CAR_Public/070628.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 28, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 127

                           Headlines

     
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Litigation
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
ALLIED CHEMICAL: High Court Grants Mandamus Relief in Fumes Suit
AMEX BANK: Continues to Face QCPA Violations Lawsuits in Canada
AMEX BANK: Faces Suit in Canada Over Foreign Currency Conversion

APPLIED SIGNAL: Court Considers Appeal in Nixed Securities Suit
ARKANSAS: School Board Sued Over Supervisor’s Severance Pay
AT&T WIRELESS: Appeals Court Says UCC Suit Merits Class Status
BANK JOS: Motion to Dismiss Md. Securities Fraud Suit Pending
BEZEQ: Subsidiary Faces $55.94M Suit Over “Pele-Phone Olim” Plan

BOND MANUFACTURING: Recalls Collapsing Recliners Posing Injuries
BORDERS GROUP: Enters Mediation in Cal. Labor Violations Suit
BROWN SHOE: Court Mulls Appeal Against $1M Redfield Suit Award
DYNCORP INT'L: Still Faces D.C. Litigation Over "Plan Colombia"
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.

FOOT LOCKER: Faces Litigation in N.Y. Alleging ERISA Violations
INTEGRATED SILICON: Faces Consolidated SRAM Antitrust Litigation
JMK ELECTRIC: Lawsuit in Ill. Alleges Labor Code Violations
KEEFE BRUYETTE: Faces Securities Fraud, RICO Lawsuit in Penn.
MAX & ERMA’S: Faces Pa. Litigation Alleging FCRA Violations

MEDIMMUNE INC: Investor Suit Fails to Halt Sale to AstraZeneca
MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Suit Over Precious Metals for $4.4M
MS USA: Recalls Toothpaste Potentially Contaminated with DEC
NIGERIA: Citizens Abroad Challenge Election Disenfranchisement
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: 2005 Derailment Suit Deal Gets Final Approval

NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: Investor Sues Over Sale to Madison Dearborn
PHLX: Enters Talks to Settle Suit Over Rejected Archipelago Bid
RC2 CORP: Balestriere Files N.Y. Suit Over Recalled Railway Toys
RUBBER COS: Sued in Fla. for Allegedly Fixing Marine Hose Prices
ST BARNABAS: Rival Hospitals’ Suit Over Outlier Payments Junked

UNITED HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
VALUECLICK: Sued for Failing to Prevent Adware Use in Network
VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Suit Over Timing Belts that Fail Prematurely
WAL-MART: Ala. Suit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Compensation


                   New Securities Fraud Cases
  
NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Schiffrin Files Securities Suit in Cal.
SHUFFLE MASTER: Berger & Montague Files Securities Suit in Nev.


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action filed by Lisa Hashimoto et al. in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on
June 23, 2006 against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,
Inc.

Three plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a putative class of California store
managers employed in Hollister and Abercrombie stores, that they were
entitled to receive overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California
wage and hour laws.  

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and
costs.  

The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 21, 2006.  The
parties are engaging in discovery, according to the company’s June 12, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended May 5, 2007.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com-- is a specialty  
retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel, such as knit shirts,
graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts, shorts, as well as personal care and
other accessories for men, women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch,
abercrombie, Hollister and RUEHL brands.  As of Jan. 28, 2006, the company
operated 851 stores in the United States and Canada.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has yet to rule on
a motion seeking the dismissal of the amended complaint in the consolidated
securities fraud class action pending against Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all persons who
purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the company between
June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005.

The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al.," was filed
on Sept. 2, 2005.  The suit also named as defendants the company's officers.  

In September and October of 2005, five other purported class actions were
subsequently filed against the company and other defendants in the same
court.  

All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities laws as a
result of a decline in the price of the company's  
Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.  

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported class actions
into the first case was filed by some of the plaintiffs.  The company joined
in that motion.

On Mar. 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and these actions
were consolidated for purposes of motion practice, discovery and pretrial
proceedings.

A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was filed on Aug.
14, 2006.  On Oct. 13, 2006, all defendants moved to dismiss that complaint.  

The motion has been fully briefed and is pending, according to the company’s
June 12, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended May 5, 2007.

The suit is "Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al. (2:05-cv-
00819-EAS-TPK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio under Judge Edmund A. Sargus with referral to Judge Terence P.
Kemp.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Keith W. Schneider, Esq.
         Maguire & Schneider
         250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-224-1222
         Fax: 614-224-1236
         E-mail: kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com

Representing the defendants are:
   
         Philip Albert Brown, Esq.
         Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease
         52 East Gay Street
         Columbus, OH 43216-1008
         Phone: 614-464-6400
         Fax: 614-464-6400
         E-mail: pabrown@vssp.com

         Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq.
         Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter
         65 E State Street, Suite 1800
         Columbus, OH 43215-4294
         Phone: 614-462-5400
         Fax: 614-462-5422
         E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com

              - and -

         Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr., Esq.
         McNamara and McNamara
         88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-228-6131
         E-mail: mrs@mcnamaralaw.us


ALLIED CHEMICAL: High Court Grants Mandamus Relief in Fumes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Supreme Court has ordered a trial court not to set another trial in
a suit filed against Allied Chemical Corp. over noxious chemical fumes, Rob
Luke of the Legal Newsline.com reports.

The said no trial should be held "until the defendants have a reasonable
opportunity to prepare for trial after learning who will connect their
products to plaintiffs' injuries."  

Defendants moved for discovery several times unsuccessfully, the court found,
according to the report.

"Plaintiffs bear the burden of pleading and proving how they were injured and
by whom," wrote Justice Scott Brister for the majority.  "They cannot simply
file suit against everyone in the vicinity and demand that the defendants
prove otherwise."

Roughly 1,900 plaintiffs sued 30 defendants in Hidalgo County, alleging
exposure to chemical fumes and leaks from several sites where pesticides were
mixed or stored before the sites were placed in receivership in 1967 and
remediated in 1980.  The plaintiffs identified no particular incidents or
products, instead alleging exposure to a "toxic soup" of emissions in the air
for many decades.  

The court said “no such claim "has ever been tried or appealed in Texas," and
thus "the tort is immature."

The suit is “In re Allied Chemical Corp. et al. (docket# 04-1023),” filed in
Hidalgo County; 13th district.


AMEX BANK: Continues to Face QCPA Violations Lawsuits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMEX Bank of Canada, a unit of American Express Canada and owned by American
Express of the U.S., faces two purported class actions that generally alleges
violations of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (QCPA).

