agreement to settle a class action brought on behalf
of Native American students attending Winner schools.

"This groundbreaking settlement agreement is a major step toward ensuring
that our children have the best educational opportunities possible," said
Rodney Bordeaux, President of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe.

Catherine Kim, one of the attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union
representing the Native American families in this case, “Antoine et al. v.
Winner School District,” said: "Across the nation, education for Native
American youth is in crisis.  In Winner School District, Native American
students drop out of school, transfer to other districts, or are sent to
detention facilities at rates far higher than white students.  We are
pleased that the Winner School District has agreed to take proactive steps
to support Native American students.  It is our hope that the district can
serve as a model for other communities serving minority students."

Rocky Blare, president of the Winner School Board, stated "Our Board spent
two days in Sioux Falls, away from our families and jobs, in order to
address the concerns that had been raised.  Our goal was to act in the best
way possible for all children of this district and move on.  Ongoing
litigation for years would be detrimental to our main goal of educating
kids.  With this settlement, we have welcomed the opportunity to provide
visibility into our disciplinary policies and our cultural diversity."

The settlement arose out of a lawsuit filed in March 2006 by ten Native
American families with children in the Winner schools.  The court certified
the suit as a class action on behalf of all Native American students in the
Winner Middle and High Schools and their families.  

The lawsuit claimed that the schools discriminated against Native American
students in disciplining them, were hostile toward Native American families,
and took statements from students involved in disciplinary matters that were
later used to prosecute them in juvenile and criminal courts.  The school
district denied any wrongdoing, but agreed to enter into settlement
discussions, mediated by U.S. Magistrate Judge John E. Simko, so as to avoid
time-consuming and expensive litigation.

Under the settlement agreement reached by the parties, the district will
enact policies and practices to ensure that the rights of Native American
students are not violated and to enrich the educational experience of all
students.  Among the key terms of the settlement are:

     a) School officials will not require students to write
        statements that can be used to prosecute them in
        juvenile or criminal court;

     b) the district will hire a full-time ombudsperson,
        nominated by the collective Native American community,
        to serve as a liaison between Native American families
        and school officials, especially on disciplinary issues;

     c) An educational expert will work with school officials
        and Native American families to set benchmarks on
        improving Native American graduation rates, reducing
        levels of suspension and school-based arrests, and
        improving the overall climate for Native American
        students, among other goals;

     d) the expert will also conduct periodic on-site visits to  
        ensure compliance with the agreement and monitor
        progress toward the goals;

     e) a committee of Native American parents and school
        officials will review all disciplinary incidents every  
        quarter for racial disparities and, if disparities are
        found and cannot be explained, recommend policy changes
        to reduce such disparities;

     f) the Interwest Equity Assistance Center, funded by the
        U.S. Department of Education, will provide trainings for
        Winner students on conflict resolution and trainings for           
        teachers on unconscious racial bias and educational
        equity; and

     g) the schools will include Native American themes in the
        mainstream curriculum, in-school activities, and after-
        school activities.  Additionally, the district will
        offer Native American Culture, History and Language
        class every year in the high school, taught by a Native
        American instructor.

Participants in the mediation included Native American families named in the
class action, members of the Winner School Board, the superintendent, and
two school principals.  The families were represented by the national ACLU
and the ACLU of the Dakotas, and Dana L. Hanna, an attorney based in Rapid
City.  Additionally, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council and the Rosebud Sioux
Tribal Education Department provided assistance and facilitation.  The
Winner School District was represented by Gunderson, Palmer, Goodsell &
Nelson, LLP, in Rapid City.

The settlement agreement will remain in effect until the district
substantially complies with its terms for four consecutive years.  The
federal district court will have jurisdiction over the agreement during this
period.  The parties will be submitting a proposed consent decree to
finalize the settlement, and the court will next consider any objections and
decide whether to approve it.


WAL-MART STORES: Mo. Appeals Court Lets Workers Sue as Group
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court in Missouri rejected Wal-Mart Store Inc.'s bid to derail a
class action by workers in the state who claimed they were forced by company
policy to work after clocking out and during meal and rest breaks, reports
say.

Missouri's Western District Court of Appeals rejected argument by the
company’s lawyers that any unpaid work was a matter of individual
circumstances that must be tried case-by-case.  It sent the case back with
some procedural modifications to the Jackson County Circuit Court.

Five former workers at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in Missouri alleged in
their suit, first filed in 2002, that company policy forced them to work
without pay after clocking out and during meal and rest breaks.  The circuit
court granted class-action status in 2005, covering what plaintiff's lawyers
estimated are about 200,000 current and former Wal-Mart workers in the
state.

The case is “Celia L. Hale and Gary McDowell, et al., Respondents, v. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Appellants. WD66162.  Representing the plaintiffs
is:

          Steve Long, Esq.
          Shughart Thomson & Kilroy
          1050 17th Street
          Suite 2300
          Denver, CO 80265
          Phone: 303-572-9300
          Fax: 303-572-7883
          Direct Line: 720-931-8136
          E-mail: slong@stklaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: N.M. Court Upholds Class in Workers’ Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Appeals court in New Mexico rejected Wal-Mart's bid to block a class
action by workers in the state who claimed they were forced by company
policy to work after clocking out and during meal and rest breaks, Marcus
Kabel of Newsday.com reports.

The New Mexico's Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision granting
class-action status in a case filed by two workers from Wal-Mart and Sam's
Club stores.

The case is “Gilbert Armijo and Maria Casaus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and
Sam's Club, No. 26,322.”

Representing the Appellees are Shane Youtz of Youtz & Valdez, P.C.,
Albuquerque, NM; Gerald L. Bader, Jr., Renee B. Taylor of Bader &
Associates, LLC, Denver, CO; Franklin D. Azar, Rodney Bridgers of Franklin
D. Azar & Associates, P.C., Denver, CO.

Representing the Appellants are Charles R. Peifer, Cerianne L. Mullins of
Peifer, Hanson & Mullins, P.A., Albuquerque, NM.


WAL-MART STORES: N.Y. Court Refuses to Certify Workers’ Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trial court in New York denied class certification to a lawsuit filed by
workers who claimed they were forced by company policy to work after
clocking out and during meal and rest breaks, Marcus Kabel of Newsday.com
reports.

The suit, which sought class-action status on behalf of 200,000 past and
present New York employees, claimed Wal-Mart makes employees work “off the
clock” before or after shift and sometimes during meal breaks, without
paying them sufficiently.

An Albany County judge said the lawsuit was too broad in arguing that all
Wal-Mart workers in the state since 1996 were potentially harmed and should
be part of a class numbering around 200,000, according to the company.  It
said claims of unpaid work would need to be examined individually.

The case is “Alix v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., No. 7121-01, Supreme Court,
Albany County, New York.”


WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Leave to Appeal Truckers’ Suit in Ark.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. filed a petition for permission to appeal a federal
court’s certification of a class in a suit alleging black applicants were
discriminated against for trucking jobs, Jill Dunn of eTrucker reports.

The petition was filed in the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis
in late May, said company spokesman John Simley, according to the report.

It follows a decision by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on May 16 to grant class status
to the lawsuit, The Pine Bluff Commercial reports (Class Action Reporter,
May 18, 2007).

Filed in 2004, Daryal T. Nelson of Coldwater, Miss., alleged that Wal-Mart
rejects and discourages black applicants for truck-driving jobs at the
chain's distribution centers in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, and Virginia (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27, 2004).

The suit had a document from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
attached to it, saying that it found "reasonable cause" to believe that Mr.
Nelson, a 22-year veteran of driving trucks, was discriminated against.  The
EEOC said Wal-Mart hired some white drivers with more serious driving
violations and less experience than black applicants.

In his ruling earlier, Judge Wilson said drivers at Wal-Mart were recruited
largely through word-of-mouth and applicants would be screened by a
committee of drivers.  The judge noted none of the committees at Wal-Mart's
various hiring sites had a majority of African Americans and some had no
blacks, despite a company rule that the panels be 50 percent diverse.

According to that ruling, the American Trucking Association found that 15
percent of truckers were black from Jan. 1, 2000, through Sept. 29, 2005.  
In the same period, 4 percent to 6 percent of Wal-Mart truckers were black.

The ruling opens the class to all black applicants in the continental U.S.
who were turned down for Wal-Mart trucking jobs since Sept. 22, 2001, and
all blacks who contend they were prevented from applying due to Wal-Mart
practices.

The suit was certified for purposes of class-wide liability, declaratory
relief and equitable relief only.  Any plaintiffs seeking punitive damages
would have to do so in a separate lawsuit after the class action is tried,
the ruling said.

The class involved in the suit includes all black people in the continental
U.S. who applied as over-the-road truckers at Wal-Mart since Sept. 22, 2001,
but who were not hired.  It also includes all black people in the
continental U.S. during that period who were discouraged from applying as
drivers because of Wal-Mart's practices.

The suit is "Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-00171-WRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas under Judge William R. Wilson, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, LLP
          Post Office Box 25438
          Little Rock, AR 72221-5438
          Phone: (501) 312-8500
          E-mail: hbates@cauleybowman.com

          - and -

          Lloyd W. Kitchens, III, Esq.
          Welch and Kitchens, LLC
          Post Office Box 3685
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3685
          Phone: (501) 978-3030
          E-mail: tkitchens@welchandkitchens.com

Representing defendants are:

          Richard H. Deane, Esq.
          Jones Day - Atlanta
          1420 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 581-8502
          E-mail: rhdeane@jonesday.com

          Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq.
          Michael J. Gray, Esq.
          Jones Day - Chicago
          77 West Wacker
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 269-4306 or (312) 269-4096
          E-mail: lcdinardo@jonesday.com or mjgray@jonesday.com

          - and -

          Philip E. Kaplan, Esq.
          Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey & Haralson, P.A.
          Metro Centre Mall
          415 Main Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3801
          Phone: (501) 372-0400
          E-mail: pkaplan@kbmlaw.net


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

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

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

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

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


WEB.COM INC: Plaintiffs in TCPA Suit to Appeal Pa. Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter, "Pair Networks et al. v. Interland et al.," intend
to appeal a decision by a court in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to deny
class-action status for the case filed against Web.com, Inc., formerly
Interland, Inc., over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

In late 2001, Pair Networks, a competing web services company, attempted to
mount a class action against the company under the TCPA after Pair Networks
allegedly received a one-page fax from the company.

In February 2007, the court in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, denied the
motion of the plaintiffs to certify a class in a case,

This ruling means that the three named plaintiffs in the case may only
proceed with individual claims against the company, which can amount to not
more than $1,500 each.

The plaintiffs have indicated that they will appeal, 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.

Web.com, Inc., -- http://www.web.com-- formerly Interland, Inc., is a  
provider of Websites and Web services focused on helping small and medium-
sized businesses (SMBs).  Web.com offers a selection of online services,
including Web hosting, e-mail, e-commerce, application hosting, Website
development, online marketing, and optimization tools.  The Company’s
revenue is primarily derived from recurring monthly charges to its customers
supplemented by, among other things, setup fees, domain name acquisition and
renewal fees, and excess data communications charges.


WIZARD OF CLAWS: Puppy Dealer Sued for Selling Sick Pets
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges, on behalf of The Humane Society of the
U.S., filed what they believe to be the first class action against the south
Florida-based Wizard of Claws, Lynne Marek of The National Law Journal
reports.

The suit, filed in Broward County Circuit Court, alleges the company sold
puppies with genetic defects and contagious parasitic infections and failed
to reimburse customers for the sick animals or their medical problems.

The lawsuit so far represents about 100 class members, said Jonathan
Lovvorn, who heads up the Humane Society's litigation department. Each
representative will have damages of $2,000 to $5,000, making the lawsuit
worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, he said.

The sale of sick and dying puppies to customers who were unable to receive
reimbursement for either the price of the sick dogs or veterinary treatments
that sometimes cost thousands of dollars violated Florida animal and
consumer protection laws, the Humane Society said.

According to Ms. Marek, the lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and injunctive relief against the further sale of puppies by Wizard of Claws.

Plaintiffs’ counsel, who filed the lawsuit on a pro bono basis, can be
contacted at:

          Paul A. Ferrillo
          Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP  
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Phone:  (212) 310-8372
          Fax:  (212) 310-8007
          Web site: http://www.weil.com


                        New Securities Cases


NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Lerach Files Calif. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. common stock during the period
between June 20, 2002 and June 23, 2006.

The complaint charges Neurocrine and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants violated
the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements
to the investing public and concealing negative information, making it
impossible for shareholders to gain a meaningful or realistic understanding
of the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market success of
the Company's commercially viable 15 mg modified release formulation of
Indiplon.

As a result of defendants' false statements, Neurocrine stock traded at
inflated levels during the Class Period, during which time the defendants
arranged to sell and actually sold $198.7 million worth of shares via a
secondary offering of Neurocrine stock and the Company's top officers and
directors were able to reap more than $26 million in insider trading
proceeds.

On May 16, 2006, the Company announced that it had received communication
from the FDA indicating that the agency had determined that the 15 mg
modified release formulation of Indiplon was not approvable at that time.
The Company's shares fell $33.87 or 62% to $20.76 per share. Then on June
16, 2006, the Company's shares tumbled another 20% after the Company
announced that federal health regulators may require additional clinical
tests for Indiplon. And finally on June 22, 2006, the Company announced
Pfizer had terminated the companies' collaboration agreement for the
development and marketing of Indiplon. Neurocrine shares dropped to a low of
$8.61 per share before closing at $9.85 per share on June 23, 2006. In
total, the Company's shares had tumbled 86% from a Class Period high of
$71.62 three months earlier.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Neurocrine
common stock during the Class Period.

Neurocrine engages in the discovery and development of drugs for the
treatment of neurological and endocrine-related diseases and disorders in
the U.S. During the Class Period, Neurocrine's primary business was focused
on completing the development and commercialization of Indiplon, a drug
defendants claimed could be used for the treatment of insomnia.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Lerach Coughlin
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com
          Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *