CAR_Public/070705.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, July 5, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 132

                            Headlines


ALGOMA NET: Recalls Hammock Stands with Defective Foot Brackets
AVVO.COM: Seeks Dismissal of Wash. Suit Over Net Rating Service
BRISTOL-MYERS: Settles Air Emissions Civil Litigation in P.R.
CANADA: Brainwashing Survivor Agrees to End Suit Against Govt.
CITIZENS INC: Tex. Supreme Court Decertifies Policyholders Suit

COCA-COLA: Faces Employee Discrimination Suit in Georgia
COST PLUS: Calif. Judge Refuses to Certify FACTA Violations Suit
DMD PHARMACY: Faces Fla. Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
DUKE ENERGY: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in S.C.
EQ RESOURCE: Lawyer Urges Residents to Join in $3.75M Settlement

FORD MOTOR: To Appeal Certification of Canadian Antitrust Case
FORTUNE BRANDS: Dismissed Underage Drinking Suits on Appeal
HEALTH NET: Seeks Dismissal of “Scharfman” ERISA Suit in N.J.
ILLINOIS: Jockeys Sue Horsemen's Assoc. to Get Riding Fee Hike
METLIFE LIFE: Parties Work to Settle "Macomber" Litigation

MIGNANO LAWN: Faces Fla. Suit Over Denied Overtime Compensation
OIL COMPANIES: S-Mart Sues OPEC Members Over Price Fixing
PARTNER COMMS: Faces $358M Suit in Tel Aviv Over Minutes Bank
PARTSBASE INC: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denial of Overtime Wages
PATTERSON COS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Minn. Litigation

PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
PRICELINE.COM INC: Faces Litigation in Ark. Over Hotel Taxes
QUALITY EQUIPMENT: Fla. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Wages
QUANTUM CORP: ADIC Purchase Suit Fairness Hearing Expected July
QUICKEN LOANS: Homebuyers Sue Over Alleged RESPA Violations

ROSS STORES: Settles Store Managers' Suit, Still Faces Others
SECURITY PLAN: Master Complaint Over Katrina Claims Still Stayed
SERVICEMASTER CO: Faces Tenn., Ill., Del. Suits Over CD&R Deal
SONY CORP: Faces SRAM Antitrust Suits in Canada, United States
SOUTHERN SHUTTLE: Sued in Fla. Over Denied Overtime Compensation

SOUTHERN STAR: Kans. Court Mulls Intervention Motion in Price I
SOUTHERN STAR: Kans. Court Mulls Intervention Motion in Price II
TAMPA SERVICE: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Alleged FLSA Violations
TICOR TITLE: Md. Customers Complain of Premium Overcharges
TOPPS CO: Delaware Court Blocks Tornante-MDP Merger Vote

TOYOTA MOTORS: Seeks to Settle Antitrust Act Violations Suit
UNITED STATES: Bills Seek to Allow Black Farmers to File Claims
VAN DER MOOLEN: No Class Certified in NYSE Specialist Litigation
WELLMAN INC: Seeks to Settle Suits Over Polyester Staple Fibers


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


TELIK INC: Finkelstein Thompson Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ALGOMA NET: Recalls Hammock Stands with Defective Foot Brackets
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Algoma Net Co., of Algoma, Wis., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling nearly 3,000 Hammock
Stands.

The company said the foot brackets on the hammock frame can crack or tear,
causing a consumer to fall to the ground.

Algoma has received 28 reports of foot brackets cracking or tearing,
including eight reports of users falling to the ground.  One consumer
reported lower back pain and nerve damage, and one consumer reported cutting
her lip.

The recall includes Algoma hammock stands model numbers 6250, 6250BH, and
6290W88B.  They were sold with a cotton rope hammock with wood spreader bars
and attached chains.  The frame is made of steel and has five separate
tubular pieces, including two foot brackets.  The model number is located at
the top of the instruction sheet that was provided with the hammock stand.

Danlong Industries Ltd., of China manufactured these hammock stands that were
sold through Kohl’s, D.S.I./Supervalu, Fingerhut, Mills Fleet Farm, Shopko
Stores, Inc. and Target.com from December 2006 through May 2007 for between
$100 and $150.

Click on the link to view photo of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07229.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the hammock stands and contact Algoma
for instructions on returning the foot brackets for a free replacement.  The
recalled units should not be returned to the retailer.

For additional information, contact Algoma at (800) 800-7083 between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at
http://www.algomanet.com


AVVO.COM: Seeks Dismissal of Wash. Suit Over Net Rating Service
---------------------------------------------------------------
Online lawyer rating service Avvo asked a federal judge to dismiss a class
action filed against it by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLC, Seattlepi.com
reports.

In June, Hagens Berman filed a proposed nationwide class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, on behalf of other
attorneys claiming that Avvo.com is unfair and highly deceptive (Class Action
Reporter, June 18, 2007).

The suit alleges that the site launched by the creator of the successful
travel Web site Expedia violates unfair methods of competition and deceptive
acts in the conduct of commerce as stated in the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.

Avvo, which was launched on June 5, 2007, touts itself as a resource for
consumers looking to hire an attorney by grading attorneys from one to 10
using a mathematical model based on multiple -- but undisclosed -- sources of
information. A low score indicates that an attorney should be approached
with "extreme caution" while higher ratings denote "good" to "superb"
performance.

Avvo argues that its free attorney rating system is protected by the First
Amendment.  Its motion states that other disgruntled lawyers have filed
similar lawsuits in the past and that it emerged from these that the
Constitution does not exempt lawyers from opinions and evaluations.  It also
states that Avvo is an opinion that is protected by the First Amendment and
cannot be subjected to claims under the (Consumer Protection Act).

Plaintiffs in the case are John Henry Browne and Alan Wenokour.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          Mark Firmani, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLC
          Phone: (206) 623-7292 or (206) 443-9357
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com or Mark@firmani.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: Settles Air Emissions Civil Litigation in P.R.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. settled a purported class action filed in Superior
Court in Puerto Rico in February 2000 in relation to air emissions from a
government owned and operated wastewater treatment facility.

In April 2006, the Company executed an individual settlement with the
plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $0.5 million, subject to certain
conditions, including that the Court would decide to certify the case as a
class action.

The Court deferred decision on class certification pending its review of
expert reports on the facility’s operations, and ongoing efforts to reach a
global settlement.

In March 2007 with the Court’s assistance, the parties reached a tentative
global settlement, which would resolve all claims in the litigation.

The terms of the proposed settlement were discussed with the Court at a
status conference held on May 2, 2007.  The Court instructed the parties to
submit a draft settlement agreement to the Court by June 1, 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.


CANADA: Brainwashing Survivor Agrees to End Suit Against Govt.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Montreal woman who filed a purported class action against the Canadian
government over Cold War-era brainwashing experiments accepted a compensation
from the federal government on Tuesday, the Canadian Press reports.  The
terms of settlement are confidential.  

Seventy nine-year old Janine Huard originally sought the Federal Court’s
approval for a class action on behalf of those potentially hundreds of other
patients earlier this year, which the court did approve.

Ms. Huard claimed she was used as a "guinea pig" at McGill University's Allan
Memorial Institute, receiving for a period of more than a decade a series of
massive electroshocks and fed a large amount of experimental pills.

She said she was drugged and subjected to so-called "depatterning," a
technique in which repetitive recordings were played in her ear for weeks on
end, one of them telling her she was of no use to her family.  Mrs. Huard
said the ordeal left her very sick.

Dr. Ewen Cameron, a doctor who pioneered "psychic driving," a technique, by
which he believed he could erase the memories of patients and rebuild their
psyches without psychiatric defect, allegedly carried out the experiments.

Dr. Cameron was recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency to experiment
with mind control techniques beginning in 1950.  Both the CIA and the
Canadian government jointly funded the McGill experiments.  He was director
of the institute until 1964.  Dr.
Cameron was accused of conducting a range of experiments, often without the
knowledge or permission of patients (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 09, 2007).