                        2003 Litigation

In July 2003, a motion to authorize a class action captioned, “Option
Consommateurs and Normand Painchaud v. Amex Bank of Canada et al.,” was filed
in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal.

The motion, which also names as defendants Citibank Canada, MBNA Canada,
Diners Club International, Capital One and Royal Bank of Canada, alleges that
the defendants have violated the QCPA by imposing finance charges on credit
card transactions prior to 21 days following the receipt of the statement
containing the charge.

It is alleged that the QCPA provisions which require a 21-day grace period
prior to imposing finance charges applies to credit cards issued by Amex Bank
of Canada in Quebec and that finance charges imposed prior to this grace
period violate the Act.

The proposed class seeks reimbursement of all finance charges imposed in
violation of the Act, CDN$200 in punitive damages per class member, interest
and fees and costs.

                        2005 Litigation

In May 2005, Amex Bank of Canada was added as a defendant to a motion to
authorize a class action captioned, “Option Consommateurs and Joel-Christian
St-Pierre v. Bank of Montreal et al.,” filed in the Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Quebec.

The motion, which also names as defendants Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-
Dominion Bank, HSBC Bank of Canada, among others, alleges that the defendants
violated the QCPA by imposing finance charges on credit card transactions
prior to 21 days following the receipt of the statement containing the
charge.

It is alleged that the QCPA provisions, which require a 21-day grace period
prior to imposing finance charges, applies to credit cards issued by Amex
Bank of Canada in Quebec and that finance charges imposed prior to this grace
period violate the QCPA.

The proposed class seeks reimbursement of all finance charges imposed in
violation of the QCPA, CDN$100 in punitive damages per class member, interest
and fees and costs.

The company provided no development in the matter in its April 12, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

American Express Co. -- http://home.americanexpress.com/-- is a global  
payments, network and travel company.  The Company has four operating
segments: Global Network & Merchant Services, U.S. Card Services,
International Card & Global Commercial Services and Corporate & Other.  The
products and services of the Company include global card network services;
charge card and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and small
business lending products; American Express travelers cheques and gift cards;
merchant acquiring and transaction processing; business expense management
products and services; consumer travel services, and business travel and
travel management services, among others.


AMEX BANK: Faces Suit in Canada Over Foreign Currency Conversion
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMEX Bank of Canada, a unit of American Express Canada and owned by American
Express of the U.S., faces a purported class action over foreign currency
conversion.

In November 2004, a motion to authorize a class action captioned, “Sylvan
Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada,” was filed in the Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal.  

The motion alleges that prior to December 2003, Amex Bank of Canada charged a
foreign currency conversion commission on transactions to purchase goods and
services in currencies other than Canadian dollars and failed to disclose the
commissions in monthly billing statements or solicitations directed to
prospective card members.

The proposed class claims reimbursement of all foreign currency conversion
commissions, CDN$1,000 in punitive damages per class member, interest and
fees and costs.  

The plaintiff has consented to a stay of this action pending resolution of
certain issues in other pending cases.

The company provided no development in the matter in its April 12, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

American Express Co. -- http://home.americanexpress.com/-- is a global  
payments, network and travel company.  The Company has four operating
segments: Global Network & Merchant Services, U.S. Card Services,
International Card & Global Commercial Services and Corporate & Other.  The
products and services of the Company include global card network services;
charge card and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and small
business lending products; American Express travelers cheques and gift cards;
merchant acquiring and transaction processing; business expense management
products and services; consumer travel services, and business travel and
travel management services, among others.


APPLIED SIGNAL: Court Considers Appeal in Nixed Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to
rule on an appeal in relation to the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action against Applied Signal Technology, Inc.

On March 11 and July 19, 2005, purported securities class actions were filed
against the company.  Later, these suits were consolidated as, "In re Applied
Signal Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 4:05-cv-1027
(SBA)."

The amended consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased the company's company's securities from Aug. 24,
2004 to Feb. 22, 2005.

The complaints name the company, its chief executive officer, and its chief
financial officer as defendants, and allege that false and misleading
statements regarding the company were issued during the class period.

On Feb. 8, 2006, the court dismissed the case with prejudice and entered
judgment in defendants' favor.

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal on March 23, 2006.  The company said any
future unfavorable outcome of the litigation could have an adverse impact on
the company's business, financial condition, and results of operation.

The company provided no new development in the matter in its June 11, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 11, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Applied Signal Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 05-CV-01027," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert S. Green, Esq.
         Green Welling, LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2750
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415/477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710
         E-mail: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM

Representing the defendants is:

         David A. Priebe, Esq.
         DLA Piper US, LLP
         2000 University Avenue
         East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248
         Phone: 650-833-2000
         Fax: 650-833-2001
         E-mail: david.priebe@dlapiper.com


ARKANSAS: School Board Sued Over Supervisor’s Severance Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
A group of parents and taxpayers filed a class action against the Little Rock
School District over its plan to buy out the remaining contract of its
superintendent who is now facing several charges in relation to his office,
Todaysthv.com reports.

The school board voted on May 24 to dismiss Dr. Roy Brooks and pay him the
400,000 to $500,000 that he would have received under his contract through
its expiration date of June 30, 2009.  Mr. Brooks is accused of giving pay
increases and stipends to employees without authorization.  He also allegedly
failed to show satisfactory gains in student achievement during his three
years as head of the district

The LRSD board members agreed to buy out Mr. Brooks’ contract last month
rather than suspending or terminating him.

The suit challenges the constitutionality of the district’s payment to Mr.
Brooks, asserting public money will be used.  It is asking the court to grant
a preliminary injunction to stop the payment.

The suit was filed by Gill and Associates in Pulaski County Circuit Court.


AT&T WIRELESS: Appeals Court Says UCC Suit Merits Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington State Court of Appeals said in an opinion published June 18,
2007 that a lower court erred in denying class status to a suit filed by
several AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. customers over the company’s “universal
connectivity charge.”

The suit (no. 57523-6-I) was filed by Martin Schnall, a New Jersey resident,
Nathan Riensche, a Washington resident, Kelly Lemons, a California resident,
John Girard, a California resident, and Sean O'Day a Florida resident.

The appellants brought a class action on behalf of all AT&T Wireless Services
customers who were charged a “universal connectivity charge” (UCC) from 1998
through 2003.  They allege that AT&T violated Washington’s Consumer
Protection Act (CPA) by charging the fee without disclosing it in its
advertisements, misleading its customers by categorizing it as a tax,
surcharge or regulatory fee, and breaching its customer contracts by raising
the fee without notice.

