CAR_Public/070704.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, July 4, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 131

                           Headlines
  

AES CORP: Court of Appeal Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
ARIZONA: Temporary Nurses Complain of Depressed Wages in Lawsuit
BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Several N.Y. Suits Over Warburg Pincus Deal
BIG LOTS: Faces Calif. Suits Over Customer Information Request
BOSTON CULINARY: Sued in Fla. Over Denied Overtime Compensation

BRISTOL-MYERS: Court Dismisses Calif. Suits Over Fraudulent Ads
BRISTOL-MYERS: Settles SERZONE-Related Lawsuits in Canada
CENTENE CORP: Mo. Court Junks Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
DANKA BUSINESS: Continues to Face "Edwards" Fraud Suit in Tenn.
DEL MONTE: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Recalled Pet Food, Snack

DRIVE FINANCIAL: Settles Tex. Suit Over Debt Collection Method
EQUITY INNS: Faces Second Suit in Tenn. Over Company’s Sale
EVERCOM SYSTEMS: Fla. Court Considers Dismissal of Inmates' Suit
FLORIDA: Dade County Sued Over Denied Overtime Compensation
JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Suit

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Motion Denied in Floppy Disk Controllers Suit
ISRAEL: Restaurant Sued for Allegedly Breaking No-Smoking Laws
LOS ALAMOS: N.Mex. Judge OKs Settlement of Bias Suit for $16.4M
NESTOR TRAFFIC: O. High Court Yet to Rule on Speed Program Suit
OVERPASS STATION: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Denied Overtime Wages

PACIFIC EAGLE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Denied Overtime Wages
PARMALAT FINANZIARIA: Court Rejects Bid to Junk Securities Suit
PEMSTAR INC: Minn. Securities Suit Deal Gets Preliminary Okay
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Accused of Cheating Policyholders in Ga. Suit
REFCO INC: BAWAG’s $140M Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Okay

STARBUCKS CORP: Tex. Court Yet to Set Trial in ERISA Lawsuit
UNIVERSAL CONCRETE: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denied Overtime Wages
WAL-MART STORES: Appeals 172M Award in “Savaglio” Labor Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: No Ruling Yet in Motion to Certify “Cruz” Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Mass. Judge Decertifies Class in “Salvas” Case

WAL-MART STORES: To Appeal $78M Award in “Braun/Hummel” Case
WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Review of Class Certification in “Dukes”
WAL-MART STORES: Still Faces Salaried Managers’ Suits in Calif.
WAL-MART STORES: Still Faces Sexual Discrimination Suit in Ky.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

XINHUA FINANCE: Murray, Frank Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
         

                            *********


AES CORP: Court of Appeal Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal by the San Diego County
Superior Court of a remanded antitrust class action against AES Corp. and
other electric companies, according to the company’s June 21, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

In November 2000, the company was named in a purported class action along
with six other defendants, alleging unlawful manipulation of the California
wholesale electricity market, allegedly resulting in inflated wholesale
electricity prices throughout California.  

The alleged causes of action include violation of the Cartwright Act, the
California Unfair Trade Practices Act and the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.  

In December 2000, the case was removed from the San Diego County Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.   

On July 30, 2001, the court remanded the case to San Diego Superior Court.  
The case was consolidated with five other lawsuits alleging similar claims
against other defendants.  

In March 2002, the plaintiffs filed a new master complaint in the
consolidated action, which reasserted the claims raised in the earlier action
and names the company, AES Redondo Beach, LLC, AES Alamitos, LLC, and AES
Huntington Beach, LLC as defendants.  

In May 2002, the case was removed by certain cross-defendants from the San
Diego County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to
state court, which was granted on Dec. 13, 2002.   

Certain defendants appealed aspects of that decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On Dec. 8, 2004, a panel of the Ninth Circuit
issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the
District Court, and remanding the case to state court.  

In July 2005, defendants filed a demurrer in state court seeking dismissal of
the case in its entirety.  In October 2005, the court sustained the demurrer
and entered an order of dismissal.

In December 2005, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the California
Court of Appeal.

In February 2007, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial Court’s judgment of
dismissal.  Plaintiffs did not appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision.

AES Corp. -- http://www.aes.com-- a global power company is a holding  
company that through its subsidiaries, operates a portfolio of electricity
generation and distribution businesses in 27 countries on five continents.  
The Company operates two types of businesses.  The first is its distribution
business, which it refers to as Utilities, in which it operates electric
utilities and sells power to customers in the retail (including residential),
commercial, industrial and governmental sectors. The second is its Generation
business, where it sells power to wholesale customers, such as utilities or
other intermediaries. In addition to its traditional generation and
distribution operations, it is also developing an alternative energy
business.  During the year ended December 31, 2006, it operated in seven
segments, which include Latin America Generation, Latin America Utilities,
North America Generation, North America Utilities, Europe & Africa
Generation, Europe & Africa Utilities and Asia Generation.


ARIZONA: Temporary Nurses Complain of Depressed Wages in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two nurses in Arizona have brought class action complaints in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona against the Arizona Hospital and
Healthcare Association and 12 other Arizona hospital corporations, charging
that for years they have conspired to lower the wages paid to temporary
nurses at hospitals throughout Arizona.

Named defendants in the suits are:

     -- Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Assoc.,  
     -- AzHHA Service Corp.,
     -- Banner Health,  
     -- University Medical Center Corp.,
     -- Carondelet Health Network,  
     -- John C. Lincoln Health Network,  
     -- Regional Care Services Corp.,  
     -- Northern Arizona Healthcare,  
     -- TMC Healthcare,  
     -- Sun Health Corp.,  
     -- Catholic Healthcare West,  
     -- Yuma Regional Medical Center, Inc.,  
     -- Navapache Health Care Association, Inc.,  
     -- Scottsdale Healthcare Corp.

The suits:

     -- “Jane Doe v. Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association
        et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01292-SMM” and

     -- Rhonda Roe v. Arizona Hospital and Healthcare
        Association et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01293-MEA”

charge that the hospital association -- known as AzHHA -- has coordinated the
conspiracy by administering a registry program, used by many hospitals in
Arizona, that was originally designed to improve nursing quality, but was
turned into a cartel to depress nurses wages.

AzHHA, with the active support and participation of many Arizona hospitals,
controls much of the market for nursing services, and has forced nurses to
accept low wages.

In May, the U.S. Department of Justice and the State of Arizona sued AzHHA
for illegally conspiring to set the wages of temporary and traveling nurses.
In response to that suit, AzHHA has reportedly agreed to abandon its
anticompetitive practices, but that did not compensate nurses for the years
of lowered wages they suffered.

These lawsuits aim to do just that, by seeking damages for suppressed wages
for nursing services beginning in 1997.

"Temporary nurses have suffered because of this cartel arrangement," said
David Balto, one of the plaintiff's attorneys. "In a competitive market,
nurses would have been paid a fair wage for their services. That did not
happen because of the illegal cartel. At a time of a serious nursing
shortage, when wages would be expected to rise, nursing does seem to defy the
laws of supply and demand: wages have remained flat despite years of
shortages."

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Mark D. Samson
          Keller Rohrback PLC
          3101 N Central Ave, Ste 900
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600
          Phone: 602-230-6323
          Fax: 602-248-2822
          E-mail: msamson@kellerrohrback.com


BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Several N.Y. Suits Over Warburg Pincus Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb, Inc., and its directors have been named as defendants in three
purported class actions filed since May 16, 2007 on behalf of the public
shareholders of the Company challenging the proposed transaction pursuant to
which affiliates of Warburg Pincus, LLC will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the company’s Common stock for $65.00 per share in cash.

Two of these cases are pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
in and for Monroe County.  They are:

      -- “First Derivative Traders LP v. Zarrella, et al., Case
         No. 07-6384 (May 21, 2007),” and

      -- “Brower v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., Case No. 07-7323 (June
         12, 2007).”

“Brower” was originally filed on May 17, 2007 in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York in and for New York County, where a voluntary dismissal by
the plaintiff is pending.

The third purported class action against the Company and its directors,
entitled, “Gottlieb v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., et al., Case No. 07-6506 (May 22,
2007),” was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for
Monroe County, but subsequently was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

A fourth purported shareholder class action, captioned, “Palmer v. Warburg
Pincus LLC, et al., Case No. 07-6634 (May 25, 2007),” was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for Monroe County, names the
Company's directors, but not the Company, as defendants.

The complaints in these actions contain substantially similar allegations and
seek substantially similar relief.  

Among other things, plaintiffs allege that the director defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in pursuing the
proposed transaction, including by accepting an unfair and inadequate
acquisition price and failing to take appropriate steps to maximize
shareholder value in connection with the sale of the Company.

The Brower and Palmer complaints also assert a claim against Warburg Pincus
for aiding and abetting the directors' breach of fiduciary duties.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief against the proposed transaction and unspecified damages.

Bausch & Lomb Inc. -- http://www.bausch.com/-- is a global eye health  
company that develops, manufactures and sells contact lenses and lens care
products, ophthalmic pharmaceuticals and products used in ophthalmic
surgery.  The Company manages its business through five business segments,
which include three regional commercial segments: the Americas; Europe,
Middle East and Africa (Europe), and Asia, and two centralized functions:
Global Operations and Engineering, and Research and Development.  The Global
Operations and Engineering segment is responsible for manufacturing,
distribution, logistics and engineering activities for all product categories
in all geographies.  The Research and Development segment is responsible for
activities associated with research, preclinical development, new product
development, project management and clinical affairs.  It markets its
products in five categories: contact lenses, lens care products, ophthalmic
pharmaceuticals, cataract and vitreoretinal surgery and refractive surgery.


BIG LOTS: Faces Calif. Suits Over Customer Information Request
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. faces purported class actions in California alleging that the
company violated California law by requesting certain customer information in
connection with the return of merchandise for which the customer sought to
receive a refund to a credit card, according to the company’s June 13, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended May 5, 2007.

The suits were filed in May 2007.  One case was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Orange, and the other one in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.  

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all
other individuals who are similarly situated, statutory penalties, costs and
attorneys' fees and seek injunctive relief.  

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national broadline closeout  
retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company operated a total of 1,375 stores
in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.’s merchandising categories include Consumables,
Home, Seasonal and toys, and Other.  The Consumables category includes food,
health and beauty, plastics, paper and pet departments.  The Home category
includes furniture, domestics and home décor departments. Seasonal and toys
includes toys, lawn and garden, trim-a-tree and various holiday-oriented
departments.  The Other category primarily includes electronics, apparel,
home maintenance, small appliances and tools.  The Company’s stores are
located in the United States, predominantly in strip shopping centers.  Big
Lots, Inc.’s stores have an average store size of approximately 29,700 gross
square feet, of which an average of 21,400 square feet is selling square feet.


BOSTON CULINARY: Sued in Fla. Over Denied Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Culinary Group, Inc. is facing a class action filed June 29 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Courthouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Frederick Daley alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Daley v. Boston Culinary Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
21683-WMH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge William M. Hoeveler.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Stacey Hope Cohen
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: Court Dismisses Calif. Suits Over Fraudulent Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has dismissed two purported class actions that names
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. along with many other pharmaceutical companies and
pharmacies as defendants.

The two dismissed class actions are:

      -- “Weisz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al.,” and

      -- “Stephenson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al,”

Both suits allege unfair business practices and untrue and misleading
advertising under various California statutes. Defendants filed motions to
dismiss these actions on procedural and other grounds.

On April 27, 2007, the court granted the motions as to the Company, but the
Weisz case will continue as to other defendants.

This concludes the Company’s involvement in these matters unless plaintiffs
appeal the court’s decision and the appeal is upheld.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged in the  
discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and
sale of pharmaceuticals and other healthcare-related products.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Settles SERZONE-Related Lawsuits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. reached settlements for class actions that were
filed in 2002 against the Company in Canada alleging, among other things,
that it knew or should have known about the hepatic risks posed by SERZONE,
an antidepressant marketed by the company, and failed to adequately warn
physicians and users of the risks.

Without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, in February 2006, the Company
executed an agreement in principle with respect to all of the SERZONE claims
in Canada.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, all claims will be
dismissed, the litigation will be terminated, the defendants will receive
releases and the Company committed to paying at least $1 million into funds
for class members.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Quebec Superior Court, District
of Montreal must approve the settlement of the Canadian claims.

The Approval Hearing for the Settlement in the Ontario action brought on
behalf of Class Members resident in Canada, excluding Quebec, occurred on
April 24, 2007.

The Approval Hearing in the Quebec action brought on behalf of Class Members
resident in Quebec occurred on April 17, 2007.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged in the  
discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and
sale of pharmaceuticals and other healthcare-related products.  


CENTENE CORP: Mo. Court Junks Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centene Corp. received notification from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri that its motion to dismiss a shareholder suit
has been granted.

The consolidated class action dismissed by the Court was originally two
separate class actions filed in July 2006 and August 2006, respectively.

The two class actions were filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors, one in July, and one in August.  
Both were filed on behalf of purchases of the company common stock from June
21, 2006 through July 17, 2006.

The suits allege that the company and certain of its officers and directors
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements prior to the announcement of the company's fiscal 2006-second
quarter results.

According to the suits, these allegedly materially false statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the price of the company's common stock,
which subsequently dropped after the issuance of a press release announcing
the company's preliminary fiscal 2006-second quarter earnings and revised
guidance.  

The suits were consolidated on Nov. 2, 2006 and an amended consolidated
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on Jan. 17, 2007.

The consolidated class action alleges, on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock from April 25, 2006 through July 17, 2006, that the
company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements prior to the
announcement of the company's fiscal 2006 second quarter results.

According to suit, these allegedly materially false statements had the effect
of artificially inflating the price of the company's common stock, which
subsequently dropped after the issuance of a press release announcing its
preliminary fiscal 2006-second quarter earnings and revised guidance.

The first identified complaint is "Larry Elam, et al. v. Centene
Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-1142,"filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/986-0036
          E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com

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

          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          Phone: 1-800-347-1236
          E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com

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

          - and –

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


DANKA BUSINESS: Continues to Face "Edwards" Fraud Suit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danka Business Systems plc faces one remaining claim in the purported class
action, "Edwards v. Danka Industries Inc., et al.," which is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

In June 2003, Danka was served with a putative class action
complaint, "Stephen L. Edwards, et al., v. Danka Industries, Inc., et al.,"
including American Business Credit Corp.  

The suit alleges claims of breach of contract, fraud/intentional
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, violation of the Florida Deception and
Unfair Trade Protection Act, and injunctive relief.

The claim was filed in the state court in Tennessee, and the company has
removed the claim to the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Tennessee
for further proceedings.  

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which the company
has opposed.  The company had filed a motion for summary judgment, which
plaintiffs had opposed.  

On Oct. 13, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee granted Danka's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
plaintiff's claims regarding shipping and handling charges, which served as
the basis of the putative class claim.   The plaintiff's remaining claim has
not been resolved.

The company reported no development in the its June 27, 2007 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Edwards v. Danka Industries Inc., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-
00575," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
under Judge John T. Nixon.    

Representing the plaintiffs is;

         Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
         144 Second Avenue North, Suite 200
         Nashville, TN 37201
         Phone: (615) 250-2000
         Fax: (615) 250-2020
         E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com.