She told Canadian Press in an interview "I don't think it's enough after
having been hurt so much, and my kids and family. . . but at least justice
has been done a little bit.''

Ms. Huard was among the nine Canadians who were compensated for about
US$67,000 each from the CIA in 1988.

Her lawyer, Alan Stein, said that the settlement may have ended her class
action but another class action will be filed in future under a different
patient’s name.


CITIZENS INC: Tex. Supreme Court Decertifies Policyholders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Supreme Court decertified the class in the case filed by Fernando
Hakim Daccach against Citizens Insurance Co. of America, Citizens, Inc.,
Harold E. Riley and Mark A. Oliver, according to the company's May 10, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The lawsuit was originally filed on August 6, 1999 in the Texas District
Court, Austin, Texas.  A class was originally certified by the trial court,
and affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas.

The suit alleges that certain life insurance policies that the company made
available by its primary life insurance subsidiary to non-U.S. residents,
when combined with a policy feature that allows policy dividends to be
assigned to two non-U.S. trusts for the purpose of accumulating ownership of
our Class A common stock, along with allowing the policyholders to make
additional contributions to the trusts, were actually offers and sales of
securities that occurred in Texas by unregistered dealers in violation of the
registration provisions of the Texas securities laws.  The remedy sought was
rescission and return of the insurance premium payments.

The company appealed the grant of class status to the Texas Supreme Court,
and oral arguments occurred on Oct. 21, 2004.

On March 2, 2007, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals
affirmation of the trial courts class certification order, decertified the
class and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with the Texas Supreme Courts opinion.

Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com-- is an insurance holding  
company serving the life insurance needs of individuals the United States and
around the world.  The Company's core operations include the issuance of
ordinary life insurance in U.S. dollar denominated amounts to foreign
nationals through outside marketing consultants, principally in Latin America
and the Pacific Rim, and offering final expense ordinary life insurance
through its home service distribution channel.

Citizens markets its products through its network of marketing consultants,
independent agents and employee agents.  The Company organizes and manages
its life insurance business through two primary business segments: Life
Insurance and Home Service Insurance.


COCA-COLA: Faces Employee Discrimination Suit in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
A judge has allowed a group of eight former and current black employees suing
Coca-Cola Co. for discrimination to consider amending its year-old case to
become a class action, according to Hersch Doby of Black Enterprises.

If the group does, nearly 2,000 other potential plaintiffs will be added to
the case, according to the report.

Representing the plaintiffs is the law firm of:

          Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street NW Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 881-4100
          Fax: (404) 881-4111
          Website: http://www.bmelaw.com


COST PLUS: Calif. Judge Refuses to Certify FACTA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John F. Walter issued an order denying a motion for class certification
in the suit, “Katherine E. Spikings v. Cost Plus Inc., Case No. CV 06-8125-
JFW (ADWx).”

The suit alleges that Cost Plus violated the Fair and Accurate Transactions
Act by printing the last four digits of the plaintiff’s credit card number
and the credit card expiration date on her receipt for her purchase at one of
Cost Plus' stores in Los Angeles on Dec. 19, 2006.

Within four business hours, the plaintiff filed her putative class action
complaint.  Plaintiff served the complaint on Dec. 26, 2006, and defendant
deleted the expiration date from credit card receipts in all but three of its
stores by Jan. 11, 2007, and completed the process of deleting the expiration
date from all customer credit card receipts by Jan. 29, 2007.

On April 3, 2007, plaintiff Katherine E. Spikings filed a motion for class
certification of a class of:

all persons in the U.S. to whom, on or after Dec. 4, 2006, Cost Plus provided
an electronically printed receipt at the point of a sale or transaction on
which it printed more than the last five digits of the person's credit card
or debit card number and/or printed the expiration date of the person's
credit or debit card.

She sought statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000
as well as punitive damages and attorney's fees.

On April 30, 2007, defendant Cost Plus, Inc. filed its Opposition.  On May 7,
2007, plaintiff filed a reply.