The trial court denied class certification on all of the appellants’ claims
on two grounds: (1) the appellants were required to prove each class member’s
individual reliance to establish a CPA claim and (2) choice of law issues
made a class action on the contract claims unmanageable because individual
issues predominated over common ones.  The court of appeals said the trial
court correctly ruled that the CPA applies to the appellants’ nationwide
claims.

It said that AT&T’s most significant contacts were within the state,
Washington has an important interest in regulating business activities within
its state, and the alleged misleading acts occurred before any consumer
contracts were executed.

The court also agreed with the trial court that causation is an essential
element of private class action claims under RCW 19.86.090. But proof of
individual reliance is not the only means by which consumers may make a prima
facie showing on this element, it said.

It wrote: “Finally, while the trial court correctly enforced the choice of
law provisions in each consumer’s contract, its denial of class certification
on the contract claim was in error because the mere existence of
individualized issues does not preclude a class claim so long as there are
both a common nucleus of operative facts and a common legal issue. Here, the
appellants claim, that AT&T breached its contracts by charging them a fee
that was neither disclosed in their contracts nor properly categorized as a
government fee, tax or surcharge, was enough to certify the class at this
stage of the proceedings.”

For more information, contact the plaintiffs’ counsels:

          David E. Breskin, Esq.
          Daniel F. Johnson, Esq.
          Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC
          Wells Fargo Center, 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
          Seattle, Washington 98104-4088
          Telephone: 206-682-3333
          Fax: 206-340-8856
          Web site: http://www.scblaw.com


BANK JOS: Motion to Dismiss Md. Securities Fraud Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. is seeking to dismiss a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.

On July 24, 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and Robert N.
Wildrick, the company’s chief executive officer, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland by Roy T. Lefkoe, Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-
01892-WMN.

On Aug. 3, 2006, a lawsuit substantially similar to the Class Action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by Tewas Trust
UAD 9/23/86, Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-02011-WMN.

The Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as those in the
Class Action and purported to assert the same claims and seek the same
relief.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the July lawsuit and the Tewas Trust Action were
consolidated under the Class Action case number (1:06-cv-01892-WMN) and the
Tewas Trust Action was administratively closed.

Massachusetts Labor Annuity Fund has been appointed the lead plaintiff in the
Class Action and has filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

R. Neal Black, the company’s president and David E. Ullman, the Company’s
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, have been added as
defendants.

On behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between December 5, 2005 and
June 7, 2006, the Class Action purports to make claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based
on the Company's disclosures during the Class Period.  

The Class Action seeks unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss, according to the company’s June
11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended May 5, 2007.

The suit is “Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01892-WMN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
under Judge William M. Nickerson.
Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
         Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC
         John Wanamaker Bldg., Ste. 450, Juniper and Market Sts.
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 12155613600
         Fax: 12155613000
         E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 12129377220
         Fax: 12122308888
         E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com


BEZEQ: Subsidiary Faces $55.94M Suit Over “Pele-Phone Olim” Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pele-Phone Communications Ltd., a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israeli
Telecommunication Co. Ltd. (TASE: BEZQ), is facing a $55,945,692 class action
in the Tel Aviv District Court, Globes, Israel reports.

The lawsuit was filed by new immigrants from Russia who claim that the
company’s “Pele-Phone Olim” (Pele-Phone for new immigrants) violated the
Consumer Protection Law, and was in breach of the obligation of good faith
and in breach of contract.

The plaintiff, Igor Golod, claims that Pele-Phone acted in bad faith and in
an unacceptable way when it signed Russian-speaking new immigrants for
its “Pele-Phone Olim” plan by failing to include a price list in the
contract.

He further alleges that when Pele-Phone was forced to provide a price list,
the company provided one that was invalid.

Bezeq The Israeli Telecommunication Co. Ltd. (TASE: BEZQ) is Israel's #1
broadband ISP and also owns 100% of leading mobile phone company Pelephone.
Bezeq's fiber-optic network is fully digitalized and has 3 million access
lines.


BOND MANUFACTURING: Recalls Collapsing Recliners Posing Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bond Manufacturing Co., of Baypoint, California, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 68,000 units of
Rockingham Deluxe Lounge Chairs, also sold as Vanderwall Folding Recliner
Chairs.

The company said the chairs can collapse or fall backward due to faulty
support brackets or weak frames, posing fall and severe laceration hazards to
consumers.

Bond is aware of 13 incidents in which the recalled chairs fell backwards or
collapsed. There have been eight reports of injuries. Four consumers reported
injuries to their shoulder, back or neck, one consumer reported an injury to
her head, two consumers reported hand injuries, and one consumer suffered a
severe laceration to the tip of her finger when the chair collapsed.

The recalled recliner chairs have a mesh covering attached to the steel frame
by a woven cord. The chairs were sold in the following colors: bronze, navy
blue, spa blue, spa green, spa linen, orange, lime, teal and taupe. The
recliners are about 40 inches long, 28 inches wide and 46 inches high.

These recalled folding recliner chairs were manufactured in China and are
being sold at hardware, variety and discount department stores nationwide
from December 2006 through April 2007 for between $35 and $100.

Pictures of recalled folding recliner chairs:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07222a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07222b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07222d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07222e.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07222f.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07222g.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07222h.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled chairs immediately and
return them to the store where purchased for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Bond toll-free at (866)
771-2663 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday.


BORDERS GROUP: Enters Mediation in Cal. Labor Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------Parties in a
purported labor-related class action filed against Borders Group, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco are engaged in
mediation to settle the suit.

Two former employees filed the suit, both individually and on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all current and former employees who work or
worked as inventory managers or sales managers in company stores in the state
of California at any time from Sept. 30, 2001 through the trial date.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual plaintiffs and
the purported class members were improperly classified as exempt employees
and that the company violated the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code by failing to:  

      -- pay required overtime;  

      -- provide meal periods, rest periods, and accurate  
         itemized wage statements;  

      -- keep accurate records of employees' hours of work; and  

      -- pay all compensation owed at the time of termination of  
         employment to certain members of the purported class.  

The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties, injunctive
relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other relief, as the
court deems proper.  

The parties have engaged in mediation in an attempt to resolve the matter but
have not reached an agreement, according to the company’s June 12, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended May 5, 2007.