Representing the company are:  

         Thomas B. Hatch, Esq.
         Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
         2800 LaSalle Plaza
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
         Phone: (612) 349-8500

              - and -

         Andrew J. Pulliam, Esq.
         Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs
         2525 West  End Avenue, Suite 1500
         Nashville, TN 37203-1423
         Phone: (615) 244-0020
         E-mail: apulliam@wyattfirm.com

DEL MONTE: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Recalled Pet Food, Snack
----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Co. faces six purported class actions related to its pet food
and pet snack recall initiated on March 31, 2007.

The cases in which the company is currently a defendant are:

      -- “Blaszkowski v. Del Monte filed on May 9, 2007 in the
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         Florida;”

      -- “Carver v. Del Monte filed on April 4, 2007 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of California;”

      -- “Ford v. Del Monte filed on April 7, 2007 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of
         California;”

      -- “Picus v. Del Monte filed on April 30, 2007 in state
         court in Las Vegas, Nevada;”

      -- “Schwinger v. Del Monte filed on May 15, 2007 in U.S.
         District Court for the Western District of Missouri;”
         and

      -- “Wahl v. Del Monte filed on April 10, 2007 in state
         court in Los Angeles, California.”

The named plaintiffs allege that their pets suffered injury and/or death as a
result of ingesting our and other defendants’ allegedly contaminated pet food
and pet snack products.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification of class actions in the respective
jurisdictions as well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief against
further distribution of the allegedly defective products.

Del Monte Foods Co. and its subsidiaries (Del Monte) --
http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a producer, distributor and marketer of  
branded food and pet products for the U.S. retail market.  The segments in
which the Company operates include The Consumer Products segment and The Pet
Products segment.


DRIVE FINANCIAL: Settles Tex. Suit Over Debt Collection Method
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston consumer protection attorney Richard Tomlinson settled a suit against
Drive Financial Services, L.P. that alleges numerous violations of federal
and state consumer protection laws by the company while it is attempting to
collect debts.

In 2006, Mr. Tomlinson filed the suit on behalf of Houston resident Velincia
Plummer and others (Case 4:06-cv-00068), claiming Drive made it a practice to
send people who fell behind in their payments a letter that violated the
Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Texas Debt Collection
Act.  Among other alleged violations, the letter threatens wage garnishment
and pretends to be from an attorney or law firm, when in fact it was sent by
Drive.  Both are violations of consumer protection laws.

The suit charged that Drive sent threatening letters to Texas residents who
fell behind in their payments. The letters threatened wage garnishment and
purported to be from an attorney or law firm, which violated the Federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the Texas Debt Collection Act.

The settlement requires Drive to pay the class $250,000 as well as pay
Tomlinson's legal fees and court costs. U.S. District Judge Sim Lake of the
Southern District of Texas ruled that the settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the members of the
class.

Class members were notified of the settlement and entitled to submit
objections to the court prior to the hearing before Judge Lake. Although more
than 1,150 notices were sent out to class members, not a single objection was
filed.

"We look forward to the prompt distribution of the settlement proceeds to
Drive's victims," Tomlinson said. "The fact that Drive has to write a quarter
million dollars in checks to the Texas residents they harassed should send a
message to other debt collectors who use abusive, unethical and illegal
techniques to apply pressure."

For more information, contact:

          Law Office of Richard Tomlinson
          Phone: 713-627-2100 ext. 101
          Web site: http://www.houstonconsumerlaw.com


EQUITY INNS: Faces Second Suit in Tenn. Over Company’s Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------
Another class action has been filed against hotel real estate investment
trust Equity Inns Inc. and Whitehall Street Global Real Estate Limited
Partnership 2007 regarding the sale of Equity to Whitehall, according to The
Daily News Online.

The suit was filed in Shelby County Chancery Court in Tennessee on June 25.

Equity Inns announced last month that Whitehall will be acquiring it for
$1.26 billion in cash.  The acquisition includes Whitehall’s assumption of
the firm’s $940 million in debt.

Equity Inns shareholder Howard Rosengarten filed a lawsuit, charging the
company of “breach of fiduciary duty,” right after the announcement.  He
filed the case on behalf of himself and other shareholders.

Investor Kenneth B. Loesch filed a similar lawsuit charging the company of
the same violation.

Mr. Loesch's stated his allegations nearly verbatim of that of Mr.
Rosengarten's.  According to the suit “Equity Inns has enjoyed a consistent
increase in annual revenue, as well as a similar steady increase in its stock
price.  The company is expected to continue to enjoy such steady growth and
profitability in the future.”

Mr. Loesch also alleges that after the company’s announcement, it also
declared major expansions in California and Texas.


EVERCOM SYSTEMS: Fla. Court Considers Dismissal of Inmates' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has yet to rule
on a motion to dismiss all claims in a putative class action filed against
Evercom Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of SECURUS Technologies, Inc.,

In February 2006, Evercom and T-Netix were named in a putative class action
in Florida federal court captioned, “Kirsten Salb v. Evercom Systems, Inc.,
et al.”

Evercom and its wholly owned billing agent are alleged to have violated the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and other common law duties
because of the alleged incorrect termination of inmate telephone calls.  

Plaintiff seeks restitution and compensatory damages on behalf of a class of
persons who received inmate calls from Florida correctional sites that are
served by Evercom or T-Netix platforms.

T-Netix has moved for complete dismissal of all claims, and is awaiting the
Court’s decision.  In addition, Evercom and T-Netix have moved for summary
judgment on all claims, and we await the Court’s decision.   No class has
been certified yet, according to the SECURUS’ May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Kirsten Salb v. Evercom Systems, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-CV-20290," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida under Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Judd Gordon Rosen, Esq.
         Goldberg Law Firm
         1101 Brickell Avenue, Suite 899
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-374-4200

         Lance August Harke, Esq.
         Howard Mitchell Bushman, Esq.
         Harke & Clasby, LLP
         155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 600
         Miami, Florida 33130
         Phone: 305-536-8220
         Fax: 305-536-8229
         Web site: http://www.harkeclasby.com

              - and -

         Justin Graem Witkin, Esq.
         Robert Jason Richards of
         Aylstock, Witkin & Sasser, P.L.C., Phone: 850-916-7450
         and 877-810-4808, Fax: 850-916-7449, Web site:
         http://www.aws-law.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Glen H. Waldman, Esq.
         Eleanor Trotman Barnett, Esq.
         Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP
         200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500
         Miami, Florida 33131-5340
         Phone: 305-374-7580
         Fax: 305-374-7593
         Web site: http://www.bilzin.com


FLORIDA: Dade County Sued Over Denied Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Dade County Overall Tenant Advisory Council, Inc. and the Liberty Square
Resident Council, Inc. are facing a class action filed June 29 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Courthouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Anthony Bell and Latoya David allege denial of overtime
compensation, a violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Bell et al. v. Liberty Square Resident Council, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-21678-PAS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Judge Patricia A. Seitz.

Representing plaintiffs is:

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of a purported class action that
alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against
JPMorgan Chase & Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

A putative class action on behalf of JPMorgan Chase employees who
participated in the firm's 401(k) plan alleged claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and
negligence by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and named officers.

In August 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and ordered some of
plaintiffs' claims dismissed.

In September 2005, the Firm moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of
this ERISA lawsuit in its entirety and, in September 2006, the court granted
summary judgment in part, and ordered plaintiffs to show cause as to why the
remaining claims should not be dismissed.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the court dismissed the litigation with prejudice.  On Dec.
29, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on March 26, 2007.  Appellees’
brief was due May 2007.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorgan.com/-- is a financial holding  
company.  JPMorgan Chase's principal bank subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase
Bank, National Association, a national banking association with branches in
17 states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is
the Company's credit card issuing bank.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Motion Denied in Floppy Disk Controllers Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by
Hewlett-Packard Co. in purported class actions filed against it over faulty
floppy disk controllers.

One of the suits is “Alvis v. HP,” which is a defective product consumer
class action filed in the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas in April
2001.

In February 2000, a similar suit captioned, “LaPray v. Compaq,” was filed in
the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

The basic allegation is that HP and Compaq sold computers containing floppy
disk controllers that fail to alert the user to certain floppy disk
controller errors.  That failure is alleged to result in data loss or data
corruption.

The complaints in “Alvis” and “LaPray” seek injunctive relief, declaratory
relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray case, which the
Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002. The Texas Supreme Court
reversed the certification and remanded to the trial court in May 2004.

On March 29, 2005, the Alvis trial court certified a Texas-wide class action
for injunctive relief only, which HP appealed on April 15, 2005.  HP's appeal
in the Alvis case is still pending.

On June 4, 2003, each of “Barrett v. HP,” and “Grider v. Compaq,” was filed
in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, with factual allegations
similar to those in Alvis and LaPray.

The complaints in “Barrett” and “Grider” seek, among other things, specific
performance, declaratory relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

On Dec. 22, 2003, the District Court entered an order staying the Barrett
case until the conclusion of “Alvis.”

On Sept. 23, 2005, the District Court granted the “Grider” plaintiffs' motion
to certify a nationwide class action, which the Oklahoma Court of Civil
Appeals affirmed on Oct. 13, 2006.

On Nov. 5, 2006, HP filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Oklahoma
Supreme Court seeking reversal of the lower courts' decisions.  That petition
was denied on March 26, 2007.

The Grider case is scheduled for trial in January 2008.  

On Nov. 5, 2004, “Batiste v. HP (formerly Scott v. HP),” and on Jan. 27,
2005, “Schultz v. HP (formerly Jurado v. HP),” were filed in state court in
San Joaquin County, California, with factual allegations similar to those
in “LaPray” and “Alvis,” seeking certification of a California-only class,
injunctive relief, unspecified damages (including punitive damages),
restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 27, 2006, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification and certified the Schultz case as a California-only class.

On March 26, 2007, HP filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the
California Supreme Court.  That petition was summarily denied on May 9, 2007.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of products,  
technologies, solutions and services to individual consumers, small and
medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises.  Its offerings span
personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing-related
products and services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and
multi-vendor customer services.  During the fiscal year ended October 31,
2006, HP's operations were organized into seven business segments: Enterprise
Storage and Servers (ESS), HP Services (HPS), Software, the Personal Systems
Group, the Imaging and Printing Group, HP Financial Services and Corporate
Investments.  ESS, HPS and Software are structured beneath a Technology
Solutions Group.


ISRAEL: Restaurant Sued for Allegedly Breaking No-Smoking Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer who is head of the National Council for the Prevention of Smoking
filed a lawsuit against Foccachta restaurant in Jerusalem, the Jerusalem
Post’s Judy Siegel-Itzkovich reports.

Attorney Amos Hausner brought the first class action on behalf of the
restaurant’s 7,000 customers.  

Mr. Hausner alleges that the restaurant’s owner Shmuel Shmueli failed to
observe no-smoking laws.

Just last year, a court held the same restaurant liable when a customer
complained about the restaurant’s failure to prevent smoking.  


LOS ALAMOS: N.Mex. Judge OKs Settlement of Bias Suit for $16.4M
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has granted final approval to a $16.4 million settlement
between the University of California and a group of Hispanic and female
employees at Los Alamos National Laboratory, The Associated Press reports.

U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson signed the final agreement that
includes $4.4 million for lawyers' fees and other legal costs Wednesday.

On Dec. 10, 2003, Veronique A. Longmire and Laura Barber filed a complaint
alleging violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and breach of contract in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, on their own behalf and
as representatives of a class of similarly situated employees at the
Laboratory.   

The suit was "Veronique A. Longmire and Laura Barber et al. v.  
Regents of the University of California d/b/a Los Alamos  
National Laboratory, No. CIV-03-1404 WJ/RLP."

On Jan. 6, 2004, a second lawsuit alleging violation of the EPA, breach of
contract and other claims was filed in Rio Arriba County District Court by
Yolanda Garcia, Loyda Martinez, Gloria A. Bennett, Yvonne Ebelacker, Hispanic
Roundtable of New Mexico, and University Professional & Technical Employees
CWA 9119.  It was filed against the Regents of the University of California
d/b/a Los Alamos National Laboratory et al. (Case No. CIV-04-112 WJ/RLP).

The Garcia Action was removed and consolidated with the Barber Action to
become the consolidated action.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated action claimed that the Regents, which
operates and manages the laboratory, discriminated against female and
Hispanic employees in terms of pay, promotion, educational opportunities, and
other terms and conditions of employment.

The consolidated action sought unspecified damages for lost earnings and
benefits, emotional distress damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs, in addition to certain injunctive and
declaratory relief.

A proposed settlement reached between the class representatives on behalf of
themselves and the class and the Regents, entered on June 1, 2006, provided
that the Regents will pay $12 million, not including attorneys' fees and
costs to be determined, in settlement of the consolidated action (Class
Action Reporter, Dec 01, 2006).  

Denying the allegations, university officials said they settled the case to
avoid the costly litigation, which would potentially take years.

The settlement covers nearly 5,500 current and previous laboratory employees
who have worked there since December 2000 up to the present and have
submitted valid claims.  

Class members have until July 27 to file claims.

The court-appointed Class Counsels are:

          Patrick D. Allen, Esq.
          Yenson, Lynn, Allen & Wosick
          4908 Alameda Blvd. NE
          Albuquerque, NM 87113
          Phone: (505) 266-3995

               -  and  -

          John C. Bienvenu, Esq.
          Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes,
          Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu
          P.O. Box 8180
          Santa Fe, NM 87504-8180
          Phone: (505) 988-8004


NESTOR TRAFFIC: O. High Court Yet to Rule on Speed Program Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A question is before the Ohio Supreme Court on whether a municipality has the
power under home rule to enact civil penalties for the offense of violating a
traffic signal light or for the offense of speeding, both of which are
criminal offenses under the Ohio Revised Code.

The Supreme Court accepted the case for determination of the question in
relation to two cases naming Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc. as defendant.

Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Nestor, Inc., and the City of Akron remain defendants in a consolidated class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
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 May 11,
2007.

Initially, two purported class actions were filed that seek damages and
injunction against the city's speed program.
These cases, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, are:

      -- "Mendenhall v. City of Akron, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
          00139-DDD;" and

      -- "Sipe, et al. v. Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 5:06-cv-00154-DDD."

Both actions were originally filed in the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas, but were later removed to federal court.

In "Mendenhall," which was filed on Jan. 19, 2006, plaintiff brought a
complaint and class action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and
for a money judgment in an unspecified amount against city of Akron and all
of its city council members in their official capacity and the company,
alleging federal and state constitutional violations.

On Feb. 17, 2006, defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on March 24, 2006.

On May 19, 2006, the court ruled that the Akron ordinance permitting photo
enforcement of speeding laws was a proper exercise of municipal power under
the Ohio Constitution, but deferred ruling on the alleged due process
violations pending an opportunity for discovery by the plaintiff, which was
completed on Oct. 20, 2006.

The plaintiff amended her complaint on Aug. 8, 2006 to include equal
protection violations among her federal constitutional claims.

The company filed an answer to that amended complaint on Aug. 18, 2006.  
Dispositive motions in the case are due by Nov. 22, 2006.

In "Sipe," which was filed on Jan. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a complaint and
class action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and for a money
judgment in an unspecified amount against the company, various past and
present employees of the company and the city of Akron and alleging fraud,
civil conspiracy, common plan to commit fraud, violations of the Consumer
Sales Practices Act, nuisance, conversion, invasion of privacy, negligence,
and federal constitutional violation.

The action was filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and was
removed to federal court.  

On Feb. 17, 2006, the company and the other defendants filed a joint motion
for judgment on the pleadings.  Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion
on March 24, 2006.

On May 19, 2006, the court ruled that the Akron ordinance permitting photo
enforcement of speeding laws was a proper exercise of municipal power under
the Ohio Constitution, but deferred ruling on the alleged due process
violations pending an opportunity for discovery by the plaintiff, which was
completed on Oct. 20, 2006.  Dispositive motions in the case were due by Nov.
22, 2006.

With respect to both of the above cases, the Court certified a question to
the Ohio Supreme Court:

Whether a municipality has the power under home rule to enact civil penalties
for the offense of violating a traffic signal light or for the offense of
speeding, both of which are criminal offenses under the Ohio Revised Code.

On February 7, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case for
determination of the question presented.

With respect to the underlying actions, discovery was complete at the time
the Court certified the question to the Ohio Supreme Court.

For more details, contact:

         Jacquenette Geggus Corgan, Esq.
         [Mendenhall Plaintiff]
         Ste. 201, 190 North Union Street
         Akron, OH 44304
         Phone: 330-535-8160
         Fax: 330-762-9743
         E-mail: j.corgan@justice.com

         Antoni Dalayanis, Esq.
         [Sipe Plaintiff]
         5th Floor, 12 East Exchange Street
         Akron, OH 44308
         Phone: 330-315-1060
         Fax: 800-787-4089
         E-mail: lawyer@bright.net

              - and -

         Michael J. Defibaugh
         [Mendenhall & Sipe Defendant]
         City of Akron, Law Department
         Ste. 202, 161 South High Street
         Akron, OH 44308
         Phone: 330-375-2030
         Fax: 330-375-2041
         E-mail: defibmi@ci.akron.oh.us
  

OVERPASS STATION: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Denied Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Overpass Station, Inc. is facing a class action filed June 28 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Courthouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Dinora Gonzalez alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Gonzalez v. Overpass Station, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
21662-AJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge Adalberto Jordan.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Mercy Blasa Pina-Brito
          Mercy B Pina-Brito PA
          3211 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 200
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: 305-443-7005
          Fax: 444-9691 (fax)
          E-mail: mpbritolaw@yahoo.com


PACIFIC EAGLE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Denied Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Eagle International Security Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed June 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Ryan Greig and Miranda Ahrens allege denial of overtime
compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Greig et al. v. Pacific Eagle International Security Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01176-JAH-POR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, under Judge John A. Houston, with
referral to Judge Louisa S. Porter.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Robert A. Waller, Jr.
          Law Offices of Robert A. Waller, Jr.
          2235 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 104
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Phone: (760)753-3118
          Fax: (760)753-3206


PARMALAT FINANZIARIA: Court Rejects Bid to Junk Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New York federal judge overseeing the securities class action against
Italian dairy giant Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. has soundly rejected the
company's motion to dismiss the case brought by investors.  The investor
class seeks to recover billions of dollars in claims against Parmalat tied to
a massive and complex accounting fraud that led to its bankruptcy in 2003.

Following a corporate reorganization, the management of so-called "New
Parmalat" had argued that because the alleged fraud had been committed by the
previous entity -- "Old Parmalat" -- investor claims brought in 2004 were
invalid.

Dismissing that argument, Judge Lewis Kaplan of U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, issued a ruling on June 28 that under Italian
law, New Parmalat inherited the liabilities of Old Parmalat.

Judge Kaplan also rejected New Parmalat's arguments that investor claims were
barred by the statute of limitations or because certain lead plaintiffs had
asserted claims in Parmalat's reorganization proceedings in Italy.

According to Judge Kaplan's decision:

"New Parmalat asserts that it 'did not assume the pre-insolvency acts of the
Foreign Debtors.' But the issue is not the assumption of acts. It is the
assumption of liability for those acts."

"New Parmalat suggests that it is being asked to bear more responsibility
than it agreed to undertake. But it is not ... they (the Plaintiffs) seek
only to hold New Parmalat to the terms of the Concordato."

The plaintiffs are represented by co-lead counsel Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.;
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.; and Spector, Roseman & Kodroff,
P.C.

According to Stuart Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer, the decision is a major
milestone in this sprawling litigation, which extends to Parmalat's former
auditors and investment banks as well as the company's previous management
and board of directors.

"As Parmalat has admitted that its former top officers engaged in fraudulent
conduct and that its financial statements were materially misstated, New
Parmalat appears to have no defense left to our clients' claims. Judge
Kaplan's decision paves the way for a substantial recovery against New
Parmalat under the terms of the Concordato," Mr. Grant said.

"This latest decision appears to knock out all the legal defenses that New
Parmalat has raised against investors. Since it has no factual defense
against our clients' claims, as the company has already admitted that the
fraud occurred, it seems the only thing remaining is determining the level of
judgment against Parmalat," said Mr. Grant.

                         About Parmalat

Headquartered in Milan, Italy, Parmalat S.p.A. --http://www.parmalat.net/--  
sells nameplate milk products that can be stored at room temperature for
months.  It also has about
40 brand product lines, which include yogurt, cheese, butter, cakes and
cookies, breads, pizza, snack foods and vegetable sauces, soups and juices.

The Company's U.S. operations filed for chapter 11 protection on Feb. 24,
2004 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-11139).  Gary Holtzer, Esq., and Marcia L.
Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, represent the Debtors.  When
the U.S. Debtors filed or bankruptcy protection, they reported more than
US$200 million in assets and debts.  The U.S. Debtors emerged from bankruptcy
on April 13, 2005.

Parmalat S.p.A. and its Italian affiliates filed separate petitions for
Extraordinary Administration before the Italian Ministry of Productive
Activities and the Civil and Criminal District Court of the City of Parma,
Italy on Dec. 24, 2003.  Dr. Enrico Bondi was appointed Extraordinary
Commissioner in each of the cases.  The Parma Court has declared the units
insolvent.

On June 22, 2004, Dr. Bondi filed a Sec. 304 Petition, Case No. 04-14268, in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

For more information, contact:

          Allan Ripp, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
          Phone: 212-262-7477
          E-mail: arippnyc@aol.com

          Joshua Spivak, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
          Phone: 510-849-1663
          E-mail: jspild@aol.com


PEMSTAR INC: Minn. Securities Suit Deal Gets Preliminary Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted preliminary
approval to a settlement of the class action “Pemstar, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-01182 - JMR/FLN,” on behalf of all persons who
purchased shares of Pemstar, Inc. common stock from January 30, 2003, through
and including January 12, 2005.

The Settlement, entered into on March 27, creates a fund in the amount of
$2,875,000 in cash.  After payment of any Court awarded attorney’s fees and
expenses, the Settlement Fund will be distributed to all eligible members of
the class on the basis of a formula described in the Plan of Allocation.

Based on Plaintiff’s Counsel’s estimate of the number of Shares affected, the
average recovery per Share before deduction of any Court-awarded attorneys’
fees and expenses would be approximately $0.13, depending on, among other
things, the number of valid claims submitted by Settlement Class Members, the
actual prices paid for Shares, and when such Shares were purchased and sold.

On June 16, 2005, an individual shareholder filed a putative class action
against the company and certain of its current officers and directors.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933.  

An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 28, 2005, which set forth the claim
and established that the action was going forward with a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel for the plaintiff class.

Plaintiff alleges, in essence, that the defendants defrauded the company's
shareholders by failing to timely disclose the circumstances around the
discrepancies in the accounting of the Mexico facility that generated a
restatement.

The suit also alleges that the registration statement filed by the company in
connection with a secondary offering contained false, material
misrepresentations.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed Jan. 9, 2006.  The amended
complaint does not specify an amount of damages.

Under the March 27 settlement, if the claims submitted by Settlement Class
Members exceed the value of the Net Settlement Fund, each Settlement Class
Member who submitted a claim will receive a pro rata share of their claim.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is July 31, 2007.  Deadline to
file claims is October 20, 2007.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will hold a hearing on
August 1, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable James M. Rosenbaum.

The suit is “Pemstar, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-01182 -
JMR/FLN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,
under Judge James M. Rosenbaum.

Plaintiff’s Counsel is:

          Jeffrey S. Nobel
          Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C.
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          E-mail: jnobel@snilaw.com
          Website: http://www.snilaw.com


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Accused of Cheating Policyholders in Ga. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Insurance Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed June
28 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia accusing it
of cheating policyholders of credit insurance if they pay off loans early.

Named plaintiff Donald Holaway brings this action on behalf of all persons
who purchased or will purchase credit life insurance, credit disability
insurance, and/or any other credit insurance product, from Protective Life
Insurance.

Mr. Holaway accuses the company of:

     (a) breach of contract, for failing to refund unearned
         premiums in accordance with the terms of its contract
         of insurance with Plaintiff and with the class members;

     (b) unjust enrichment, for keeping the funds that
         rightfully belong to Plaintiff and to the class
         members;

     (c) negligence (both common law and per se), for
         administering its credit insurance policies so as not
         to refund unearned premiums to Plaintiff and the class
         members; negligence per se is predicated on the
         violation of O.C.G.A. Section  33-31-9;

     (d) willful, wanton, and intentional misconduct in
         administering its credit insurance policies so as not
         to refund unearned premiums to Plaintiff and to class
         members;

     (e) bad faith in the underlying transaction, stubborn
         litigiousness, and for having put Plaintiff and the
         class to unnecessary trouble and expense, pursuant to
         O.C.G.A. Section  13-6-11; and

     (f) punitive damages, pursuant to O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-
         5.1, as Protective Life’s conduct was willful and
         wanton as to Plaintiff and the entire class, as
         evidenced by the fact that Protective Life has failed
         to return unearned premiums to hundreds, or even
         thousands, of insureds.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) Whether Protective Life has a duty to refund unearned
         premiums when an insured loan is paid off, renewed, or
         refinanced prior to its scheduled expiration date;

     (b) Whether Protective Life has failed to refund to
         Plaintiff and the class members unearned premiums on
         credit insurance policies;

     (c) Whether Protective Life has breached its insurance
         contract with Plaintiff and the class members by
         failing to refund unearned premiums on credit insurance
         policies;

     (d) Whether Protective Life has been unjustly enriched by
         failing to refund to Plaintiff and the class members
         unearned premiums on credit insurance policies;

     (e) Whether Protective Life was negligent in administering
         its credit insurance policies so as not to refund to
         Plaintiff and the class members unearned premiums on
         credit insurance policies;

     (f) Whether Protective Life willfully, wantonly, and/or
         intentionally administered its credit insurance
         policies so as not to refund to Plaintiff and the class
         members unearned premiums on credit insurance policies;
         and

     (g) Whether Protective Life should be required to take
         remedial action to ensure in the future that insureds
         receive refunds of unearned premiums to which they are
         legally and contractually entitled.

Plaintiff requests that the Court certify this case as a class action as:

     -- That the case be certified as a class action pursuant to
        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;

     -- That the Court award the class economic damages,
        including any and all compensatory damages, punitive
        damages, any applicable penalties, any authorized
        attorney fees, interest, and costs, and any further
        relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and proper
        for each member of the class;

     -- That the Court enjoin Protective Life and require it to
        take remedial action to ensure that in the future
        insureds receive refunds of unearned premium to which
        they are legally and contractually entitled; and

     -- That Plaintiff and the class have a trial by jury.

The suit is “Holaway v. Protective Life Ins. Co., Case No. 4:07-cv-00109-
CDL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia,
under Judge Clay D. Land.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Teresa Thomas Abell
          P.O. Box 5509
          Columbus, GA 31906
          Phone: 706-324-5685
          E-mail: Teresa@CAGower.com

          Austin Gower
          P.O. Box 5509
          Columbus, GA 31906
          Phone: 706-324-5685
          E-mail: Austin@CAGower.com

          Ben B. Philips
          P.O. Box 2808
          Columbus, GA 31902
          706-323-6461
          E-mail: ben@philips-branch.com


REFCO INC: BAWAG’s $140M Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge granted final approval to a $140 million settlement by
Austria’s bank BAWAG P.S.K. Bank Fuer Arbeit und Wirtschaft und
Osterreichische Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaftand of claims it faces in a
suit over the collapse of Refco Inc., according to the Associated Press.

U.S. District Judge Gerard F. Lynch signed the agreement wherein Bawag will
pay $140 million to its investors as well as support them in going after
Refco’s former chief executive Philip R. Bennett and other officers.  Bawag
is accused of helping Mr. Bennett and others conceal Refco's true financial
position.

The settlement covers persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Refco Group Ltd., LLC/ Refco Finance Inc. 9% Senior Subordinated
Notes due 2012 (CUSIP Nos. 75866HAA5 and/or 75866HAC1) and/or Refco, Inc.
common stock (CUSIP No. 75866G109) between Aug. 5, 2004 and Oct. 17, 2005.

In last month’s partial settlement, Bawag agreed to pay $675 million as well
as $337.5 million payment to its aggravated shareholders through a
compensation fund.  

Bawag also made the Justice Department sign a non-prosecution agreement.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer John P. Coffey said that they will continue to pursue the
remaining defendants Mr. Bennett, Bawag’s former chief financial officer
Robert C. Trosten and former president Tone N. Grant, wherein a civil trial
is expected sometime in 2008.

                        Case Background

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, was consolidated in April 2006 (Class Action Reporter, April 7, 2006).  
It claimed the collapsed commodity brokerage hid more than $5 billion off its
books, far more than previously thought.  It also accuses company executives,
company auditors, and investment bankers of negligence.

This discovery of the bad debts caused the collapse of the company a mere two
months after its Aug. 10, 2005 initial public offering of common stock, and
only 14 months after its issuance of 9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012.  
The company filed the fourth largest bankruptcy in U.S. history as a result.

The suit is "In re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ.
8626 (GEL)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Max W. Berger (MB-5010), John P. Coffey  (JC-3832),
         John C. Browne (JB-0391) and Noam N. Mandel (NM-0203)
         of Bernstein Litowitz Berg & Grossmann, LLP, 1285
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
         (212) 554-1400, Fax: (212) 554-1444; and

     (2) Stuart M. Grant (SG-8157), James J. Sabella (JS-5454),
         Megan D. McIntyre, Jeff A. Almeida, Christine M.
         Mackintosh and Jill Agro of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.,
         Phone: (646) 722-8500 and (302) 622-7000, Fax: (646)
         722-8501 and (302) 622-7100

For more details, contact Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., PO Box 9087, Dublin, OH 43017-
0987, Web site: http://www.refcosecuritieslitigation.com.


STARBUCKS CORP: Tex. Court Yet to Set Trial in ERISA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has yet been set in a purported class action pending against
Starbucks Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
that claims that the company violated requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

On March 11, 2005, a former employee of the Company filed a lawsuit,
entitled, “James Falcon v. Starbucks Corporation and Does 1 through 100.”

Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the company misclassified its retail
assistant store managers as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA
and that each assistant manager therefore is entitled to overtime
compensation for any week in which he or she worked more than 40 hours during
the three years before joining the suit as a plaintiff, and for as long as
they remain an assistant manager thereafter.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the plaintiff amended his complaint to include allegations
that he and other retail assistant store managers were not paid overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek after
they were re-classified as non-exempt employees in September 2002.

In both claims, Plaintiff seeks to represent himself and a putative class of
all current and former assistant store managers employed by the Company in
the United States from March 11, 2002 until the present.

He also seeks, on behalf of himself and the class, reimbursement for an
unspecified amount of unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees and costs.

On Sept. 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion for conditional collective
action treatment and court-supervised notice to all putative class members
under the opt-in procedures in section 16(b) of the FLSA.

On Nov. 29, 2005, the court entered an order authorizing notice to the class
of the existence of the lawsuit and their opportunity to join as plaintiffs.

The Company has a policy requiring that all non-exempt partners, including
assistant store managers, be paid for all hours worked, including any hours
worked in excess of 40 per week.  The Company also believes that this policy
is, and at all relevant times has been, communicated and followed
consistently.

Further, the Company believes that the plaintiff and other assistant store
managers were properly classified as exempt under the FLSA prior to September
2002. The Company cannot estimate the possible loss to the Company, if any,
and believes that a loss in this case is unlikely. No trial date has been
set, 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.

The suit is “Falcon v. Starbucks Corp. et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00792,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge
Keith P. Ellison.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
         The Debes Law Firm
         17 South Briar Hollow Lane, Ste. 302
         Houston, TX 77027
         Phone: 713-623-0900
         Fax: 713-623-0951
         E-mail: bdebes@debeslaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Fraser A. McAlpine, Esq.
         Akin Gump et al.
         1111 Louisiana St., 44th Floor
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-220-8129
         Fax: 713-236-0822
         E-mail: fmcalpine@akingump.com


UNIVERSAL CONCRETE: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denied Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Concrete & Ready Mix Corp. is facing a class action filed June 29
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the
Courthouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Luis F. Perez alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Perez v. Universal Concrete & Ready Mix Corp. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21668-ASG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge  Alan S. Gold.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jamie H. Zidell
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Phone: 305-865-6766
          Fax: 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


WAL-MART STORES: Appeals 172M Award in “Savaglio” Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is appealing an award made in the class
action, “Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,” a case in which the plaintiffs
allege that they were not provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with
California law, and seek monetary damages and injunctive relief.

A jury trial on the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages concluded on Dec.
22, 2005.  The jury returned a verdict of approximately $57 million in
statutory penalties and $115 million in punitive damages.

Following a bench trial in June 2006, the judge entered an order allowing
some, but not all, of the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the judge entered an order awarding the plaintiffs an
additional amount of approximately $26 million in costs and attorneys’ fees.

The company believes it has substantial arguments on appeal, and on Jan. 31,
2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal.

The company reported no development in the case at its June 1, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2007.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://www.walmart.com/-- incorporated in October  
1969, operates retail stores in various formats around the world.  The
Company operates through three segments: Wal-Mart Stores segment, which
includes Supercenters, Discount Stores and Neighborhood Markets, Sam’s Club
segment and International segment.  The Wal-Mart Stores segment segment
consists of three different traditional retail formats, all of which operate
in the United States, and Wal-Mart’s online retail format, walmart.com.  The
Sam’s Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs, which operate in
the United States, and the segment’s online retail format, samsclub.com.  Its
International segment consisted of retail operations in 12 countries and
Puerto Rico.  


WAL-MART STORES: No Ruling Yet in Motion to Certify “Cruz” Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California court is yet to rule on a motion for class certification in the
case, “Cruz v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.”

In the putative class action, plaintiffs challenge the methodology of
payments made under various associate incentive bonus plans.

The court has made no decision on class certification in this matter,
according to the company’s June 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30,
2007.

“Cruz, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf
of present and former employees in California Wal-Mart, Supercenter, and
Sam's Club stores, who challenge Wal-Mart's practice of reducing or
withholding incentive wages under Wal-Mart's incentive compensation program.

In computing the amount of annual "bonus" compensation payments to store
employees, Wal-Mart bases that amount on a measure of store profitability
that deducts from profits a number of charges that by law must be borne by
employers, including the cost of workers' compensation, medical and physical
examinations of employees, shrink (theft losses), breakage of merchandise,
and other employer expenses.

As a result, many employees receive no bonus payments even though their
stores are profitable, and many others receive reduced bonuses. The case was
filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Wal-Mart removed the case to federal
court in Los Angeles. The federal court remanded the case to the Superior
Court, where it is proceeding toward a class action determination.

The suit is “Cruz et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. BC 304850, filed
in Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. County.  

Professional: Lawrence C. DiNardo, Michael J. Gray of Goldstein, Demchak,
Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, 300 Lakeside Drive - Suite 1000 Oakland,
California 94612, Phone: (510) 763-9800, E-mail: info@gdblegal.com.  

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://www.walmart.com/-- incorporated in October  
1969, operates retail stores in various formats around the world.  The
Company operates through three segments: Wal-Mart Stores segment, which
includes Supercenters, Discount Stores and Neighborhood Markets, Sam’s Club
segment and International segment.  The Wal-Mart Stores segment segment
consists of three different traditional retail formats, all of which operate
in the United States, and Wal-Mart’s online retail format, walmart.com.  The
Sam’s Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs, which operate in
the United States, and the segment’s online retail format, samsclub.com.  Its
International segment consisted of retail operations in 12 countries and
Puerto Rico.  


WAL-MART STORES: Mass. Judge Decertifies Class in “Salvas” Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts judge has decertified the purported class action, “Salvas v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,” according to the company’s June 1, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2007.

Plaintiffs alleged that the Company failed to pay class members for all hours
worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest
breaks, and were seeking approximately $90 million in back pay, plus
statutory treble damages, interest and attorneys' fees.

The case had been scheduled to go to trial on Oct. 2, 2006, before a jury in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Shortly before the scheduled trial date, however, the judge took the case off
the trial docket in order to consider Wal-Mart’s motion to decertify the
class, and on Nov. 7, 2006, the judge entered an order decertifying the class
entirely.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://www.walmart.com/-- incorporated in October  
1969, operates retail stores in various formats around the world.  The
Company operates through three segments: Wal-Mart Stores segment, which
includes Supercenters, Discount Stores and Neighborhood Markets, Sam’s Club
segment and International segment.  The Wal-Mart Stores segment segment
consists of three different traditional retail formats, all of which operate
in the United States, and Wal-Mart’s online retail format, walmart.com.  The
Sam’s Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs, which operate in
the United States, and the segment’s online retail format, samsclub.com.  Its
International segment consisted of retail operations in 12 countries and
Puerto Rico.


WAL-MART STORES: To Appeal $78M Award in “Braun/Hummel” Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. plans to appeal a ruling made in the purported class
action, entitled, “Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.”

Plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to pay class members for all hours
worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest
breaks.

A jury trial was commenced in the matter on Sept. 5, 2006, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the jury awarded back-pay damages to the plaintiffs of
approximately $78 million on their claims for off-the-clock work and missed
rest breaks.

The jury found in favor of the Company on the plaintiffs’ meal-period
claims.  The plaintiffs are now seeking an additional award of approximately
$62 million in statutory penalties, plus prejudgment interest and attorneys’
fees, according to the company’s June 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30,
2007.

The company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims at issue, and
intends to challenge the verdict in post-trial motions and, if necessary, on
appeal.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://www.walmart.com/-- incorporated in October  
1969, operates retail stores in various formats around the world.  The
Company operates through three segments: Wal-Mart Stores segment, which
includes Supercenters, Discount Stores and Neighborhood Markets, Sam’s Club
segment and International segment.  The Wal-Mart Stores segment segment
consists of three different traditional retail formats, all of which operate
in the United States, and Wal-Mart’s online retail format, walmart.com.  The
Sam’s Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs, which operate in
the United States, and the segment’s online retail format, samsclub.com.  Its
International segment consisted of retail operations in 12 countries and
Puerto Rico.  


WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Review of Class Certification in “Dukes”
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is seeking for a review a ruling certifying the class
in the matter, “Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,”

The class action was commenced in June 2001 and was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. It was brought on
behalf of all past and present female employees in all of the Company's
retail stores and warehouse clubs in the U.S.

The complaint alleges that the Company has engaged in a pattern and practice
of discriminating against women in promotions, pay, training, and job
assignments.

The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, front pay, back
pay, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The class, which was certified by the district court for purposes of
liability, injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and lost pay,
subject to certain exceptions, includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart
domestic retail store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may
be subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies and
practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6 million present
and former female associates.

The Company believes that the district court's ruling is incorrect.  

On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the
Company's petition for discretionary review of the ruling.

On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals issued a
decision affirming the district court’s certification order.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Company filed a petition asking that a larger panel of
the court reconsider the decision, according to the company’s June 1, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2007.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://www.walmart.com/-- incorporated in October  
1969, operates retail stores in various formats around the world.  The
Company operates through three segments: Wal-Mart Stores segment, which
includes Supercenters, Discount Stores and Neighborhood Markets, Sam’s Club
segment and International segment.  The Wal-Mart Stores segment segment
consists of three different traditional retail formats, all of which operate
in the United States, and Wal-Mart’s online retail format, walmart.com.  The
Sam’s Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs, which operate in
the United States, and the segment’s online retail format, samsclub.com.  Its
International segment consisted of retail operations in 12 countries and
Puerto Rico.  


WAL-MART STORES: Still Faces Salaried Managers’ Suits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is currently a defendant in two putative class actions
pending in federal court in California, in which the plaintiffs seek
certification of a class of salaried managers who challenge their exempt
status under state and federal laws.

In one of those cases, “Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,” class
certification has been denied and the ruling is now on appeal.

Class certification in the other case, “Salvador v. SAM’S,” has yet to be
addressed by the trial court.

The company reported no development in the case at its June 1, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2007

The case is "Daniel Sepulveda, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:04-cv-01003-DSF-E," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert J. Drexler, Jr, of Quisenberry Law Firm, 2049
         Century Park East, Suite 2200, Los Angeles, CA 90067-
         2909, Phone: 310-785-7966, E-mail:
         rdrexler@quislaw.com; and

     (2) Steven G. Pearl, Pearl Law Offices, 16133 Ventura
         Boulevard, Suite 625, Encino, CA 91436-2412, Phone:
         818-995-8300, E-mail: sgpearl@sgpearl.com.

Representing the defendants is Lawrence C. DiNardo of Jones Day,
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 35, Chicago, IL 60601-1692, Phone:
312-782-3939.


WAL-MART STORES: Still Faces Sexual Discrimination Suit in Ky.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. remains a defendant in the purported class
action, “EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,” which was filed on Aug. 24, 2001 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

The action was brought by the EEOC on behalf of Janice Smith and all other
females who made application or transfer requests at the London, Kentucky
distribution center from 1995 to the present, and who were not hired or
transferred into the warehouse positions for which they applied.

The class seeks back pay for those females not selected for hire or transfer
during the relevant time period.  The class also seeks injunctive and
prospective affirmative relief.

The complaint alleges that the Company based hiring decisions on gender in
violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended.  The EEOC can
maintain this action as a class without certification.

The company reported no development in the case at its June 1, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2007

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://www.walmart.com/-- incorporated in October  
1969, operates retail stores in various formats around the world.  The
Company operates through three segments: Wal-Mart Stores segment, which
includes Supercenters, Discount Stores and Neighborhood Markets, Sam’s Club
segment and International segment.  The Wal-Mart Stores segment segment
consists of three different traditional retail formats, all of which operate
in the United States, and Wal-Mart’s online retail format, walmart.com.  The
Sam’s Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs, which operate in
the United States, and the segment’s online retail format, samsclub.com.  Its
International segment consisted of retail operations in 12 countries and
Puerto Rico.  

                         
                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

July 11-13, 2007
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

July 13, 2007
MEALEY'S AVANDIA® LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

July 19-20, 2007
REPRESENTING ESTATE AND TRUST BENEFICIARIES AND FIDUCIARIES
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 24-25, 2007
MEALEY'S BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
COMPLETE ANATOMY OF A BAD FAITH CASE: SHARPEN YOUR TRIAL SKILLS, CITE-WORTHY
CASE ANALYSIS, WINNING STRATEGIES
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 25, 2007
LEXISNEXIS® WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING, NEGOTIATING AND
COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 26-27, 2007
Positioning The Class Action Defense For Early Success
American Conference Institute
Phoenix
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

September 26-28, 2007
MEALEY'S NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION SUPERCONFERENCE: EMERGING ISSUES, TRIAL
SKILLS, INSURANCE, MEDICINE, BANKRUPTCY AND

FINANCIAL & RISK MANAGEMENT
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 1-2, 2007
MEALEY'S SUBPRIME MORTGAGE INSURANCE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The InterContinental Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

October 17-18, 2007
MEALEY'S INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
London, UK
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 18-20, 2007
2ND ANNUAL LEXISNEXIS CIC CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Sheraton Atlanta Hotel, Downtown
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 7-9, 2007
MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION DEFECT SUPERCONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Casuarina Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

November 14-15, 2007
MEALEY'S GLOBAL REINSURANCE FORUM
Mealeys Seminars
Elbow Beach, Bermuda
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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


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

July 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND TORT CASES IN
TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

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

July 24, 2007
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LAW TELECONFERENCE SERIES: RETENTION, WORK-LIFE
BALANCE & DIVERSITY ISSUES FOR WOMEN IN THE LEGAL

PROFESSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 24, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: ORTHO EVRA® LITIGATION UPDATE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 25, 2007
LEXISNEXIS® ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CONTINGENCY FEE RELATIONSHIPS IN
LIGHT OF THE SANTA CLARA V. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD

COMPANY CASE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 26, 2007
LEXISNEXIS MED SCHOOL FOR LAWYERS: TOXICOLOGY & EXPOSURE DETERMINATION FOR
CAUSAL ASSESSMENT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 31, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CONTACT LENS SOLUTION LITIGATION UPDATE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 31, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: ADVANCED REINSURANCE ARBITRATION: UK AND US
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 2, 2007
MEALEY'S TOXIC TORT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 2, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: PROCEDURAL ISSUES IN REINSURANCE DISPUTES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 7, 2007
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE: WHERE WE STAND IN LIGHT OF
KEASBEY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 8, 2007
MEALEY'S WRAP INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TOXIC TORT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: VAPOR INTRUSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: MANAGING INSURANCE LITIGATION COSTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

August 14, 2007
INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE SERIES: PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 15, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: D&O
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

  
                    New Securities Fraud Cases


XINHUA FINANCE: Murray, Frank Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Foley Square Division, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depository
Shares of Xinhua Finance Media Ltd. pursuant or traceable to the Company's
March 8, 2007 Initial Public Offering through May 21, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges Xinhua and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, March 8, 2007 through May
21, 2007, inclusive, defendants failed to disclose or indicate at the time of
the Company's IPO that:

     (1) the Company's Chief Financial Officer, who owned
         Bedrock Securities, a NASD licensed broker dealer, was
         accused by the NASD of violating U.S. securities
         regulation;

     (2) the Company's CFO had received a cease-and-desist order
         from the NASD;

     (3) the Company had failed to adequately conduct a due
         diligence investigation prior to its IPO;

     (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements were materially false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

On March 8, 2007, Xinhua conducted its IPO. In connection with the IPO, the
Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus with the SEC, offering
over 23 million ADS to the public. The IPO raised over $225 million in gross
proceeds. In addition, selling shareholders raised almost $75 million in
gross proceeds by selling more than 5.7 million ADS to the public at $13.00
per share.

Subsequently, on May 19, 2007, an article published in Barrons revealed that
the Company had failed to disclose that its CFO had received a cease-and-
desist letter from the NASD, and was accused of other improper behavior
relating to securities violations. Moreover, it was revealed that a broker-
dealer firm owned by the Company's CFO had been accused by the NASD of
violating securities regulations. As a result of this news, the Company's
shares fell 11.8 percent, or $1.18 per share, to close on May 21, 2007 at
$8.76 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 23, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

Xinhua is a diversified media company in the Peoples Republic of China.

For more information, contact:

          Bridget V. Hamill
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818
          Fax: (212) 682-1892
          Website: http://www.murrayfrank.com


                            *********


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  * * *