On May 29, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to satisfy FRCP Rule 23
(b)3, and accordingly, denied the motion for class certification.  Rule 23(b)
3 allows a class to be certified if a court finds both that common questions
of law or fact "predominate" over individual question and that "a class is
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication
of the controversy."

The court said if a class is certified and plaintiff prevails, even the
minimum statutory damages would be ruinous to defendant.  The class as
defined by plaintiff in this case would include approximately 3.4 million
people nationwide, making a possible damage to amount to $340 million to $3.4
billion, which is beyond the defendant's entire net worth of approximately
$316 million.

The court also ruled that there is no evidence that any customer was damaged
by the alleged wrongdoing.

The suit is “Katherine E. Spikings v. Cost Plus Inc., Case No. CV 06-8125-JFW
(ADWx)” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California

Cost Plus operates about 300 casual home furnishing stores in 34 states.


DMD PHARMACY: Faces Fla. Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
DMD Pharmacy Services, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed June 29
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Kenneth Cohen alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Cohen v. DMD Pharmacy Services, LLC et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-
60921-CMA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

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


DUKE ENERGY: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corp. remains a defendant in a lawsuit alleging discrimination
and violation of pension laws in the U.S. District Court for the District
Court in South Carolina, according to the company's May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

Allegations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Age Discrimination
in Employment Act violations against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy
Retirement Cash Balance Plan arose out of the conversion of the Duke Energy
Co. Employees' Retirement Plan into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance
Plan.   

The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging errors in the
application of Plan provisions (e.g., the calculation of interest rate
credits in 1997 and 1998 and the calculation of lump-sum distributions).  

Plaintiffs seek to represent present and former participants in the Duke
Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.  This group is estimated to include
approximately 36,000 persons.  They also seek to divide the putative class
into sub-classes based on age.  

Six causes of action are alleged, ranging from age discrimination, to various
alleged ERISA violations, to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.   

Plaintiffs seek a broad array of remedies, including a retroactive
reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and a
recalculation of participants'/beneficiaries' benefits under the revised and
reformed plan.  Duke Energy filed its answer in March 2006.

A second class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South Carolina,
alleging similar claims and seeking to represent the same class of defendants.

The second case has been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice,
effectively consolidating it with the first case.  

The suit is "George et al. v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash  
Balance Plan et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00373-HFF," filed in the U.S. District
Court of South Carolina under Judge Henry F.  
Floyd.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         James Robinson Gilreath, Esq.
         Gilreath Law Firm
         P.O. Box 2147
         Greenville, SC 29602
         Phone: 864-242-4727
         Fax: 864-232-4395
         E-mail: jim@gilreathlaw.com

         Cheryl F. Perkins, Esq.
         Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young, LLC
         P.O. Box 8086
         Columbia, SC 29202
         Phone: 803-799-9400
         Fax: 803-799-2017
         E-mail: cperkins@attorneyssc.com

              - and -

         Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
         Wallace and Graham
         525 North Main Street
         Salisbury, NC 28144
         Phone: 704-633-5244
         Fax: 704-633-9434
         E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com


EQ RESOURCE: Lawyer Urges Residents to Join in $3.75M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Michigan lawyer who brought a class action on behalf of a group of
residents against EQ Resource Recovery tells residents the deadline to join
in the $3.75 million settlement of the suit is Oct. 1, Molly Tippen of The
Journal Newspapers reports.

Attorney Steven Liddle filed the suit in Wayne County Circuit Court under
Judge John Murphy in 2005.

EQ’s Van Born Road facility went on fire two years ago and burned for nearly
three days.  It had to be put down with the help of several firefighters
across the state.

Although there were no reports of workers or residents being hurt, the
incident left ash on several homes in the nearby areas, especially in the
Wayne County and Romulus City resulting to the evacuation of nearly 1,000
families.

Residents who have filed for conjunctive relief under the terms of the $3.75
million settlement will receive unspecified amount of damages.  

The amount needs to be determined by different factors, which include the
proximity of the home to the facility and how much damage to personal
property was incurred.

Mr. Liddle said “If people don’t file, they may be precluded from collecting
damages.  We sent out about 6,800 notices and published notices in two
newspapers.  We had only four objections to those terms.”

He added that the residents have suffered more than the inconvenience of
cleaning up their homes after the fire.

For more information, contact the plaintiffs’ lawyer:

          Steven Liddle, Esq.
          Macuga and Liddle, P.C.
          975 East Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, Michigan 48207-3101
          Phone: 313.392.0015
          Fax: 313.392.0025
          Email: info@mlclassaction.com


FORD MOTOR: To Appeal Certification of Canadian Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. plans to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit for
leave to appeal the certification of a nationwide class of buyers and lessees
in the purported class action, "In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export
Antitrust Litigation Cases."

Initially, eighty-three purported class actions on behalf of all purchasers
of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001 have been filed in
various state and federal courts against numerous defendants, including Ford,
General Motors Corp., DaimlerChrysler Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor
Co., Nissan Motor Co., BMW Group, the National Automobile Dealers
Association, and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.

On March 21, 2007, the U.S. District Court ruled that it will certify classes
of all purchasers of new vehicles in 20 states between January 1, 2001 and
April 30, 2003 for damages under various state law theories.  The company
intends to appeal.

The federal and state complaints allege, among other things, that the
manufacturers, aided by the dealer associations, conspired to prevent the
sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and sold
by dealers in Canada at lower prices than vehicles sold in the United States.

The complaints seek injunctive relief under federal antitrust law and treble
damages under federal and state antitrust laws, according to the company's
May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Ford Motor Co. -- http://www.ford.com-- is a producer of cars and trucks.  
The Company and its subsidiaries also engage in other businesses, including
financing vehicles.  Ford operates in two sectors: Automotive and Financial
Services.  The Automotive sector includes the operations of Ford North
America, Ford South America, Ford Europe, Premier Automotive Group, and Ford
Asia Pacific and Africa/Mazda segments.  The Financial Services sector
includes the operations of Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford Credit), which is
engaged in vehicle-related financing, leasing, and insurance.


FORTUNE BRANDS: Dismissed Underage Drinking Suits on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of several class actions filed against
Fortune Brands, Inc., its Spirits and Wine business, and numerous other
manufacturers and importers of beer, spirits and wine over alleged marketing
of beverage alcohol to people under the legal purchase age for alcohol.

The purported class actions were filed in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and West
Virginia.  They are seeking damages and injunctive relief.

All of these actions were terminated at the trial court level and are
currently pending on appeal, according to the company's May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

Fortune Brands, Inc. -- http://www.fortunebrands.com-- is a holding company  
with subsidiaries engaged in the manufacture, production and sale of home and
hardware products, spirits and wine, and golf products.  The Company operates
through three segments: Home and Hardware, Spirits and Wine, and Golf.  Home
and Hardware includes kitchen and bathroom faucets and accessories; kitchen
and bath cabinetry; residential entry door and patio door systems; vinyl-
framed windows; locks, and tool storage and organization products.  Spirits
and Wine includes products made, marketed or distributed by Beam Global
Spirits & Wine, Inc. (BGSW) subsidiaries or affiliates.  Golf includes golf
balls, golf clubs, golf shoes and gloves manufactured, marketed or
distributed by Acushnet Company (Acushnet).


HEALTH NET: Seeks Dismissal of “Scharfman” ERISA Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of the purported class
action, “Scharfman et al. v. Health Net, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:05-cv-00301-
FSH-PS (McCoy/Wachtel),” which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  The suit alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

The suit was filed on Jan. 13, 2005 against Health Net, Inc., Health Net of
the Northeast, Inc., Health Net of New York, Inc., Health Net Life Insurance
Co., and Health Net of California, Inc.

The suit was filed on behalf of the same parties who would have been added
to “McCoy/Wachtel,” as additional class representatives had the District
Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint in
that action.

On March 12, 2007, plaintiffs amended the Scharfman complaint by adding the
Wachtels and Ms. McCoy as named plaintiffs, dropping Health Net of
California, Inc. as a party, and alleging both ERISA and RICO claims based on
conduct similar to that alleged in McCoy/Wachtel.  The alleged Scharfman
claims run from Sept. 1, 2004 until the present.

On April 10, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss all counts of that
complaint, which is pending, according to the company's May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is “Scharfman et al. v. Health Net, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:05-cv-
00301-FSH-PS (McCoy/Wachtel),” which was filed in the U.S.  District Court
for the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to
Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Barry M. Epstein, Esq.
          Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross P.C.
          The Legal Center, One Riverfront Plaza
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 643-5899
          Fax: (973) 643-6500
          Web site: http://www.sillscummis.com/

Representing the defendants is:

          Herve Gouraige, Esq.
          Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5003
          Phone: (973) 639-8536
          Fax: (973) 639-8932


ILLINOIS: Jockeys Sue Horsemen's Assoc. to Get Riding Fee Hike
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arlington Park jockeys filed a class action in Cook County Circuit Court in
Illinois on June 29 against Illinois Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association
president Frank Kirby and the approximately 300 owners and trainers who have
raced horses at Arlington since May 1, according to Neil Milbert of
Thoroughbred Times.com.

Hall of Fame jockey Earlie Fires filed the suit on behalf of other jockeys,
who are seeking for a second raise in 22 years.  Since 1985, they have only
been given one raise, $5 in 2000.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Kirby and his fellow owners as well as
trainers conspired to deprive jockeys “of their ability to establish their
own fees for engaging in riding."

In addition, the suit also claims that the ITHA engaged in a petitioning
campaign encouraging other trainers and owners to decline in paying the
increased sale of fees.  It further states that the association threatened to
refuse to allow its Horsemen's Bookeeper to continue to process jockey mount
fees if the new scale is accepted by any trainers or owners at Arlington
Park."

Based on the report, jockeys are poorly paid for their mounts and presently,
the scale in six purse categories ranges from a low of $45 in races with
purses from $5,000 to $9,999 to a high of $105 in races with purses of
$100,000 and up.

The group is asking the court:

     -- that the amount be doubled in each category;

     -- that the fees be paid in addition to a 10% commission
        for rides on first, second and third place finishers;

     -- that the increases be retroactive to May 1, when the
        Arlington meeting started; and

     -- an award for three times the amount of actual damages.

Plaintiff attorney Thomas Allison argues that the defendants’
actions "constitute a restraint of trade and unlawful conspiracy under
Illinois anti-trust laws."

Mr. Kirby told ThoroughbredTimes they will meet with their lawyers and hoped
for a compromise.

Plaintiffs’ counsel:

          Thomas D. Allison, Esq.
          Allison, Slutsky & Kennedy, P.C.
          230 W. Monroe St. Ste. 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606-4969
          Phone: (312) 364-9400


METLIFE LIFE: Parties Work to Settle "Macomber" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action, "Macomber, et al. v.
Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al.," which was filed in
Connecticut Superior Court on April 7, 1999, are working to settle the
matter.  

An amended putative class action complaint was filed against The
Travelers Life and Annuity Co., now known as MetLife Life and
Annuity Company of Connecticut (MLAC), Travelers Equity Sales, Inc. and
certain former affiliates.

The amended complaint alleged Travelers Property Casualty Corp., a former
MLAC affiliate, purchased structured settlement annuities from MLAC and spent
less on the purchase of those structured settlement annuities than agreed
with claimants, and that commissions paid to brokers for the structured
settlement annuities, including an affiliate of MLAC, were paid in part to
Travelers Property Casualty Corp.

On May 26, 2004, the Connecticut Superior Court certified a nationwide class
action involving the following claims against MLAC: violation of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Statute, unjust enrichment, and civil
conspiracy.

On June 15, 2004, the defendants appealed the class certification order.  

In March 2006, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court's
certification of a class.

The parties have been involved in settlement discussions, according to the
company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com-- is a provider of   insurance and  
other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions
of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and
international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other
financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance
and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other
institutions.


MIGNANO LAWN: Faces Fla. Suit Over Denied Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mignano Lawn Care & Landscaping, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed July 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Nicolas E. Joseph alleges denied overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Joseph v. Mignano Lawn Care & Landscaping, Inc. et al., Case No.
9:07-cv-80579-DMM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Andrew Ross Frisch
          Rosenthal & Levy PA
          1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 350
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-478-2500
          Fax: 561-478-3111


OIL COMPANIES: S-Mart Sues OPEC Members Over Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
S-Mart Petroleum, Inc. is the latest named plaintiff to file an antitrust
class action accusing members of The Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries of fixing prices and restraining trade.

The suit was filed June 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.  Defendants are:

     -- Petroleos de Venezuela,
     -- PDV America,
     -- Citgo Petroleum Corp.,
     -- PDV Holding, and
     -- PDV Midwest Refining

The complaint alleges that defendants and their co-conspirators, including
the members of OPEC, participated in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize the prices of Refined Petroleum Products (RPPs) sold in the United
States in violation of the antitrust laws.  The conspiracy affected billions
of dollars in interstate commerce.

Because of defendants' anticompetitive conduct, plaintiff and other class
members paid artificially inflated prices for refined petroleum products and,
as a result, have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property.

S-Mart brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased refined petroleum products for delivery in the United States
directly from any of the defendants or co-conspirators at any time during the
period from the date four years prior to the filing of this complaint (plus
any period of tolling of the limitations period) to the present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contract, conspiracy or combination to fix, raise,
         maintain and stabilize the prices of RPPs sold in the
         United States;

     (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination
         violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or
         combination alleged;

     (d) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the
         contract, conspiracy or combination alleged;

     (e) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of
         RPPs to be set at higher levels than they would have
         been absent the conspiracy;

     (f) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or
         combination upon United States interstate commerce;

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages; and

     (h) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to declaratory or injunctive relief.

Plaintiff and members of the class pray:

     -- that the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a),
        (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful conspiracy alleged be adjudged and
        decreed to be an unreasonable restraint of trade or
        commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
        15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- that plaintiff and members of the class recover treble
        damages, as provided by law, determined to have been
        sustained by each of them and that joint and several
        judgments in favor of plaintiff and members of the class
        be entered against defendants;

     -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferee, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents, and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from continuing the
        unlawful contract, combination and conspiracy alleged;

     -- that defendants be enjoined from continuing their
        unlawful activity and ordered to cease and desist from
        participating in any unlawful conduct or agreements
        which have as their purpose increasing the prices of
        RPPs;

     -- that defendants be permanently enjoined from any
        unlawful actions intended to raise the prices of RPPs
        sold in the United States upon finding that defendants
        participated in the conspiracy;

     -- that the United States subsidiaries of PdVSA, which
        engage in the petroleum industry be sold and transferred
        and divested from the ownership and control of PdVSA
        upon finding that defendants participated in the
        conspiracy and that a timetable for sale and divestiture
        of these subsidiaries be ordered by the court;

     -- that plaintiff and members of the class recover their
        costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys'
        fees, as provided by law; and

     -- that plaintiff and members of the class be granted such
        other, further and different relief as the nature of the
        case may require or as may be deemed just and proper by
        the court.

The suit is “S-Mart Petroleum Inc. v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-01179-RCL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Timothy D. Battin
          STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
          4041 University Drive
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 764-8700
          Fax: (703) 764-8704
          E-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com


PARTNER COMMS: Faces $358M Suit in Tel Aviv Over Minutes Bank
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Ltd. is facing a $ 358,628,619.94 class action in Tel
Aviv District Court for allegedly misleading consumers and overbilling one
million subscribers who participated in its Minutes Bank campaign, the Israel
Business Arena reports.

The petitioner, Shoshana Shauli, claims that Partner service representatives
admitted to misleading her and offered her financial compensation in hush
money. She accuses the company of violating confidentiality in negotiations,
bad faith in a contract and malicious and false presentation.

Ms. Shauli claims that, during 2006 and 2007, Partner subscribers fell victim
to a sophisticated marketing scam that greatly enriched the company. She
claims the company led subscribers to believe that they were receiving free
airtime, when in fact it was billing them.

Partner Communications Ltd. (Nasdaq: PTNR; TASE: PTNR; LSE:PCCD) --
http://www.orange.co.il-- is one of Israel’s four mobile phone carriers, and  
was the first with a digital GSM (global system for mobile communications)
network, which it has enhanced to newer GPRS/UMTS based technologies.
Operating under the trademarked "Orange" brand, the company serves more than
2.5 million subscribers.


PARTSBASE INC: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denial of Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Partsbase, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 2 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Domenik O. Suter alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Suter v. Partsbase, Inc., Case No. 0:07-cv-60930-ASG,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge
Alan S. Gold.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Stacey Hope Cohen
          Keith Michael Stern
          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 or kstern@shavitzlaw.com


PATTERSON COS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Minn. Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted a motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action pending against Patterson Cos., Inc.,
according to the company’s June 27, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 28, 2007.

Initially, five purported class actions were filed against the company and
certain officers and directors, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.  

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court entered an order consolidating the cases as "In
re Patterson Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation,  
File No. 05cv1757 DSD/NMJ."  

On Sept. 16, 2005, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the District of Minnesota captioned, "Vance Cadd,
Derivatively On Behalf of Patterson Companies, Inc. vs.  
James W. Wiltz, et al., docketed as 05-cv-02155 RHK/AJB."

The suit names certain officers and directors of the company as defendants.  
It alleges breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.  

On Oct. 11, 2005, a class action was filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the District of Minnesota captioned, "Tamara Dolliver, et al., v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., et al, Case No. 05-cv-
02383 JNE/SRN."

The class action was brought on behalf of the participants in the company's
Employee Stock Ownership Plan against the company and certain officers and
directors.  It alleges violations of the federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.  

The Cadd and Dolliver cases are predicated on essentially the same factual
allegations alleged in, and are related cases to, the class actions
consolidated as, "In Re Patterson Companies,  
Inc. Securities Litigation."  

In March 2006, pursuant to the Court’s order, lead plaintiffs were selected
in “In Re Patterson Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation,” and Amended
Complaints were filed in all three cases.

On May 30, 2006, the Company filed its Motion to dismiss all three cases.

On March 20, 2007, the Court granted the Company’s Motion to dismiss with
prejudice in the Securities and ERISA case, and granted the Motion to dismiss
without prejudice in the Derivative case (the Cadd case).  A notice of appeal
was timely filed only in the Cadd case.

The consolidated suit is now "In Re Patterson Companies, Inc.  
Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-
01757-DSD-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
District of Missouri under Judge David S. Doty with referral to  
Judge Jeanne J. Graham.

Representing the plaintiffs are:
  
         Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
         332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Phone: 651-287-2100
         E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

         Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-338-3801
         E-mail: andrewb@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
         Jack L. Chestnut, Esq.
         Chestnut & Cambronne, 222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700
         Mpls, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-339-7300
         Fax: 612-336-2940
         E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
                 jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com

Representing the company are:

         Jeffrey A. Abrahamson, Esq.
         Jessica R. Rosenberg, Esq.
         Frank A. Taylor, Esq.
         Margaret A. Goetze, Esq.
         Briggs & Morgan
         Phone: 651-808-6600, 651-808-6633 and (612) 977-8663
         Fax: 651-808-6450 and 612-977-8650
         E-mail: jabrahamson@briggs.com
                 ftaylor@briggs.com
                 mgoetze@briggs.com
                 jrosenberg@briggs.com


PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Inc. continues to face several purported class actions over
hotel occupancy taxes, according to the company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

A number of cities and counties have filed putative class actions on behalf
of themselves and other allegedly similarly situated cities and counties
within the same respective state against the Company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     * Lowestfare.com, Inc., and Travelweb LLC, both of which
       are subsidiaries of the Company;

     * and Hotels.com, L.P.;

     * Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     * Hotwire, Inc.;

     * Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     * Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
       Services Group, Inc.);

     * Expedia, Inc.;

     * Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     * Maupintour Holding LLC;

     * Orbitz, Inc.;

     * