CAR_Public/070625.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 25, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 124

                           Headlines


APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Suit Over Labor Code Violations Certified
AXT INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BACK TO NATURE: Recalls Sesame Crackers Due to Undeclared Milk
BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: High Court Allows Residents to Sue as Group
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Continues to Face Stockholder Lawsuit in Del.

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Faces Consolidated Tex. Securities Suit
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Tex.
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Late Fees Program
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Viacom Officers Still Face Suit Over 2004 Deal
CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Over Otay Mesa Jail Conditions Allowed

CALIFORNIA: Historic Middle School’s Closure Triggers Lawsuit
CANADA: Business Owner Affected by Canada Line Project to Sue
CANO PETROLEUM: Suit Over Texas Panhandle Grass Fires Dismissed
DELAWARE: October Hearing Set in Lawsuit Over Inmate Executions
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Court Dumps Workers’ Suit over 401(k) Fees

ILLINOIS: Sued Over Tax Disparity in Section 529 Programs
JAPAN: Settlement of Suits Over Pneumoconiosis Expected Soon
MORTGAGE FRAUD: Md. Homeowners Allege Foreclosure-Rescue Scheme
NEW CENTURY: Former Workers File Suit Over Deferred-Compensation
NORTH CAROLINA: No Class Status in Suit Over Disability Benefits

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Mo.
PHILIPPINES: First Gentleman Seeks Dismissal of Reporters' Suit
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls ATVs to Replace Faulty Fuel Tank
SIRVA INC: Agrees to Settle Ill. Securities Suit for $53.5M
STATION CASINOS: Discovery Begins in Suit Over Fertitta Merger

ST. JOHN'S: Sued Over Alleged Discriminatory Pricing System
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Allowed to Go Ahead with Investors Meeting
TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Motion to Consolidate Fla. Suits Granted
TELLABS INC: Supreme Court Favors Firm in Securities Fraud Suit
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Dismissal of Neb. Securities Suit Appealed

TROPICAL ISLES: Judge Denies Certification to Residents’ Suit
WASHINGTON BEEF: Recalls Beef Products Due to Sanitary Concerns


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NETLIST INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.


                            *********


APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Suit Over Labor Code Violations Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nanette Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri conditionally certified as class action a labor lawsuit filed
against the company, Steve Vockrodt of the Kansas City Business Journal
reports.

Restaurant employee Gerald Fast filed the complaint in 2006 alleging that the
casual dining restaurant chain required tipped employees to spend more than
20 percent of their time performing tasks for which they didn't get tips.

The suit alleges the restaurant then didn't pay the full hourly minimum wage
for the excess time that servers and bartenders spent doing non-tipped work,
such as general preparation and maintenance.

Mr. Graft also claimed that Applebee's required employees to show up to work
before their schedule shift but didn't pay them for that time.

The suit seeks a judgment "in an amount that is fair and reasonable" as well
as costs for the action, attorneys' fees, liquidated damages and prejudgment
interest from the date the company owed the employees the wages.

According to Mr. Vockrodt, plaintiffs' attorney Chip Gentry of Carson & Coil
PC in Jefferson City said that the next step would be to determine which of
the other potential plaintiffs -- current and former tipped employees --
could choose to participate in the suit.

"We believe there are 60,000 potential plaintiffs," Mr. Gentry said. "We will
be contacting those folks and determine who will be opting in."

Officials of Overland Park-based Applebee's (Nasdaq: APPB) couldn't
immediately be reached for comment, Mr. Vockrodt added.

The suit is "Fast v. Applebee's International, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-04146-
NKL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
under Judge Nanette K. Laughrey.

Representing defendants are:

          Daniel B. Boatright
          Sarah Jane Bruer
          Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP-KCMO
          1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
          Kansas City, MO 64106-2140
          Phone: (816) 474-8100 or (816) 292-8122
          Fax: (816) 474-3216
          E-mail: dboatright@spencerfane.com or  
                   jbruer@spencerfane.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Matthew A. Clement
          Kari A. Schulte
          Timothy W. Van Ronzelen
          Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C .
          231 Madison Street
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Phone: (573) 635-7977
          Fax: (573) 635-7414 (fax)
          E-mail: mclement@cvdl.net or kschulte@cvdl.net or
                  tvanronzelen@cvdl.net

          - and -

          Charles A. Gentry
          Brian K. Stumpe
          Carson & Coil, PC
          515 East High Street
           P.O. Box 28
           Jefferson City, MO 65102
           Phone: (573) 636-2177
           Fax: (573) 636-7119 (fax)
           E-mail: brian.s@carsoncoil.com


AXT INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AXT Inc. settled a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

On Oct. 15, 2004, a purported securities class action, "City of
Harper Woods Employees Retirement System v. AXT, Inc., et al.,
No. C04 4362 MJJ," was filed in the U.S. Court for the Northern District of
California.  The court consolidated the case with a subsequent related case
and appointed a lead plaintiff.  

On April 5, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, "Morgan
v. AXT, Inc. et al., No. C 04 4362 MJJ."  The complaint names the company and
its chief technology officer, as defendants, and is brought on behalf of a
class of all purchasers of its securities from Feb. 6, 2001 to April 27,
2004.

The complaint alleges that the company announced financial results during
this period that were false and misleading.  No specific amount of damages is
claimed.

On Sept. 23, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
complaint, with leave to amend.  Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which the company moved to dismiss.

On April 24, 2007, the company reached a settlement of this litigation for
which it is responsible only for the amount remaining in its insurance
retention.  The company accrued the remaining amount of the retention
(approximately $350,000) as of March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Thomas O. Morgan, et al. v. AXT, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-
04362-MJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: (310) 201-9150
         Fax: (310) 201-9160
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

              - and -

         Elizabeth P. Lin, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-617-1200
         Fax: 213-617-1975
         E-mail: elin@milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendants are:

         David Banie, Esq.
         David Priebe, Esq.
         DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary U.S. LLP
         2000 University Avenue
         East Palo Alto, CA 94303
         Phone: 650-833-2000
         Fax: 650-833-2001
         E-mail: david.banie@dlapiper.com
                 david.priebe@dlapiper.com


BACK TO NATURE: Recalls Sesame Crackers Due to Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Back to Nature Foods Company in Madison, Wis., is recalling 26,472 boxes
of Back to Nature Sesame Ginger Rice Thins Crackers with a "Best When Used
By" date of 16 May 2007, because a small number of boxes were inadvertently
manufactured using a milk ingredient seasoning, and no milk ingredients are
declared on the label.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk can run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

This product expired on 16 May 2007.  The company has voluntarily issued a
nationwide recall to alert any milk-allergic consumers who may still have the
product at home.  The Back to Nature Sesame Ginger Rice Thins Crackers with
a "Best When Used By" date of 16 May 2007 were sold in retail grocery and
health food stores.

The Back to Nature Sesame Ginger Rice Thins Crackers with a "Best When Used
By" date of 16 May 2007 has a UPC code of 59283-10013 and comes in a 4 oz
retail carton.  No other varieties of Back to Nature Rice Thins or any other
Back to Nature products are impacted by this recall.

Allergy tests confirmed the presence of milk in samples sent for testing
after the company received two consumer reports of allergic reactions.  The
company's investigation has determined that the wrong seasoning was used in
the manufacturing of a very small number of the boxes of crackers.

The company has consulted with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the
agency is aware of the company's actions.

Consumers are advised not to consume the product and are asked to call 800-
433-9361 for a full refund.


BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: High Court Allows Residents to Sue as Group
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a decision by an Independence County
Circuit Court to certify a suit filed by 489 people who accuse a Batesville
nursing home owned by Beverly Enterprises Inc. of violating the state's
Residents Rights Act, Associated Press reports.

The suit, filed last year by Helen Cook, a former resident of Batesville
Nursing and Rehab in Arkansas, was granted class status on May 1.  It
included all residents of the facility from Sept. 13, 2000 to June 30, 2004.

The suit accuses the nursing home of causing Ms. Cook's condition to
dramatically worsen in the four months she was there.  Annette Thomas,
guardian of Cook's estate, accuses the facility of medical malpractice and
ordinary negligence.

Defendants are Beverly Enterprises Inc., Beverly Health and Rehabilitative
Services Inc. and Beverly Enterprises-Arkansas Inc., doing business as
Batesville Nursing and Rehab.

Beverly Enterprises Inc. was bought in March by Pearl Senior  
Care Inc., a subsidiary of San Francisco-based Fillmore Capital  
Partners LLC.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          J. Scott Davidson, Esq.
          Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey
          4300 Wilson Blvd., 7th Floor
          Arlington, Virginia 22203
          Phone: 703-894-6400
          Fax: 703-894-6430
          Web Site: http://www.davidsonberquist.com/DB_gowdey.html

               -  and  -

          Casey Castleberry, Esq.
          Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry
          1141 East Main Street
          Suite 300, P.O. Box 2595
          Batesville, Arkansas 72501
          Phone: 870-793-3821
          Fax: 870-793-3815


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Continues to Face Stockholder Lawsuit in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported stockholder class action
filed in the Newcastle County Chancery Court, Delaware, according to the
company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2007.

On Feb. 10, 2004, Howard Vogel filed the lawsuit against John
Muething, Linda Griego, John Antioco, Jackie Clegg, the company, Viacom, Inc.
and the company' directors who were also directors and/or officers of Viacom
as defendants.

The plaintiff alleges that a stock swap mechanism anticipated to be announced
by Viacom would be a breach of fiduciary duty to minority stockholders and
that the defendants engaged in unfair dealing and coercive conduct.  

The stockholder class action complaint asks the court to certify a class and
to enjoin the then-anticipated transaction.  

Plaintiff has confirmed that Blockbuster and the other defendants are not
required to respond to the pending complaint.

Blockbuster Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com-- is a global provider of in-
home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores
in the U.S, its territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in
the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie
(such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-video product) and
game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail
outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers.

   
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Faces Consolidated Tex. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging violations
of federal securities laws, according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 1, 2007.

On Nov. 10, 2005, Congregation Ezra Sholom filed a putative collective class
action complaint under the Securities Act and the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  

On Jan. 4, 2006, Victor Allgeier filed a putative collective class action
complaint under the Exchange Act in the same court.  

On April 28, 2006, the "Sholom" and "Allgeier" lawsuits were consolidated,
and later amended.  The consolidated lawsuit purports to be filed on behalf
of those persons who purchased Blockbuster stock between Sept. 8, 2004 and
Aug. 9, 2005.

In the consolidated lawsuit, plaintiffs assert claims against:

      -- the company,
      -- National Amusements Inc.,
      -- Viacom, Inc.,
      -- John F. Antioco,
      -- Richard J. Bressler,
      -- Jackie M. Clegg,
      -- Philippe P. Dauman,
      -- Michael D. Fricklas,
      -- Linda Griego,
      -- John L. Muething,
      -- Sumner M. Redstone, and
      -- Larry J. Zine.

Plaintiffs claim the above-referenced defendants committed securities fraud
in violation of the Exchange Act by failing to disclose at the time of the
Blockbuster split-off from Viacom that Blockbuster lacked the financial and
other resources required to implement initiatives announced at that time.

They also claim violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact by the defendants
regarding Blockbuster's financial results.  

Thus, plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, court costs, attorney's
fees and expert witness fees.  

The suit is "Congregation Ezra Sholom v. Blockbuster, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-02213," filed in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas under Judge David C. Godbey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Clinton D. Howie, Esq.
         Howie Law Firm
         201 Laurence Dr., PMB 314
         Heath, TX 75032
         Phone: 972/722-9290
         E-mail: chowie@howielawfirm.com

              - and -

         Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
         Baron & Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100
         Dallas, TX 75219
         Phone: 214/521-3605
         E-mail: rpulliam@baronbudd.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Brian Howard Polovoy, Esq.
         Shearman & Sterling
         599 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212/848-4000
         Fax: 646/848-4703
         E-mail: bpolovoy@shearman.com

              - and -

         Robert C. Walters, Esq.
         Vinson & Elkins
         2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Phone: 214/220-7704
         Fax: 214/999-7704
         E-mail: rwalters@velaw.com


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging violations of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), according to the company’s
May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2007.

On Sept. 8, 2006, John Halaris filed a putative collective class action
complaint under ERISA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas purporting to act on behalf of all persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the Blockbuster Investment Plan whose accounts included
investments in Blockbuster, Inc. stock, at any time, since Nov. 15, 2003.

Plaintiff asserts claims against:

      -- Vicaom, Inc.,
      -- the Viacom Investment Committee,
      -- the Viacom Retirement Committee,
      -- William A. Roskin,
      -- John R. Jacobs,
      -- Mary Bell,
      -- Bruce Lewis,
      -- Robert G. Freedline,
      -- Larry J. Zine,
      -- Keith M. Holtz,
      -- Barbara Mickowski,
      -- Dan Satterthwaite,
      -- Phillipe P. Dauman,
      -- Sumner M. Redstone,
      -- Richard Bressler,
      -- Michael D. Fricklas,
      -- John L. Muething,
      -- Linda Griego,
      -- Jackie M. Clegg,
      -- John F. Antioco,
      -- Peter A. Bassi,
      -- Robert A. Bowman,
      -- Gary J. Fernandes,
      -- Mel Karmazin,
      -- Blockbuster, Inc.
      -- the Blockbuster Retirement Committee, and
      -- the Blockbuster Investment Committee.

Plaintiff claims that the above-named defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in violation of ERISA.  They seek declaratory relief, recovery of
actual damages, court costs, attorney's fees, a constructive trust,
restoration of lost profits to the Blockbuster Investment Plan and an
injunction.

The suit is "Halaris v. Viacom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
01646," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
under Judge David C. Godbey.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

              - and -

Representing the defendants is:

         Kenneth P. Held, Esq.
         Vinson & Elkins
         1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300
         Houston, TX 77002-6760
         Phone: 713/758-4353
         Fax: 713/615-5219
         E-mail: kheld@velaw.com


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Late Fees Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. continues to face several putative class actions arising
out of its "end of late fees" program, according to the company’s May 11,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 1, 2007.

                  Tallarino & Sanchez Litigation

On Feb. 22, 2005, Thomas Tallarino filed a putative class action in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that
Blockbuster’s “no late fees” program constitutes conversion and violates
California consumer protection statutes prohibiting untrue and misleading
advertising.  

The suit seeks equitable and injunctive relief.  Blockbuster removed the case
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  

On March 22, 2005, Gustavo Sanchez filed a putative class action in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging a violation of
California’s business and professions code as an unfair business practice and
misleading advertising claim, and a violation of the California rental-
purchase act.  

The suit seeks compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief. Blockbuster
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  

On March 24, 2006, the Tallarino and Sanchez cases were consolidated.

                        Galfano Litigation

On March 1, 2005, Steve Galfano filed a putative class action in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that Blockbuster’s “no late
fees” program is a breach of an express warranty and a violation of
California’s business and professions code as an unfair business practice and
misleading advertising claim.  

This suit seeks compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief.  It has been
stayed in deference to the Tallarino and Sanchez cases.

                       Lustberg Litigation

On Feb. 22, 2005, Gary Lustberg filed a putative class action against
Blockbuster in the Supreme Court of Nassau County, New York, alleging breach
of contract, unjust enrichment and that Blockbuster’s “no late fees” program
violates New York’s consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.  

The suit sought compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.  
Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  On March 19, 2007, plaintiff Lustberg’s case was
dismissed with prejudice.

                        Galeno Litigation

On Feb. 25, 2005, Michael L. Galeno filed a putative class action in the
Supreme Court of New York County, New York, alleging breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and that Blockbuster’s “no late fees” program violates New
York’s consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and misleading
business practices.  

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.  
Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for Southern District
of New York.

                       Creighton Litigation

On March 4, 2005, Beth Creighton filed a putative class action in the Circuit
Court of Multnomah County, Oregon alleging that Blockbuster’s “no late fees”
program violates Oregon’s consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive
and misleading business practices.  

The suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable and
injunctive relief.  Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for District of Oregon.

Blockbuster Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com-- is a global provider of in-
home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores
in the U.S, its territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in
the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie
(such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-video product) and
game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail
outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Viacom Officers Still Face Suit Over 2004 Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. reports that officers of Viacom, Inc. continue to face a
shareholder class action that was filed in the Court of Chancery of New
Castle County over allegations that the executives lied about the financial
state of Blockbuster when it was spun off in a 2004 stock swap deal,
according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1,
2007.

On Aug. 3, 2006, Beverly Pfeffer filed a putative class action complaint
under Delaware corporate fiduciary laws against:

      -- Sumner M. Redstone,
      -- George S. Abrams,
      -- David R. Andelman,
      -- Joseph A. Califano, Jr.,
      -- William S. Cohen,
      -- Philippe P. Dauman,
      -- Alan C. Greenberg,
      -- Jan Leschly,
      -- Shari Redstone,
      -- Frederic V. Salerno,
      -- William Schwartz,
      -- Patty Stonesifer, and
      -- Robert D. Walter.

On Jan. 12, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint and
asserted additional claims under Delaware corporate fiduciary laws against:

      -- National Amusements, Inc.,
      -- John F. Antioco,
      -- Richard J. Bressler,
      -- Jackie M. Clegg,
      -- Michael D. Fricklas,
      -- Linda Griego, John L. Muething, and
      -- CBS Corp. (f.k.a. Viacom, Inc.).

The amended class action complaint purports to be filed on behalf of all
former Viacom stockholders who tendered their
Viacom stock in exchange for common shares of Blockbuster stock as part of
the Blockbuster split-off exchange offer commenced on Sept.8, 2004 and
completed on Oct. 5, 2004, and all Blockbuster shareholders at the time a
special dividend was declared by the Blockbuster Board of Directors in
connection with the Blockbuster split-off exchange offer in June 2004.

Plaintiff claims that the above-named defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in violation of Delaware corporate fiduciary laws and, as a result,
plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, court costs and expenses, expert witness fees and
attorneys' fees.

Blockbuster Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com-- is a global provider of in-
home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores
in the U.S, its territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in
the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie
(such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-video product) and
game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail
outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers.


CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Over Otay Mesa Jail Conditions Allowed
----------------------------------------------------------
A San Diego federal judge rules that a suit over overcrowding at an
immigration detention center in Otay Mesa can proceed, according to Amy
Isackson of KPBS.

In last week’s hearing, the defendants contend that the federal immigration
officials have already corrected the problem hence, the case must be
dismissed.

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

The lawsuit claims that detainees are routinely subjected to long delays
before treatment, denied necessary medication for chronic illnesses, and
refused essential referrals prescribed by medical staff.

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

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

The lawyers representing the state argued they have resolved the overcrowding
issue by moving people out of the facility.

But the judge said the state not shown any assurance that the overcrowding
won’t happen again.

The plaintiffs will have to wait another two weeks for the judge’s decision
whether the case will be granted class-action status.

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

Representing plaintiffs are:

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

                 - and -

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


CALIFORNIA: Historic Middle School’s Closure Triggers Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parents of American Indian filed a purported class action in a California
court, challenging Del Norte Unified School District’s decision to close a
middle school that focused on Yurok tribal customs and bus the kids to a
school where they would be in the minority, The CourtHouse News Service
reports.

According to the suit, before the 2005 decision to close, the Margaret
Keating Middle School was “a center of Native American cultural heritage,
important to the preservation of the traditions, values and customs of the
Yurok tribe.”  

The suit states that the school had a model Yurok village, two canoes and
courses on traditional Yurok skills, such as basket weaving and net making.

Parents claim that to cut costs, the school district reassigned Margaret
Keating students to Crescent Elk Middle School in Crescent City, Calif.,
which is “more than 20 miles and a 1.5-hour bus ride away” from the school in
Klamath, Calif.

The complaint states that the new school has a minority Indian enrollment,
whereas 67 percent of the students at Margaret Keating were Indian.

In making its decision, the school board allegedly selected the option
that “would have the most disparate and adverse impact on Native American
children” and would save the least amount of money.  

The suit seeks to have the decision declared unconstitutional.


CANADA: Business Owner Affected by Canada Line Project to Sue
-------------------------------------------------------------
The owner of Hazel & Co. maternity shop whose businesses at Cambie and 16th
Sts. in Vancouver are losing customers because of the construction of the
Canada Line rapid-transit tunnel, is organizing a class action involving
other businesses who are similarly affected, Daphne Bramham of Vancouver Sun
reports.

The construction has closed two lanes of traffic and constricted the two
remaining lanes.  

Susan Heyes has already filed a civil suit against the city, province, Canada
Line and TransLink.


CANO PETROLEUM: Suit Over Texas Panhandle Grass Fires Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 100th District Court in Carson County, Texas entered final judgment
dismissing claims brought against Cano Petroleum, Inc. and certain of its
subsidiaries in relation to wildfires in the Texas Panhandle in March 2006.

Filed eleven days after the fire, Burnett Ranches, Ltd., Anne Burnett
Windfohr Marion and the Burnett Trust, owners of the 6666 Ranch, claimed that
electrical lines feeding oil and gas operations of W.O. Operating Company
caused the Borger Fire, which the plaintiffs claimed burned in excess of
475,000 acres beginning on March 12, 2006.

The suit blamed the fire to Cano's electrical wiring and equipment. It said
the company failed to comply with the applicable standards in the
installation, maintenance and operation of its electrical equipment used in
connection with oil production. Burnett Ranches, Ltd., leading the complaint
in the March 12 grass fire, sought the termination of Cano's oil and gas
lease and the market value of the destroyed property in damages (Class Action
Reporter, Mar. 29, 2006).

In addition to holding that the Company and its subsidiaries were not
negligent, the Court also dismissed claims that sought to terminate oil and
gas leases held by Anne Burnett Windfohr Marion and Texas Christian
University.

The plaintiffs can appeal the judgment. Jeff Johnson, chief executive of Cano
Petroleum, Inc., stated, "The Court's ruling and dismissal of this case
confirms our belief that this suit and other related suits have no merit."

Seven other suits with similar claims remain pending. The Company and its
subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend themselves in those cases.

Cano Petroleum Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com-- is an independent Texas-
based energy producer with properties in the mid-continent region of the
U.S.  Cano's primary focus is on increasing domestic production from proven
onshore fields using secondary and enhanced recovery methods.   Cano trades
on the American Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol.


DELAWARE: October Hearing Set in Lawsuit Over Inmate Executions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has set a new trial date
for a civil case that has held up all executions in the state since May 2004.

Chief District Judge Sue L. Robinson will now hear the purported class
action, "Jackson v. Taylor et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00300-
SLR," on Oct. 9, 2007.  

The Federal Community Defender Service filed the case, which had originally
been set to go to trial in September.  It has brought the case on behalf of
all Delaware’s death row inmates.

Attorneys for Delaware had opposed the delay however Judge Robinson ruled
that the plaintiffs should have more time to complete pre-trial discovery.

In general the civil case raises constitutional questions about how the
state's death penalty is carried out (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2007).

The suit, which was filed on May 8, 2006, questions the chemicals used in
lethal injections -- supposed to be nearly instantaneous -- and the training
of people who carry them out.

Specifically, the suit questions whether lethal injection is truly quick and
a humane way to die.  It alleges that some prisoners actually die a slow,
lingering death by suffocation.

The suit is "Jackson v. Taylor et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00300-
SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under
Judge Sue L. Robinson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Michael Wiseman, Esq.
         Curtis Center, Suite 545 West, 601 Walnut Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19106
         Phone: (215) 928-0520
         Fax: (215) 928-0825
         E-mail: Michael_Wiseman@fd.org

Representing the defendants is:

         Loren C. Meyers, Esq.
         Department of Justice, State of Delaware
         820 N. French Street, 8th Floor, Carvel Office Building
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302) 577-8500
         E-mail: loren.meyers@state.de.us


FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Court Dumps Workers’ Suit over 401(k) Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge for the Western District of Wisconsin trashed a class action
brought by four Deere & Co. workers against Fidelity Investments, according
to the Associated Press.

U.S. District Judge John Shabaz dismissed the suit Wednesday.

The complaint, filed on Dec. 8, 2006, claimed that the mutual fund company
charged them "unreasonable" fees and expenses to manage their retirement
savings.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants assessed plan participants expenses
that "were, or are, unreasonable and/or not incurred solely for the benefit
of Plan participants."

They also argued that administrative fees and expenses can weigh   on
participants' returns and that "even seemingly small reductions in a
participant's return in one year may   substantially impair his or her
accumulated savings at retirement."

Additionally, plaintiffs charged that defendants engaged in so- called
revenue sharing where the mutual fund firm administering the plans shares
some the fees it charges with the customer.   
The Deere & Co. employees said they were not told about the revenue sharing.

According to Judge Shabaz’s ruling, both Deere and Fidelity can hold
information to the workers.

He said in his decision "In the context of the disclosure of information on
investment options, the additional information suggested by plaintiffs,
including revenue sharing, is neither required by the regulations nor
material to participant investors assessing the investment opportunity."

The suit is "Hecker, Dennis v. Deere & Company, Case No. 06-C-0719-S" (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2006).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, Attorneys At Law
          100 South Fourth Street, #900
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 621-6115

               -  and  -

          Solheim, Billing & Grimmer, S.C.
          P.O. Box 1644
          1 S. Pinckney St., Ste. 301
          Madison, WI 53701-1644
          Phone: (608) 282-1200


ILLINOIS: Sued Over Tax Disparity in Section 529 Programs
---------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois taxpayer filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County on
behalf of a class of Illinois taxpayers who invested in out-of-state Section
529 programs.

Section 529 Plans is a state-sponsored, tax-deferred college savings plan.  
It allows parents to contribute to a tax-deferred account established for the
student and invested in a savings vehicle, such as stock or mutual fund.  

Maryam Ahmad filed the suit on May 15, 2007.  According to an article by
Mintz Levin Public Finance and Bankruptcy Group, her complaint challenges the
constitutionality of provisions of the Illinois Income Tax Act that provide a
deduction from adjusted gross income of up to $10,000 for investments in
the “College Illinois!” prepaid tuition program and the “Bright Start”
and “Bright Directions” college savings programs, but that do not offer a
similar deduction for investments in Section 529 programs sponsored by other
states.

The lawsuit asserts that the Illinois tax statute facially discriminates
against interstate commerce in violation of the so-called “dormant” Commerce
Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The lawsuit also alleges a violation of a
provision of the Illinois constitution that requires reasonable
classifications of the objects of taxation.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff pays taxes in Illinois but invests
in Indiana’s Section 529 program because the fees are lower than those of the
Illinois programs.

The plaintiff is seeking, among others:

     -- a declaratory judgment that the members of the class are
        entitled to tax refunds in the amount of the Illinois  
        income taxes they would have saved if the deduction were
        available for out-of-state Section 529 programs; and

     -- an order obligating Illinois to create a common fund in
        an amount equal to the tax refunds claimed plus
        interest.


JAPAN: Settlement of Suits Over Pneumoconiosis Expected Soon
------------------------------------------------------------
Class actions that sought government compensation over the lung disease
pneumoconiosis that was contracted by plaintiffs on government-ordered tunnel
construction projects will likely be settled soon, The Daily Yomiuri reports.

According to sources that The Daily Yomiuri spoke with, the plaintiffs will
likely agree to abandon their rights to seek compensation in return for the
government revising a Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry ordinance to take
measures related to the disease.

Since November 2002, about 970 plaintiffs at 11 district courts filed
lawsuits demanding the government pay 3.3 million yen to each claimant.

Plaintiffs claim that they developed the dust-induced lung disease because of
the government’s failure to take adequate preventive measures.

Sources explained to The Daily Yomiuri that the envisaged settlement
stipulates:

      -- that the government revise the ministry ordinance to
         require the measuring of dust-density levels;

      -- adequate air ventilation during excavation work; and

      -- that electric antidust masks be worn during concrete-
         spraying work.

Additionally, sources told The Daily Yomiuri that the government also would
introduce a reduction in labor time by altering standard construction work
time frames.

In return, the plaintiffs would give up their rights to seek damages, meaning
about 3.2 billion yen in claims would be waived.

After the settlement deal is informally agreed on, a formal agreement is
expected to be concluded at the Tokyo High Court, when an appeal case hearing
is scheduled.  

Thereafter, plaintiffs will reach settlement deals at relevant courts,
sources told The Daily Yomiuri.


MORTGAGE FRAUD: Md. Homeowners Allege Foreclosure-Rescue Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four companies are named defendants in a suit that claims to involve the
single largest mortgage fraud in Maryland history, June Arney of The
Baltimore Sun reports.

Named defendants are:

     -- Metropolitan Money Store Corp., a Lanham company that
        describes itself as a foreclosure consultant and credit  
        services business;

     -- Fordham and Fordham Investment Group Ltd. of Lanham;  

     -- RTE Title & Escrow LLC of Largo;

     -- Sussex Title LLC of Rockville;

     -- Diane Jones of Capitol Heights;

     -- Leticia Nicholls of Takoma Park; and

     -- other, unknown defendants.

The suit was filed by two Prince George's families in Prince George's County
Circuit Court.  It seeks to recover millions of dollars in home equity
allegedly lost by hundreds of Maryland homeowners in a foreclosure-rescue
scheme.  The alleged victims, who are people already in the foreclosure
process but who had significant equity with an offer to save their house,
were allegedly offered by defendants a way out by arranging the sale of their
properties to a straw buyer.

The homeowners are told they could remain in their house for a year and then
repurchase it.  But the mortgage taken out by the straw buyer was excessively
more than the mortgage being foreclosed, according to the suit.  This allows
companies such as Metropolitan, Fordham and the straw purchaser to profit out
of the transaction, the complaint states.

The suit involves about a hundred people and possibly others from other
counties, including Baltimore and Howard, Baltimore Sun learned from Phillip
Robinson, executive director Civil Justice Inc., a Baltimore nonprofit that
helped prepare the lawsuit.

It was filed by Civil Justice along with Legg Law Firm LLC of Frederick and
The Holland Law Firm of Annapolis on behalf of two Prince George's County
couples, Melvin J. Proctor Jr. and Nadine M. McKenzie-Proctor, and Delores
Wallace and Ronnell Wallace, and other homeowners.

Legg Law Firm LLC on the Net: http://www.legglaw.com/.
The Holland Law Firm on the Net: http://www.hlfirm.com.


NEW CENTURY: Former Workers File Suit Over Deferred-Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A suit seeking class-action status against New Century Financial Corp. was
filed Wednesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., according to
the Associated Press.

The lawsuit, brought by about 500 former workers, alleges that the firm
violated federal pension laws.  It wants the court to compel the firm to pay
$43 million to former employees.  It also asks the court to rule that the
deferred-compensation funds can’t be used to pay New Century’s other
creditors.

The plaintiffs further allege they were forced to join in a deferred-
compensation plan, which started in 1999.  They claim the company told them
the plan was designed to provide employees with "additional retirement
benefits and increased financial security, on a tax-favored basis.”

The plaintiffs include former Executive Vice-President Gregory J. Schroeder,
who said that the firm owes him $876,721 in deferred compensation, and
Michelle Parker, saying she is owed $403,000.

The California-based company used to be the biggest mortgage providers to low-
earning creditors.  It fell into bankruptcy in April and is now selling its
assets.

The suit says "The vast majority of the (participants) was neither management-
level employees, nor highly compensated."

"In fact, employees with base salaries as low as $18,000 were considered
eligible for the plan based solely upon their projected commission income,
which in many cases never materialized," it added.

The suit further argues that the mere involvement in the plan is enough to
warrant the protections afforded by the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, or ERISA.

                       About New Century

Founded in 1995, Irvine, Calif.-based New Century Financial Corporation
(NYSE: NEW) -- http://www.ncen.com/-- is a real estate investment trust,  
providing mortgage products to borrowers nationwide through its operating
subsidiaries, New Century Mortgage Corporation and Home123 Corporation.   The
company offers a broad range of mortgage products designed to meet the needs
of all borrowers.

The company and its debtor-affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection on
April 2, 2007 (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 07-10416).   Suzzanne Uhland,
Esq., Austin K. Barron, Esq., and Ana Acevedo, Esq., at O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, and Mark D. Collins, Esq., Michael J. Merchant, Esq., and Jason M.
Madron, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., represent the Debtors.  The
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors selected Hahn & Hessen as its
bankruptcy counsel and Blank Rome LLP as its co-counsel.

When the Debtors filed for bankruptcy, they listed total assets of
$36,276,815 and total debts of $102,503,950.   The Debtors' exclusive period
to file a chapter 11 plan expires on July 31, 2007 .  (New Century Bankruptcy
News, Issue No. 13; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).  


NORTH CAROLINA: No Class Status in Suit Over Disability Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld, in a split decision, a ruling by
a Superior Court Judge to deny class-action certification to a complaint
filed against the Alamance County over its disability benefits to workers,
Keren Rivas of Times-News reports.

But because the decision was not unanimous, the state Supreme Court will
ultimately decide whether to grant class-action status to the case.

The complaint was filed by James Peverall Jr., who worked as a county
emergency medical technician for more than seven years until his retirement
because of disability on Aug. 1, 1999.  He was denied insurance upon
retirement after the Alamance County commissioners voted to require employees
20 years of service instead of five to be eligible for an insurance benefit.

Mr. Peverall is seeking-class action status on behalf of himself and at least
376 other employees, including his daughter.  In 2006, Superior Court Judge
James Spencer Jr. refused to allow the 376 employees to become potential
class members in the case because their identity is unknown and because it is
unclear how many, if any, of these employees will actually retire.

In recent developments, two justices agreed the plaintiff’s complaints were
without merit; and concurred with the April 2006 decision.  A third justice,
however, dissented saying the appeal should be dismissed because of “multiple
appellate rule violations.”


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------
Novastar Financial, Inc. faces substantially similar putative securities
fraud class actions since February 2007 that have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, 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 complaints name the Company and three of the Company’s executive officers
as defendants and generally allege, among other things, that the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s
business and financial results.

The plaintiffs purport to have brought the actions on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock during the
period May 4, 2006 through Feb. 20, 2007.

Novastar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarmortgage.com/-- operates as a  
specialty finance company that originates, purchases, securitizes, sells,
invests in and services residential nonconforming loans and mortgage-backed
securities.


PHILIPPINES: First Gentleman Seeks Dismissal of Reporters' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ruy Alberto Rondain, lawyer for the Philippines' First Gentleman, Jose Miguel
Arroyo, hopes to question in court eight of the journalists who are
plaintiffs in a PHP15 million civil class action filed by dozens of Filipino
journalists who are facing libel suits filed by Mr. Arroyo.

Mr. Rondain said the eight had been subpoenaed to appear in a Makati court
as "hostile witnesses," the Philippine Daily Inquirer reports.

"They will have to take the stand. If I'm successful, the class suit will be
dismissed," Mr. Rondain told the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

He said the eight, including Inquirer columnists Conrad de Quiros and Ramon
Tulfo, were the "first batch" to be summoned before Judge Zenaida Galapate-
Laguilles of Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 143. The others who were
subpoenaed were:

          -- Maritess Vitug,
          -- Ricky Carandang,
          -- Erwin Tulfo,
          -- Mia Gonzalez,
          -- William Esposo and
          -- Lito Banayo.

However, Mr. Arroyo, will not attend the hearing where Mr. Rondain said he
would present evidence for his affirmative defense -- which sets up new
matters that provide a defense against the plaintiffs' case, assuming their
complaint to be true. The proceeding would be tantamount to a motion to
dismiss, the report said.

On Dec. 28, 2006 , dozens of Filipino journalists who are facing libel suits
filed by Mr. Arroyo filed a civil class action against the presidential
spouse at the Makati Regional Trial Court (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29,
2006).

Plaintiffs most of whom are charged by Mr. Arroyo with libel are
backed by other journalists, media, and journalists' organizations.  Such
groups include the Philippine Center for
Investigative Journalism and Center for Media Freedom and
Responsibility.

They are contesting the First Gentleman's claim that he has been
maligned as a private citizen, for which he is seeking at least
$2,872,275.41 (PHP141 million) in damages.

The libel cases were in connection with reports of alleged
election fraud and corruption involving Mr. Arroyo.  The
journalists are accusing Mr. Arroyo of trying to stifle freedom
of the press (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2006 ).

Retaliating against the charges filed against them, the
journalists are in turn suing Mr. Arroyo for abuse of power and
for seeking to undermine civil liberties.

The suit is asking for about $305,561.21 (PHP15 million) in
damages for the anxiety, loss of income, and other
inconveniences Mr. Arroyo's libel suits have allegedly caused.

In January, Mr. Arroyo filed a counterclaim against dozens of
Filipino journalists who filed the suit (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10,
2007).

Mr. Arroyo's lawyer, Ruy Rondain, said the class suit, was
defective, claiming that other plaintiffs did not sign the class
suit while those who joined had nothing to do with the case as
they are not facing libel charges filed by Mr. Arroyo.

Judge Laguilles has given Mr. Arroyo until last Friday (June 22) to refute
the class suit.

Mr. Arroyo's lead counsel is:

          Ruy Alberto Rondain, Esq.
          Rondain Mendiola & Pio De Roda Law Office
          405 OMM-CITRA Bldg., 39 San Miguel Ave., Pasig City
          Phone: 633-2421 to 22

Plaintiffs' lawyer is:

          Harry Roque, Esq.
          1904 Antel Corporate Center
          121 Valero Street Salcedo Village
          Makati City Philippines 1227
          Phone:  +632 8873894
          Fax: +632 8873893


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls ATVs to Replace Faulty Fuel Tank
------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minn., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission is voluntarily recalling 930 units of
Polaris “Outlaw 525” ATVs.

The firm said the recalled ATVs may have a loose fuel valve within the fuel
tank, which could cause a fuel leak and pose a fire hazard to riders.

Polaris has received four reports of ATVs having a loose fuel valve.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves 2007 model year Polaris “Outlaw 525” ATVs.  They are
available in black or white.

These vehicles were manufactured in the U.S. and were sold at Polaris ATV
dealers nationwide from January 2007 through May 2007 for $7,300.

Click on the link to view photo of the recalled ATV:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07560.html

Consumers are advised to stop operating these ATVs immediately and contact
their local Polaris dealer to determine if they have a recalled unit.  
Polaris will provide a free fuel tank replacement for consumers with recalled
units.  Polaris has notified registered consumers about this recall.

For more information, consumers should contact Polaris at (800) 765-2747
between 8 a.m. and midnight ET everyday, or visit the company’s Web site at
http://www.polarisindustries.com.


SIRVA INC: Agrees to Settle Ill. Securities Suit for $53.5M
-----------------------------------------------------------
SIRVA, Inc. has entered into an agreement to settle for approximately $53.3
million a securities class action currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against it and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.

Under the terms of the settlement, SIRVA's contribution to the settlement
will be its agreement to waive its right to reimbursement from its insurers
of approximately $5.6 million of legal fees and costs incurred by SIRVA in
connection with the litigation, almost all of which has been previously paid
by SIRVA.

Initially, two securities suits were filed in November 2004 against SIRVA,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors.  They are:

      -- "Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. SIRVA Inc., et al.,
         No.04-CV-7644," and

      -- "Hiatt v. SIRVA,Inc., et al., No.04-CV-7532."

Both complaints purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who acquired
the company's common stock between Nov. 25, 2003 and Nov. 9, 2004.

On Jan. 25, 2005, the plaintiff in "Hiatt" voluntarily dismissed his suit.  
On March 29, 2005, the court appointed Central Laborers' Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff in the remaining case, and approved its choice of counsel, Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, as lead plaintiff's counsel.

On May 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a "corrected" complaint, retaining the same
class period, and alleging, among other things, that defendants had made
false and misleading statements in certain SEC filings, including the
prospectuses to the company's initial and secondary public offerings, and
press releases.

The statements subject to the complaint generally relate to the Company's
insurance claims reserves, European operations, and restatement accounts and
are said to constitute violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.

On Oct. 11, 2005, plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action
complaint, a corrected version of which was filed on Oct. 19, 2005.

The amended complaint adds ten new defendants, including an additional
director, the seven underwriters which participated in the initial and
secondary public offerings, the company's independent auditor and its
controlling shareholder.

It also extends the class period, purporting to be brought on behalf of all
those who acquired the Company's common stock between Nov. 25, 2003 and Jan.
31, 2005.

The amended complaint also contained allegations relating to the following
areas: the company's restatement of financial statements and accounting
errors for years 2000 through 2003 and the first nine months of 2004,
problems in the company's European operations, insurance reserves, financial
forecasting, and internal controls.

The statements subject to the amended complaint are alleged to violate
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
as well as Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.

On Jan. 3, 2006, the company and all other defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

On Sept. 22, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part that motion.  
It dismissed in full, without prejudice, the claim under Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act, as well as various allegations underlying the other
claims, and granted plaintiff 30 days to amend its complaint.

On Oct. 23, 2006, plaintiff filed its consolidated second amended class
action complaint in order to replead claims that the court dismissed without
prejudice.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the company and all other defendants filed their answer to
the second amended complaint.  On Nov. 15, 2006, the company and certain of
the other defendants moved in part to dismiss the second amended complaint.

The company reported at its May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing that it entered into
settlement discussions to settle the suit (Class Action Reporter, May 25,
2007).

The suit is "Central Lab PenFd v. Sirva Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
07644," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Steven G. Schulman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: (212) 594-5300

Representing the company are:

         Tara Kocheran Charnes, Esq.
         Richard Bradshaw Kapnick, Esq.
         Matthew Brian Kilby, Esq.
         Catherine Rosen, Esq.
         Sidley Austin LLP
         One South Dearborn Street
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 853-7000
         E-mail: rkapnick@sidley.com
                 mkilby@sidley.com
                 crosen@sidley.com


STATION CASINOS: Discovery Begins in Suit Over Fertitta Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Document discovery has begun in a consolidated class action against Station
Casinos, Inc. over its definitive merger agreement with Fertitta Colony
Partners, LLC.

                         Merger Agreement

On Dec. 4, 2006, the company announced that it had received a proposal from
Fertitta Colony to acquire all of Station Casinos' outstanding common stock
for $82 per share in cash.  

On Feb. 23, the company entered into a definitive merger agreement with
Fertitta Colony, pursuant to which Fertitta Colony agreed to purchase all of
the company's outstanding common stock for $90 per share in cash.  

Fertitta Colony is a company formed by Frank J. Fertitta III, chairman and
chief executive officer of station; Lorenzo J.  
Fertitta, vice chairman and president of station; and Colony  
Capital Acquisitions, LLC, an affiliate of Colony Capital, LLC.

                         Initial Lawsuits

On Dec. 4, 2006, Helen Roessler filed a purported class action complaint in
the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A532367, against the
company, its Board of Directors, and  
Fertitta Colony.   

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
challenges the proposed transaction as inadequate and unfair to the company's
public stockholders.   

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit
and an injunction against the proposed transaction.   

Three similar putative class actions were subsequently filed in the District
Court:   

      -- "Goldman v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         A532395, filed on Dec. 4, 2006;"  

      -- "Traynor v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         A532407, filed on Dec 4, 2006;" and  

      -- "Filhaber v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         A532499, filed on Dec. 5, 2006."

                       Griffiths Litigation

On Jan. 2, 2007 David Griffiths filed a purported class action complaint in
the District Court against the company, its Board of Directors, Delise F.
Sartini, Blake L. Sartini, Colony  
Capital, LLC, Colony Capital Acquisitions, LLC, and FCP.   

The complaint alleges that the company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties and the remaining defendants aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction.   

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
an injunction against the proposed transaction, declaratory relief, the
imposition of a constructive trust upon the defendants, and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs.

                     Consolidation of Cases

On Jan. 4, 2007, the District Court consolidated the Initial Lawsuits under
the heading, "In Re Station Casino's Shareholder  
Litigation," and appointed lead counsel and liason counsel in connection
therewith.   

On Jan. 29, 2007 Mr. Griffiths filed a motion to vacate the District Court's
order appointing lead counsel and to establish a briefing schedule on motions
to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  At the March 5, 2007 hearing on
this motion, the plaintiff’s motion was denied.


                    Class and Derivative Suit

On Feb. 14, 2007, the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund filed a
purported class and derivative action complaint in District Court against the
company's Board of Directors, Thomas J. Barrack, Jr., Delise Sartini, Blake
Sartini, Colony Capital, Colony Acquisitions, FCP, Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas, and German American Capital Corp.   

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company breached its
fiduciary duties and the remaining defendants aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed transaction.   

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
an injunction against the proposed transaction unless and until the company
adopts and implements a fair sale process, the disclosure of all material
information to the company's stockholders, the imposition of a constructive
trust upon the defendants, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
plaintiffs.

                     Consolidation of Cases

All of the above-referenced actions have been consolidated into a single
action under the heading, “In re Station Casinos Shareholder Litigation,
Master Case No. A-532367,” Dept. No. 13, District Court, Clark County,
Nevada.  

Document discovery has begun, 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.

Station Casinos, Inc. -- Net: http://www.stationcasinos.com-- is a gaming  
and entertainment company that owns and operates nine major hotel/casino
properties and seven smaller casino properties in the Las Vegas metropolitan
area, as well as manages a casino for a Native American tribe.  The Company's
Casino Properties include Palace Station Hotel and Casino, Boulder Station
Hotel and Casino, Texas Station Gambling Hall and Hotel, Sunset Station Hotel
and Casino, Santa Fe Station Hotel and Casino, Red Rock Casino Resort Spa,
Fiesta Rancho Casino Hotel, Fiesta Henderson Casino Hotel, Wild Wild West
Gambling Hall and Hotel, Wildfire Casino, Magic Star Casino, Gold Rush Casino
and Lake Mead Casino.  The Company also owns a 50% interest in Green Valley
Ranch Resort Spa Casino, Barley’s Casino and Brewing Company and The Greens
Gaming and Dining.  In addition, Station Casinos manages Thunder Valley
Casino in Sacramento, California, on behalf of the United Auburn Indian
Community.


ST. JOHN'S: Sued Over Alleged Discriminatory Pricing System
-----------------------------------------------------------
St. John's Regional Health Center is facing a class action petition in Greene
County Circuit Court over alleged discriminatory pricing practices, Ryan
Slight of the Springfield News-Leader reports.

Stockton, Massachusetts couple, Gregory D. and Anna Polsgrove accuses St.
John's of deceptive practices that charged patients significantly higher
rates if they were not covered by insurance, Medicare or Medicaid.

According to the complaint, Mr. Polsgrove suffered a heart attack on Aug. 28,
2004, and received treatment at St. John's until Aug. 30, 2004. The
Polsgroves allegedly had to sign forms to guarantee payment for unspecified
charges, but since they had no medical insurance, they did not qualify for
any government medical assistance.

Mr. Polsgrove was charged $46,224 for his hospitalization and treatment, the
petition said. St. John's started seeking collection of unpaid medical bills
in September 2004, it said.

Although the plaintiffs made some payments, they were unable to pay the
entire bill, the petition said.

St. John's had not filed a response to the complaint yet, the report said.

The case was assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Conklin.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Scott S. Bethune
          Timothy L. Brake, P.C.   
          1100 Main St., 29th Fl.
          P.O. Box 26250
          Kansas City, MO 64105-2120


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Allowed to Go Ahead with Investors Meeting
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for Nevada, Clark County denied plaintiffs’ application
for a Temporary Restraining Order seeking to postpone Swift Transportation
Co.’s Special Meeting of Stockholders.

Swift Transportation is a defendant in several purported stockholder class
actions in both Arizona and Nevada courts over a proposed acquisition of all
of the company's outstanding shares by its largest shareholder.

On Nov. 6 and 7, 2006, three cases were filed against the company and each of
its directors.  Two of the cases were filed in Arizona Superior Court,
Maricopa County.  

The suits are, “Pfeiffer v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. et al., Case No.
CV2006-017074,” and “Molinari v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al., Case
No CV2006-017089.”

A third case was filed in the District Court for Nevada, Clark County
(Hendrix v. Swift Transportation Company Inc. et al., Case No A531032).

The three cases are putative class actions brought by stockholders alleging
that the company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company
in connection with a proposal from Jerry Moyes, its largest shareholder and
one of our directors, to acquire all of the Company’s outstanding shares for
$29.00 per share.

The cases make claims for monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’
fees and expenses.  The parties have filed a stipulation in Arizona to
consolidate the two Arizona cases.

On Nov. 27, 2006, the company announced that the special committee of the
Board of Directors had rejected Mr. Moyes’ $29.00 per share offer.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the company announced that after engaging in discussions
with other potential financial and strategic buyers, as well as further
discussions and negotiations with Mr. Moyes, the company decided to enter
into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Mr. Moyes and certain of
his family members would acquire all of the Company’s outstanding shares of
stock for $31.55 per share.

On Jan. 23 & 26, 2007, two new lawsuits and an amended complaint in a
preexisting lawsuit were filed.  The lawsuits were filed in the Arizona
Superior Court, Maricopa County (Weller v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et
al, Case No CV2007-1440) and the District Court for Nevada, Washoe County
(McDonald v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. et al, Case No CV0700197).

The Amended Complaint was filed in an action that was commenced on March 24,
2006, in the District Court for Nevada, Clark County (Rivera v. Eller et al,
Case No A519346).

The three cases are also putative class actions brought by stockholders
alleging that the company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company in connection with our entry into the merger agreement.

In addition to asserting direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty, the
Amended Complaint asserts derivative claims on the Company’s behalf and also
asserts a claim against Mr. Moyes and Earl H. Scudder, a former director of
the Company, for unjust enrichment.

The three most recently filed complaints also make claims for monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and expenses.

On April 2 and 4, 2007, Plaintiffs in the McDonald, Pfeiffer, Molinari and
Weller actions voluntarily dismissed those actions without prejudice in favor
of the actions pending in the District Court for Nevada, Clark County.

On April 4, 2007, Plaintiffs in the actions pending in the District Court for
Nevada, Clark County, filed an amended, consolidated complaint.

Like the previously filed complaints, the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
alleges that the company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company in connection with its entry into the merger agreement.

The Consolidated Complaint also alleges that the Company issued a materially
misleading proxy that omitted or failed to fairly disclose material
information about the sales process. It seeks monetary damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys’ fees and expenses.

On April 24, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Application for a Temporary
Restraining Order seeking to postpone the Company’s Special Meeting of
Stockholders.

Swift Transportation Co., Inc. -- http://www.swifttrans.com-- hauls freight  
throughout the US and in Mexico.  The company operates a fleet of about
18,000 tractors and 50,000 trailers from a network of more than 30
terminals.  Swift serves as a core carrier for several large shippers,
transporting goods such as paper products, nonperishable foods, building
materials, and retail and discount store merchandise.  Besides standard dry
vans, Swift's fleet includes refrigerated, flatbed, and other specialized
trailers, as well as about 5,000 intermodal containers.


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Motion to Consolidate Fla. Suits Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a motion
seeking to consolidate several purported class actions filed against
Technical Olympic USA, Inc. (TOUSA).

Beginning in December 2006, various stockholder plaintiffs brought lawsuits
seeking class-action status.  The actions allege that Technical Olympic and
certain of its current and former officers violated the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose:

      -- certain guaranties entered into by Technical Olympic in
         connection with the Transeastern JV's acquisition of
         Transeastern Properties, Inc. and related potential
         liability;

      -- declining conditions in the housing market in Florida;
         and

      -- that, as a consequence of market declines, Technical
         Olympic could lose value in its investment in the joint
         venture.

One of the complaints also alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 by omitting material facts about the financing of the
Transeastern Properties acquisition from the offering materials related to
Technical Olympic's September 2005 offering of common stock.

Plaintiffs in each of these actions seek compensatory damages, plus fees and
costs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class of purchasers of
Technical Olympic common stock and purchasers and sellers of options on
Technical Olympic common stock.

Motions are pending to consolidate each of the actions into the first-filed
case, "Durgin v. Technical Olympic USA, Inc., et al."

At a hearing held March 29, 2007, the court granted consolidation of the
actions and heard arguments on the appointment of the lead plaintiff and
counsel, according to the company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2007.

The suit is "George Durgin, et al. v. Technical Olympic USA, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-CV-61844," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Kenneth A. Marra with referral to Judge
Linnea R. Johnson.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 561-750-3364
         E-mail: sdavidson@lerachlaw.com

Representing the company is:

         David Paul Ackerman, Esq.
         Ackerman Link & Sartory
         222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1250
         West Palm Beach, FL 33401
         Phone: 561-838-4100
         Fax: 561-838-5305
         E-mail: dackerman@alslaw.com


TELLABS INC: Supreme Court Favors Firm in Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tellabs, Inc. in the company’s
appeal of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to
reinstate certain claims in a class action against the company.

The class action was filed in 2001 after a sharp plunge in Tellabs' revenue
and stock price.

Tellabs manufactured and marketed broadband access and optical networking
equipment.  The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the defendants concealed
from investors the fact that the company was experiencing a "dramatic
slowdown" in sales from mid-2000 to mid-2001.  During that same time,
Tellabs' chief executive was repeatedly reassuring investors that, unlike its
competitors, Tellabs was experiencing "robust growth."  Also during that
period, Tellabs insiders profited by selling tens of thousands of Tellabs
shares for more than $8 million.

As a result of the defendants' alleged fraudulent acts and statements,
Tellabs' share price peaked at a high of $65.38, before plunging to $16.04
after the truth about the company's financial condition was disclosed.

The 7th Circuit previously found that a securities class action can proceed
if, based on the facts alleged in the complaint, "a reasonable person could
infer that the defendants acted with the requisite intent" -- a standard
consistent with rulings by several other U.S. Courts of Appeals.

The Supreme Court reviewed the 7th Circuit's interpretation of
the "scienter," a defendant's intent, or culpable state of mind.  In a
decision handed on June 19, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that plaintiffs'
attorneys must show when filing suit that corporate executives had a "cogent
and compelling" intent to engage in wrongdoing.  Courts must weigh other
innocent explanations for conduct alleged in fraud suits, the court said in
an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

``It should go a long way in reducing abusive securities class actions,
discouraging blackmail settlements and providing certainty for the financial
industry and investors,'' said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce's litigation unit in Washington, according to
Bloomberg News.

The case, “Tellabs v. Makor Issues & Rights, 06-484,” now goes back to the
lower court.

Tellabs' lawyer is:

          Carter G. Phillips, Esq.
          Sidley Austin LLP
          Web site: http://www.sidley.com/
          Washington, D.C.
          1501 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone  202.736.8270
          Fax;  202.736.8711

The shareholders' lawyer is:

          Richard Weiss, Esq.
          Milberg Weiss & Bershad
          Phone: 212.946.9304
          Fax: 212.273.4401
          Email: rweiss@milbergweiss.com


TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Dismissal of Neb. Securities Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff in a purported class action against Transaction Systems
Architects, Inc., which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska, is appealing an order dismissing the matter.

In November 2002, two class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska against the company and certain individuals alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Pursuant to a Court order, the two complaints were consolidated as “Desert
Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects, Inc., et al.,” with
Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System designated as lead plaintiff.

The Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint previously alleged
that during the purported class period, the company and the named defendants
misrepresented the company’s historical financial condition, results of
operations and our future prospects, and failed to disclose facts that could
have indicated an impending decline in the company’s revenues.

That Complaint also alleged that, prior to August 2002, the purported truth
regarding the company’s financial condition had not been disclosed to the
market.

The company and the individual defendants initially filed a motion to dismiss
the lawsuit.  In response, on Dec. 15, 2003, the Court dismissed, without
prejudice, Gregory Derkacht, our former president and chief executive
officer, as a defendant, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the
remaining defendants, including the company.

On July 1, 2004, lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification
wherein, for the first time, lead plaintiff sought to add an additional class
representative, Roger M. Wally.

On Aug. 20, 2004, defendants filed their opposition to the motion.  On March
22, 2005, the Court issued an order certifying the class of persons that
purchased the company’s common stock from Jan. 21, 1999 through Nov. 18, 2002.

On Jan. 27, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings, seeking a dismissal of the lead plaintiff and
certain other class members, as well as a limitation on damages based upon
plaintiffs’ inability to establish loss causation with respect to a large
portion of their claims.

On Feb. 6, 2006, additional class representative Roger M. Wally filed a
motion to withdraw as a class representative and class member.  

On April 21, 2006, and based upon the pending motion for judgment, a motion
to intervene as a class representative was filed by the Louisiana District
Attorneys Retirement System (LDARS).

LDARS previously attempted to be named as lead plaintiff in the case.  On
July 5, 2006, the Magistrate denied LDARS’ motion to intervene, which LDARS
appealed to the District Judge.  That appeal has not yet been decided.

On May 17, 2006, the Court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings as
being moot based upon the Court’s granting lead plaintiff leave to file a
Third Amended Complaint, which it did on May 31, 2006.

The Third Complaint alleges the same misrepresentations as described above,
while simultaneously alleging that the purported truth about our financial
condition was being disclosed throughout that time, commencing in April
1999.  It seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.

On June 14, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Third Complaint pursuant to Rules 8 and 12 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  Lead Plaintiff opposed the motion.

Prior to any ruling on the motion to dismiss, on Nov. 7, 2006, the parties
entered into a Stipulation of Settlement for purposes of settling all of the
claims in the Class Action Litigation, with no admissions of wrongdoing by us
or any individual defendant.  

The settlement provides for an aggregate cash payment of $24.5 million of
which, net of insurance, we contributed approximately $8.5 million.

The Court approved the settlement on March 2, 2007 and it ordered the case
dismissed with prejudice against the company and the individual defendants.

On March 27, 2007, James J. Hayes, a class member, filed a notice of appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit appealing this order,
according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2006.  

Transaction Systems Architects, Inc. -- http://www.tsainc.com/-- along with  
its subsidiaries, develops, markets, installs and supports a line of software
products and services primarily focused on facilitating electronic payments.


TROPICAL ISLES: Judge Denies Certification to Residents’ Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A circuit judge denied a motion to certify a lawsuit filed by residents of
Tropical Isles (Fla.) mobile home park over lifetime rent agreements, Derek
Simmonsen of TCPalm reports.

Tropical Isles is a 55-plus manufactured home community located between Ft.
Pierce and Port St. Lucie.  The park's owners received an offer to buy the
park from a developer, but 173 residents belonging to Tropical Isles CO-OP
Inc. bought the park for $15 million in April, according to the report.

The suit, filed in December, claims that financing arranged by residents to
buy the park would increase monthly rents.  They said the rents were
originally set by lifetime, fixed leases.  

The judge denied the claim and dismissed the suit, but allowed the plaintiffs
and the proposed class representative, Eva Perrotto, to file individual
claims.  He said that though there were some common issues among plaintiffs,
they failed to show evidence of how many people might be eligible for the
class action.  The suit also didn't explain whether Ms. Perrotto's claims
were typical of other residents, the judge stated in his ruling.

Judge Bryan also questioned whether Perrotto was knowledgeable enough about
the claims raised to act as a representative for other residents.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael Feinstein, Esq.
          Michael Feinstein, P.A.
          888 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-767-9662
          Fax: 954-527-0848  
          Email: michael@feinsteinlaw.net


WASHINGTON BEEF: Recalls Beef Products Due to Sanitary Concerns
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Beef, a Toppenish, Washington firm, is recalling approximately
82,286 pounds of beef products that were produced under unsanitary
conditions, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service announced this week.  

The beef products may have been produced using non-potable water following
testing by the Washington State Department of Health.

The beef products subject to recall were shipped in bulk for further
processing and may have been sold under different retail brand names in the
affected states.  Consumers should check with their local retailer to
determine whether they may have purchased any of the products subject to
recall.

The following products, shipped in boxes for further processing, are subject
to recall.  These products are not available for retail sale in the manner in
which they are described.

     - "Premium Angus Beef Choice Bottom Sirloin Ball-Tip."  
       Each box label bears the case code "20720;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Choice Top Round (Denuded)."  Each box
       label bears the case code "15022;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Choice Bone-in WCCS Neck-Off Chuck."
       Each box label bears the case code "15025;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Choice Shoulder Clod."  Each box label
       bears the case code "15028;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Select Bottom Round Flat."  Each box
       label bears the case code "15031;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Select Bone-in Neck of Chuck."  Each
       label bears the case code "15035;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Beef Trim 75/25."  Each bin label
       bears the case code "16944;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Boneless Brisket 120."  Each bin label
       bears the case code "21534;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Choice Boneless Bottom Sirloin Flap
       Meat."  Each box label bears the case code "22320;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Select Boneless Bottom Sirloin Flap
       Meat."  Each box label bears the case code "22331;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Boneless Beef Trim 85/15."  Each bin
       label bears the case code "23344;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Boneless Beef Plate."  Each bin label
       bears the case code "25134;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Boneless Beef Trim 65/35."  Each bin
       label bears the case code "26045;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Soup Bones."  Each box label bears the
       case code "39118;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Choice Chuck Tenders."  Each box label
       bears the case code "40840;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Choice Strip Loin 1 x 1."  Each box
       label bears the case code "46723;"

     -  "St. Helen's Beef, Choice Steak Ready Top Sirloin C/C."
        Each box label bears the case code "46726;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Choice Tenderloin 189A 5UP."  Each box
       label bears the case code "46728;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Select Sirloin Tip Peeled."  Each box
       label bears the case code "47131;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Sirloin Tip Peeled."  Each box label
       bears the case code "54132;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Select Top Sirloin 13/DN."  Each box
       label bears the case code "63034;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Choice Top Sirloin 13/UP."  Each box
       label bears the case code "63420;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Select Boneless Bottom Sirloin Tri-
       Tip." Each box label bears the case code "65132;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Choice Bone-in Top Sirloin Coulotte."  
       Each box label bears the case code "69602;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Select Bone-in Beef Back-Ribs."  Each
       box label bears the case code "78633;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Select Boneless Chuck Roll Neck Off."
       Each box label bears the case code "80333;"

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Choice 2PC Shoulder Clod."  Each box
       label bears the case code "81520;" and

     - "St. Helen's Beef, Chuck Tender." Each box label bears
       he case code "82330."

These products were produced on June 11, bear the establishment number "Est.
235" inside the USDA mark of inspection and were distributed to wholesalers,
processors and retail institutions in California, Idaho, Oregon and
Washington.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact company
Vice President Rick Stott at (206) 428-3085 and visit
http://www.washingtonbeefrecall.comfor additional information.  

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual
representative available 24 hours a day at http://www.AskKaren.gov. 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.  


NETLIST INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Netlist Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's November
30, 2006, Initial Public Offering (the IPO) through April 16, 2007,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges Netlist and certain of the Company's executive officers
and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations and
prospects caused Netlist's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors. Netlist is a designer and manufacturer of
high-performance memory subsystems, which are sold to original equipment
manufacturers in the server, high-performance computing, and communications
markets.

The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose, among other things,
that:

          (1) the Company was experiencing the effects of an
              over-supplied memory chip market, and demand for
              the Company's products had deteriorated
              substantially;

          (2) due to excessive inventory levels, the Company's
              two largest customers would be forced to slash
              their product orders to return to acceptable
              levels;

          (3) the Company's profit margins were quickly eroding
              in the memory chip market;

          (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

          (5) as a result of the foregoing, among other things,
              the Company's Registration Statement was false and
              misleading at all relevant times.

On April 16, 2007 , Netlist shocked investors when it reported its first
quarter 2007 preliminary financial results, which disclosed for the first
time that its operating results would be dramatically lower than investors
were led to believe, primarily due to an oversupplied dynamic random access
memory market, which in turn affected the Company's product pricing and gross
margins.

Additionally, the Company revealed that it had experienced a lower than
expected demand for high-end products from its largest customers, due to
excess inventory which had also significantly reduced demand for the
Company's products. As a result of this news, shares of the Company's stock
declined more than 28 percent, or $1.68 per share, to close on April 17,
2007, at $4.29 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 27, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067\
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 (Toll Free)
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Website: http://www.glancylaw.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  * * *