Borders Group, Inc., -- http://www.bordersgroupinc.com/-- through its  
subsidiaries, operates book, music and movie superstores, and mall-based
bookstores.  Its operating subsidiaries include Borders, Inc. (Borders),
Walden Book Company, Inc. (Waldenbooks), Borders (UK) Limited and Borders
Australia Pty Limited.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company operated 567
superstores under the Borders name, including 499 in the United States, 41 in
the United Kingdom, 20 in Australia, three in Puerto Rico, two in New
Zealand, and one each in Singapore and Ireland.  It also operated 564 mall-
based and other bookstores primarily under the Waldenbooks name in the United
States and 30 bookstores under the Books etc. name in the United Kingdom.  In
addition, the Company owns and operates United Kingdom-based Paperchase
Products Limited (Paperchase), a designer and retailer of stationery, cards
and gifts.  Its operating segments comprise domestic Borders superstores,
Waldenbooks Specialty Retail stores, International stores and Corporate.


BROWN SHOE: Court Mulls Appeal Against $1M Redfield Suit Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the city and county of Denver, Colorado has yet to
rule on an appeal against the $1 million damage award granted to plaintiffs
in a class action filed against Brown Shoe Co., Inc., in relation to the
operations of its Redfield, Colorado site.

The suit was filed in March 2000 alleging claims for trespass, nuisance,
strict liability, unjust enrichment, negligence, and exemplary damages
arising from the alleged release of solvents contaminating the groundwater
and indoor air in the areas adjacent to and near the site.

In December 2003, the jury hearing the claims returned a verdict finding the
company's subsidiary negligent and awarded the class plaintiffs $1.0 million
in damages.

The company recorded this award along with estimated pretrial interest on the
award and estimated costs related to sanctions imposed by the court related
to a pretrial discovery dispute between the parties.

In the first quarter of 2005, the federal court hearing a cost recovery suit
against other responsible parties approved a settlement agreement between the
company, its co-defendant in the class action, and an insurer, which resolved
all remaining sanctions issues related to the class action.

Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the December 2003 jury verdict.

The company reported no development in the case at its June 5, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended May 5, 2007.

Brown Shoe Co., Inc. -- http://www.brownshoe.com/-- operates in the footwear  
industry.  The Company’s activities include the operation of retail shoe
stores, and the sourcing and marketing of footwear for women, men and
children. It operates in two segments: Retail Operations and Wholesale
Operations.


DYNCORP INT'L: Still Faces D.C. Litigation Over "Plan Colombia"
---------------------------------------------------------------
DynCorp International, LLC, continues to face a purported class action, filed
by about 10,000 citizens of Ecuador, who are alleging that the company's drug-
crop eradication in neighboring Colombia damaged the plaintiffs' health and
property.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Ecuadorian Indians filed a suit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, alleging personal injury, property damage and
wrongful death as a consequence of the spraying of narcotic crops along the
Colombian border adjacent to Ecuador, which is also known as "Plan Colombia."

They allege that the Virginia-based company was contracted to carry out
fumigation of illicit crops in neighboring Colombia, recklessly sprayed their
homes and farms, causing illnesses and deaths, and destroying food crops.

The company provided no development in the matter in its June 20, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended March 30, 2007.

The suit is "Wood v. Dyncorp et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01616-CKK," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Nathan I. Finkelstein, Esq.
         Robert Jay Goldman, Esq.
         Finkelstein & Horvitz PC
         7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 400 East
         Bethesda, MD 20814
         Phone: (301) 951-8400
         Fax: (301) 951-8401
         E-mail: natf@fandhlaw.com
                 rgoldman@fandhlaw.com

Representing defendants are:

         Kevin Patrick Farrell, Esq.
         Yoora Pak, Esq.
         Robert Bruce Wallace, Esq.
         Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
         1341 G Street, NW, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005-3105
         Phone: (202) 626-7660 or (202) 626-7667
         Fax: (202) 628-3606
         E-mail: kevin.farrell@wilsonelser.com
                 yoora.pak@wilsonelser.com
                 wallacer@wemed.com


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies, Inc. continues to face a consolidated securities fraud
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
according to company’s June 11, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007.

On June 22, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaints briefing.  The court has granted the
company's motion to dismiss the complaint and permitted the plaintiff to file
an amended complaint, which it did.  

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, according to the company's
Feb. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In June 2005, the company received notice that two former stockholders, Aviva
Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, separately filed purported class actions
against the company and certain of its current and former officers, alleging
violations of certain federal securities laws.

The cases were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the company's stock between Nov.
16, 2004 and May 17, 2005.  

The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20
(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with
certain allegedly false and misleading public statements made during this
period by the company and its officers.

The complaints did not specify an amount of damages sought.  

On Aug. 29, 2005, Judge Mary L. Cooper consolidated the Aviva Partners and
Jarman cases as, "Aviva Partners v. Exide Technologies, Inc. Case No. 05-3098
(MLC)."  

On March 24, 2006, Judge Cooper appointed as co-lead plaintiffs:

     * the Alaska Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust
       Fund, and

     * Lakeway Capital Management.

The judge also appointed the law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoja Geller Rudman
& Robbins LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C. as co-lead counsel for the putative
class.

On May 8, 2006 co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint
in which they reiterated the claims described above but purported to state a
claim on behalf of those who purchased the company's stock between May 5,
2004 and May 17,
2005.

On June 22, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaints briefing.  The court has granted the
company's motion to dismiss the complaint and permitted the plaintiff to file
an amended complaint, which it did.  Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

The suit is "Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Mary L. Cooper, with
referral to Judge John J. Hughes.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq.
         Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP
         163 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 1277
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
         Phone: (973) 775-8997
         E-mail: procco@lawssb.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Edward T. Kole, Esq.
         Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Esqs.
         90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 - Box 10
         Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958
         Phone: (732) 636-8000
         E-mail: ekole@wilentz.com


FOOT LOCKER: Faces Litigation in N.Y. Alleging ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court
for Southern District of New York, alleging violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

In February 2007, the company and its U.S. pension plan, the Foot Locker
Retirement Plan, were named as defendants in the class action.

The Complaint alleged that the Company’s pension plan violated ERISA,
including, without limitation, its age discrimination and notice provisions,
as a result of the Company’s conversion of its defined benefit plan to a
defined benefit pension plan with a cash balance feature in 1996.

The suit is “Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01358-DAB,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Deborah A. Batts.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Eli Gottesdiener, Esq.
         Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC
         498 7th Street
         Brooklyn, NY 11215
         Phone: (718)-788-1500
         Fax: (718)-788-1650
         E-mail: eli@gottesdienerlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Myron D. Rumeld, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 969-3000
          Fax: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: mrumeld@proskauer.com


INTEGRATED SILICON: Faces Consolidated SRAM Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., and other static random access memory
(SRAM) suppliers were named defendants in a consolidated lawsuit, alleging
violations of the Sherman Act, violations of state unfair competition laws,
and unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of SRAM products.

Initially, thirty-two purported class actions were filed.  The U.S. lawsuits
have been consolidated in a single federal court for coordinated pre-trail
proceedings.  

The U.S. complaints seek treble damages for the alleged damages sustained by
purported class members, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys’
fees, as well as an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct,
according to the company’s June 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31,
2006.

Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. -- http://www.issi.com-- is a fabless  
semiconductor company that designs and markets high-performance integrated
circuits (ICs) for various markets, such as digital consumer electronics,
networking, mobile communications and automotive electronics.  The Company's
primary products are high-speed and low-power static random access memory
(SRAM) and low- and medium-density dynamic random access memory (DRAM).  It
also designs and markets electrically erasable programmable ready only memory
(EEPROMs), SmartCards, controller chips for flash memory sticks and card
reader-writers, and wireless chipsets.


JMK ELECTRIC: Lawsuit in Ill. Alleges Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
JMK Electric Co. and Magnat Management Corp. are facing a class-action filed
June 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Dariusz Gatko alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Gatko v. JMK Electric Co. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03528,” filed
in the U.S. District Court or the Northern District of Illinois under Judge
William J. Hibbler.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Alejandro Caffarelli
          Bradley S Manewith
          Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd
          Two Prudential Plaza
          180 North Stetson, #3150
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312)540-1230
          E-mail: a.caffarelli@caffarelli.com or
                  b.manewith@caffarelli.com


KEEFE BRUYETTE: Faces Securities Fraud, RICO Lawsuit in Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Inc. and managing director Joseph Spalluto face a
class action complaint filed on June 18, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who owned seats
on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange (PHLX) on October 22, 2003, attorney
Steven B. Mirow announced.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
complaint alleges that in connection with other wrongdoing surrounding the
demutualization of the PHLX and to facilitate that wrongdoing, KBW published
false and misleading statements that caused class members to lose their state
law appraisal rights and acquiesce in demutualization, resulting in a loss to
seat owners of at least $500,000 per seat.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is August 17, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Steven B. Mirow, Esquire  
          249 South 12 Street  
          Philadelphia, PA 19107-5635  
          Phone: 215-923-1301  
          E-mail: sbmirow@verizon.net


MAX & ERMA’S: Faces Pa. Litigation Alleging FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The suit was filed on March 2007.  FCRA provides in part that expiration
dates may not be printed on credit or debit card receipts given to
customers.  FCRA imposes significant penalties upon violators of these rules
and regulations where the violation is deemed to have been willful.  
Otherwise, damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the cardholder
and attorneys fees.

The suit is “Klingensmith v. Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00318-JFC-LPL,” filed in the U.S District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Joy Flowers Conti with referral to Judge Lisa Pupo
Lenihan.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
         Carlson Lynch
         P.O. Box 367, 231 Melville Lane
         Sewickley, PA 15143
         Phone: (412) 749-1677
         E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Paul J. Atencio, Esq.
         Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
         600 Grant Street, USX Tower, Suite 2900
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219
         Phone: (412) 803-1170
         E-mail: pjatencio@mdwcg.com


MEDIMMUNE INC: Investor Suit Fails to Halt Sale to AstraZeneca
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Montgomery County judge has denied shareholder’s motion for a temporary
restraining order to block the sale of the company to AstraZeneca LLC of
London, Steve Berberich of Gazette.net reports.

AstraZeneca has now completed its $15.6 billion acquisition of MedImmune at
$58 a share.

Company shareholder Chris Larson filed a purported class action on April 25,
2007 in Montgomery County Circuit Court.  He generally claims that the deal
would unfairly enrich top MedImmune executives at the expense of shareholders.

The suit also names MedImmune founder and board chair Wayne Hockmeyer as a
defendant.  Five other board directors were also named as defendants:

      -- James Cavanaugh,
      -- Barbara Hackman Franklin,
      -- Elizabeth Wyatt,
      -- George Milne, and
      -- Robert Hotz

According to the suit, "Instead of attempting to obtain the highest value
reasonably available for the company's stockholders, defendants spent a
substantial effort tailoring the acquisition to meet the specific needs of
AstraZeneca."

Defendants are allegedly withholding key information shareholders need to
evaluate whether the $58 per share offer from AstraZeneca is fairly priced.

The lawsuit, filed two days after the buyout deal was announced, claims that
leaders of the MedImmune had an unfair advantage in their negotiations with
AstraZeneca PLC to "reap disproportionate benefits to the exclusion of
maximizing stockholder value."

A pretrial settlement hearing has been set for July 27.

The suit is “Chris Larson v. MedImmune, Inc. et. al., Case No. 281946,” filed
in the 6th Judicial Court, Montgomery County, Maryland.

Maryland-based MedImmune, Inc. -- http://www.medimmune.com/-- is a  
biotechnology company focusing its efforts on the therapeutic areas of
infectious disease, cancer and inflammatory disease.  The company primarily
develops monoclonal antibodies and vaccines.


MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Suit Over Precious Metals for $4.4M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $4.4 million to settle a class action brought by
clients who bought precious metals from the company, Reuters reports.

The company did not admit to any wrongdoing, but stated that the settlement
was made to avoid the costs of protracted litigation

The suit was filed in August 2005 by Selwyn Silberblatt, on behalf of himself
and others, who bought precious metals from Morgan Stanley DW Inc. and its
predecessors and paid fees for their storage.  It accuses Morgan Stanley of
fraudulently telling clients it was selling them precious metals that they
would own in full and that the company would store when in truth it was
making either no investment specifically on behalf of those clients or making
an entirely different investment of lesser value and security.

The settlement includes a cash component of $1.5 million and economic and
remedial benefits valued at about $2.9 million, according to the filing
accessed by Reuters.

The suit is before a Federal District Court in Manhattan.


MS USA: Recalls Toothpaste Potentially Contaminated with DEC
------------------------------------------------------------
MS USA Trading, Inc. of North Bergen, N.J., is recalling all lots of 5 ounce
tubes of Colgate, because it has the potential to be contaminated with
diethylene glycol (DEG) chemical found in anti-freeze.

MS USA Trading is concerned about potential risks from chronic exposure to
DEG and exposure to DEG in certain populations, such as children and
individuals with kidney or liver disease.

Colgate was distributed in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland in
discount retail stores.

The product comes in a 5 ounce (100 ml.), made in South Africa is printed on
the box.  The recall includes the following brands: Regular, Gel, Triple and
Herbal.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by the FDA
revealed the presence of diethylene glycol in some 5 ounce of "Colgate".

Production of the product has been suspended while the company continues
their investigation as to the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased 5 ounce of "Colgate Toothpaste" in Regular, Gel,
Triple and Herbal are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-201-869-
0010.


NIGERIA: Citizens Abroad Challenge Election Disenfranchisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty Nigerians, led by Hon. Oluwafolajimi Bello, lodged a class action
before the registry of the high court in Abuja, Nigeria, challenging their
alleged disenfranchisement in the last April general election held
nationwide, Vanguard reports.

Plaintiffs, represented by their attorney and human rights crusader Femi
Falana, contended they were entitled to vote for candidates during the last
election.

In a 12 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Hon. Bello, the plaintiffs argued
that they were working and earning their livelihood in Canada, U.K. and
United Arabs Emirates and that they do visit Nigeria from time to time and do
maintain families/business in Nigeria.

The plaintiff alleged that they were disenfranchised by the procedure in
contradiction of the provisions of Article 13 (1) of the African Charter on
Human and Peoples Rights.

In the suit, the Nigerian residents abroad are asking the court to declare
that they were entitled to participate in the government of the country by
voting for candidates of their choice.  They are also asking for a
declaration that they were qualified for registration as voters by virtue of
section 13 (1)(c) of the Electoral Act 2006 and sections 72, 177, 132 and 178
of the 1999 Constitution.

Plaintiffs are seeking for a court order directing Independent National
Electoral commission and the Attorney-General of the Federation, who are
defendants in the suit, to set up registration centers and polling stations
in all High Commissions and Embassies of Nigeria abroad.

According to the report, Justice Binta Murtala Nyarko fixed a July 11 return
date to enable Mr. Falana to effect service of the court processes on the
defendants.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: 2005 Derailment Suit Deal Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margaret B. Seymour of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Southern Carolina gave final approval to a class settlement of personal
injury claims resulting from the Jan. 6, 2005 derailment of Norfolk Southern
Corp. train in Graniteville, South Carolina, The Virginian-Pilot reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Norfolk Southern Railway Co.,
     -- Norfolk Southern Corp.,
     -- Olin Corp.,
     -- Union Tank Car Co.,
     -- Benjimin Aiken,
     -- Mike Ford,
     -- James Thornton, and
     -- Jimmy Ray Thornton.

The settlement would provide varying levels of compensation for people who
were injured and who received medical treatment or were hospitalized as a
result of the derailment and subsequent release of chlorine.

In 2006, Norfolk Southern asked the court to approve an agreement reached by
railroad owner Norfolk Southern and plaintiffs' attorneys (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 27, 2006).

In January, the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern Carolina
approved a class settlement (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2007).

The settlement agreement is for claims that were not part of a previous class
settlement approved last year covering property damage, evacuation expenses
and losses, and minor personal injuries.  It ends the second of two class
actions brought against the Norfolk-based railroad for the wreck, which
killed nine people and injured hundreds.

There is no definitive amount for the settlement, said plaintiff's attorney
Joseph F. Rice. Its size will depend on the claims submitted for payment.

According to Mr. Rice, so far, 479 people have submitted claims worth more
than $11 million. He said he was unsure how many people might be eligible
under the settlement but said that roughly 800 people received medical care
after the crash.

Norfolk Southern has already paid $5 million to 100 victims in the lawsuit,
Mr. Rice said.

Norfolk, Virginia-based Norfolk Southern’s Norfolk Southern Railway
subsidiary operates around 21,200 route miles in 22 states, the District of
Columbia and Ontario, Canada.

The company operates the most extensive intermodal network in the East and is
North America's largest rail carrier of metals and automotive products.

The suit is "In Re Graniteville Cases, Case No. 1:06-mn-06000-MBS," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina under Judge
Margaret B. Seymour.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Joseph F. Rice
          Motley Rice
          28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: (843) 216-9159 or 1-800-768-4026
          Fax: (843) 216-9450
          E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com


NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: Investor Sues Over Sale to Madison Dearborn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nuveen Investments (NYSE: JNC) is facing a putative class action filed June
20 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division by a
purported stockholder, the company said in its June 26 Form 8-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Named defendants in the suit are:

          -- Nuveen Investments,

          -- members of its Board of Directors:
             * Timothy R. Schwertfeger,
             * John P. Amboian,
             * Willard L. Boyd,
             * Connie K. Duckworth,
             * Duane R. Kullberg,
             * Roderick A. Palmore; and

          -- Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC.

The suit is a stockholder class action for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
and other violations of applicable law arising out of the previously
announced pending acquisition of Nuveen Investments by the investor group led
by the private equity firm Madison Dearborn.

The complaint alleges that in entering into the proposed transaction with the
investor group led by Madison Dearborn, the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair
dealing or have aided and abetted such breaches.

The individuals named in this lawsuit are current members of the Board of
Directors of Nuveen Investments, except for Mr. Leroy who resigned from
Nuveen Investments' Board of Directors on April 23, 2007.

On June 21, 2007, a substantially similar putative stockholder class action
suit was filed in the same court against Nuveen Investments and members of
its Board.

The case is “Samuel K. Rosen, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Nuveen Investments, Inc., Timothy R. Schwertfeger, John
P. Amboian, Willard L. Boyd, Duane R. Kulberg, Connie K. Duckworth, Roderick
A. Palmore, and Pierre E. Leroy, Case No. 07CH 16443.”

The lawsuit similarly alleges that by entering into the proposed transaction,
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care,
independence, good faith and fair dealing.

The plaintiff asks the court to declare the suit a proper class action suit
and to certify the plaintiff as class representative.

The plaintiff also seeks to have the court declare that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties, to enjoin the proposed acquisition and to
have compensatory damages and attorney\'s fees awarded to the plaintiff and
his counsel.

Nuveen Investments believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends
to defend vigorously against these actions. However, an unfavorable outcome
of these lawsuits could prevent or delay the consummation of the acquisition,
result in substantial costs to Nuveen Investments, or both. It is also
possible that similar lawsuits may be filed in the future and, to the extent
similar lawsuits are filed containing similar allegations, Nuveen Investments
does not intend to file subsequent Forms 8-K disclosing the filing of such
similar lawsuits.

The recent case is “Robert Summerfield, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Nuveen Investments, Inc.; Timothy R. Schwertfeger; John
P. Amboian; Willard L. Boyd; Connie K. Duckworth; Duane R. Kullberg; Roderick
A. Palmore; and Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC, Case No. 07CH 16315.”


PHLX: Enters Talks to Settle Suit Over Rejected Archipelago Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit filed against Wall Street firms and some former seat owners
of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange entered into settlement talks earlier this
month, Roddy Body of New York Post reports.

The suit was filed by ex-seatholder Chuck Ginsburg.  It accuses chief
executive Meyer Frucher of serving his own interest by rejecting a $50
million bid by Archipelago in 2004 in favor of another deal that would give
him a generous equity bonus.  

It also says that PHLX gave up nearly 90 percent of its equity when it
accepted a capital infusion from Merrill, Citadel, UBS and Credit Suisse,
among others.  This it did after rejecting another offer –- that of
electronic options and futures trading powerhouse Timberhill, according to
the lawsuit.

Named defendants are Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Citadel
Derivatives Group LLC, Credit Suisse First Boston Next Fund Inc., Citigroup
Financial Products Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co., and UBS Securities LLC.


RC2 CORP: Balestriere Files N.Y. Suit Over Recalled Railway Toys
----------------------------------------------------------------
Balestriere PLLC filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York against RC2 Corp. for its inexcusable
misconduct in distributing over one and a half million toys tainted by lead
paint to toddlers across the Nation, exposing those young children to grave
risk of long term neurological damages.

The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all the parents and
guardians of the young children who were exposed to the Thomas the Tank
Engine toys that the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission subjected to a
voluntary recall on June 13, 2007.  The Tainted Toys were manufactured in
China using cheap lead paint, and distributed to children throughout the U.S.
for two and a half years, from January 2005 through June 2007.

     Dangers of Lead Paint

Lead paint is a toxic chemical which is particularly dangerous to children
under six -- the same class that has been exposed to the tainted toys.
Exposure to lead paint can cause a wide range of serious health problems,
from brain damage to kidney failure. It can also have more subtle effects
such as poor academic performance.

                    Continuing Risk of Exposure

The law firm strongly recommends that all Class Members immediately remove
the Tainted Toys from their children. All Class Members will likely want
their children to be tested, and may want to remove from their children any
other toys that have been exposed to the Tainted Toys (e.g., other Thomas
Toys kept in the same bin as the Tainted Toys) which also may cause a risk to
their children.

                               Damages

Plaintiff seeks to recover a series of damages suffered by the Class,
including:

     -- the cost of any medical testing which Class Members
        undertake;

     -- the cost of the Tainted Toys themselves;

     -- the cost of the other toys, exposed to the Tainted Toys,
        which Class Members understandably decide to remove from
        their children's possession and discard; and

     -- compensation for the almost immeasurable fear, anxiety,
        and worry Class Members have now and will continue to
        experience due to RC2's recklessness.

The suit is “Kelly v. RC2 Corp., Case No. 1:07-cv-02525-FB-RER,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge
Frederic Block, with referral to Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Craig Stuart Lanza
          Balestriere PLLC
          225 Broadway
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-374-5400
          Fax: 212-374-5401
          E-mail: craig_lanza@yahoo.com


RUBBER COS: Sued in Fla. for Allegedly Fixing Marine Hose Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. lodged a class-action complaint on June 25,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida accusing
several companies in the rubber industry of "conspiring to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize prices of Marine Hose," CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named defendants in the complaint are:

          -- Bridgestone Corp.,
          -- Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd.,
          -- Parker ITR SLR,
          -- Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A.,
          -- Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.,
          -- Peter Whittle,
          -- Trelleborg Industrie S.A.,
          -- PW Consulting (Oil and Marine) Ltd.

Marine Hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transport oil between ships,
terminals, buoys and tanks.

The suit is “Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Trelleborg Industrie S.A. et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21613-JAL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Judge Joan A. Lenard.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Bruce Harris Fleisher
          3225 Aviation Avenue
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Phone: 305-859-7999
          Fax: 285-0699 (fax)
          E-mail: bfleisher@bellsouth.net


ST BARNABAS: Rival Hospitals’ Suit Over Outlier Payments Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh of the U.S. District Court of New Jersey dismissed
a civil racketeering lawsuit against St. Barnabas Health Care System in
connection with an alleged millions in fraudulent Medicare charges by the
state's largest hospital network, Ted Sherman of the Newark Star Ledger
reports.

The purported class action was filed by Longmont (Colo.) United Hospital and
Maine Coast Memorial Hospital, Ellsworth in 2006.  It accuses St. Barnabas of
causing "direct, foreseeable and substantial economic harm" to other
hospitals by raising statewide averages used to measure hospitals'
eligibility for outlier payments (Class Action Reporter, June 30, 2006).

The lawsuit contends the hospitals claimed the practice by Saint Barnabas
of "turbocharging," or requesting and receiving excessive payments based on
artificially inflated costs, damaged them by causing them to receive lower
payments from a pool of federal funding.

However, Judge Cavanaugh said it was the federal government that had been the
victim of the billing scheme -- not other hospitals -- and that the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid had "already negotiated a substantial sum" in
repayment of that overbilling.

Last year, Saint Barnabas agreed to pay $265 million to settle the fraud
allegations with the government, without admitting any wrongdoing.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the civil case say they will appeal,
according to Mr. Sherman.

The suit is "Longmont United Hospital, et al. v. Saint Barnabas Corp. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02802-DMC-MF" filed in U.S. District Court of New Jersey
under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh with referral to Mark Falk.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph P. Lasala
          Mcelroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter
          1300 Mount Kemble Avenue
          P.O. Box 2075
          Morristown, N.J. 07962-2075
          Phone: (973) 993-8100
          E-mail: jlasala@mdmc-law.com

Representing defendants is:

          Hal M. Hirsch
          Greenberg Traurig LLP  
          MetLife Building
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone:  (212) 801-9200
          Fax:  (212) 801-6400


UNITED HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
United Health Systems, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 25
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Eugenio Alvarado alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Alvarado v. United Health Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
21618-WMH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge William M. Hoeveler.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gary Andrew Costales
          Gary A. Costales
          1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 825
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-779-8102
          Fax: 373-2735
          E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com


VALUECLICK: Sued for Failing to Prevent Adware Use in Network
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class actions were filed on April 20, 2007 in Federal Court for
the Central District of California, alleging that defendants:

     -- ValueClick, Inc.;
     -- Commission Junction, Inc.; and
     -- Be Free (collectively, ValueClick)

have engaged in unfair business practices resulting in harm to affiliates and
merchants on their affiliate networks.  According to the complaints,
ValueClick has failed to take reasonable steps to address malicious adware
and adware users on its networks.  The following are a few examples
identified in the complaints of how adware may result in harm to ValueClick’s
affiliates and merchants:

     * by unlawfully diverting earned commissions from
       legitimate affiliates;

     * by fraudulently causing merchants to pay commissions and
       fees for traffic that was not generated by legitimate
       affiliate activity;

     * by threatening the integrity of merchant affiliate
       programs; and

     * by exposing merchants to liability for breach of their
       contracts with affiliates.

The lawsuits also allege that ValueClick has a motive to allow unlawful
adware activity on its networks because adware results in increased revenues
to ValueClick. The lawsuits seek payment of monetary damages to affiliates
and merchants as well as changes in ValueClick’s corporate practices related
to adware and compliance.

The suit “Settlement Recovery Center LLC v. Valueclick Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-02638-FMC-CT,” names as defendant
Be Free, Commission Junction Inc., Valueclick Inc.  It is before Judge
Florence-Marie Cooper with referral to Carolyn Turchin.

The second lawsuit is “Mireille Carrier v. Valueclick Inc. et al., Case no.
2:07-cv-02641-FMC-CT” before the same judges.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          S. Ashlie Beringer, Esq.
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4200
          Denver, CO 80202-2642
          Phone: 303-298-5700

          -- and --

          G. Charles Nierlich, III, Esq.
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
          Telesis Tower
          One Montgomery St
          31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-393-8200

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          425 Second Street, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Phone: 415-896-6300
          E-mail: jeff@hbsslaw.com

          -- and --

          Charles H. Jung, Esq.
          Nassiri & Jung
          251 Kearny Street, Suite 501
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-373-5699


VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Suit Over Timing Belts that Fail Prematurely
--------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen is facing a class-action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court
claiming timing belts in Volkswagen’s 1.8-liter turbocharged four-cylinder
engines fail prematurely, causing catastrophic engine failure, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Alexandra Olson claims the owner’s manual suggests replacing
the timing belt at 105,000 miles, but that VW knew and failed to warn
consumers that the belts fail before that. The timing belt on her 2001 Audi
TT 180 failed at 63,340 miles, she says.

She demands class damages for breach of warranty, fraud and negligence.

Plaintiffs’ counsel:

          Pearson, Simon, Soter, Warshaw & Penny, LLP  
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, California 91403
          Phone: 818-788-8300
          Fax: 818-788-8104
          Website: http://www.psswplaw.com


WAL-MART: Ala. Suit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart is facing a class-action complaint filed June 25 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiffs -- Amy Melson, Cynthia Richard, Leslie Pittman and Sandra
Downs -- allege denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor
Code.

The suit is “Melson et al. v. Wal-Mart, Case No. 5:07-cv-01195-VEH,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, under Judge
Virginia Emerson Hopkins.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Gregory O. Wiggins
          Rocco Calamusa, Jr.
          Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street, North
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
          Phone: 328-0640
          E-mail: rcalamusa@wcqp.com or gwiggins@wcqp.com


                         New Securities Cases


NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Schiffrin Files Securities Suit in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of all common stock purchasers of Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. from June 20,
2002 to June 23, 2006, inclusive.

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

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had mischaracterized and concealed
         material data about the modified release formula of
         Indiplon;

     (2) specifically, that study results for the modified
         release formula of Indiplon showed an increased
         tolerance to the drug within one month, and thereafter
         certain doses of modified release formula of Indiplon
         failed to demonstrate any long-term efficacy;

     (3) that the Company had designed, administered, and
         reported results from materially deficient trial
         programs, ostensibly designed to study the modified
         release formula of Indiplon, which necessarily yielded
         insufficient clinical data to support an FDA
         application for approval of Indiplon;

     (4) as such, the Company could not support the Indiplon new
         drug application submitted to the FDA with meaningful
         data, effectively compelling the FDA to reject the
         application; and

     (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements and projections regarding the FDA approval
         and future commercialization prospects of Indiplon were
         lacking in a reasonable basis when made.

The Company developed and reported results regarding multiple different forms
and dosage levels of the drug, including 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg levels.
Throughout the Class Period, the defendants reported misleading results from
clinical studies of the product and the effect of the different dosage
levels.

On May 16, 2006, the Company shocked investors when it reported that it had
received a "not approvable" letter from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
regarding its supposedly successful 15 mg Indiplon tablets.  The FDA
requested that the Company reanalyze certain safety and efficacy data, and
questioned the sufficiency of the Company's clinical data since the majority
of the Company's Indiplon tablet studies were conducted with doses higher
than 15 mg.

Investors recognized that since the Company was unable to provide evidence
that its product was approvable, the Company was in jeopardy of losing
continued financial backing from Pfizer, who was only interested in bringing
an effective product to the market, not in a drug that was not approvable. On
this news, shares of the Company's stock plummeted $33.87 per share, or 62
percent, to close on May 16, 2006 at $20.76 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on June 15, 2006, the Company revealed that the FDA had also requested
that the Company reanalyze data that it had submitted to the FDA to support
the 5 mg. and 10 mg. Indiplon capsules as well. Additionally, the FDA
requested that the Company reexamine the safety analysis of certain segments
of its study samples, including the safety of the drug for the elderly
population that it had tested. On this news, shares of the Company's stock
fell an additional $4.19 per share, or over 21.6 percent, to close on June
16, 2006 at $15.18 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Finally, on June 22, 2006, the Company stated that Pfizer had terminated the
collaboration agreement to develop and co-promote Indiplon. On this news,
shares of the Company's stock fell an additional $3.96 per share, or 28.7
percent, to close on June 23, 2006 at $9.85 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume. In total, as the truth concerning the Company and Indiplon
was revealed to the market, shares of the Company's stock declined from price
of $71.62 per share on March 15, 2006, to $9.85 per share on June 23, 2006.
This decline represented a cumulative loss in the value of the Company's
shares of $61.77, or over 82.4 percent.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 20, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

Neurocrine engages in the discovery, development, and commercialization of
drugs for the treatment of neurological and endocrine-related diseases and
disorders in the U.S. The Company's lead clinical product during the Class
Period was Indiplon, a drug candidate for the treatment of insomnia.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


SHUFFLE MASTER: Berger & Montague Files Securities Suit in Nev.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of all purchasers of
Shuffle Master, Inc. common stock between December 22, 2006 and March 12,
2007, inclusive.

On March 12, 2007, Shuffle Master shocked investors by revealing that the
Company would have to restate its financial results for the fourth quarter
and fiscal year ended October 31, 2006, due to defective internal controls
that failed to catch sham transactions, including an inter-company
transaction that took place on the last day of the fiscal year and was
improperly booked as a profitable sale.

As a result of Shuffle Master's revelations, the price of its common stock
dropped by 8%, or $1.56 per share.

The Complaint charges Shuffle Master and certain of its officers with
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act). It alleges that those defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements during the Class
Period which resulted in artificially inflating the value of Shuffle Master's
stock.

For more information, contact:

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Douglas Risen, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000


                            *********


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  * * *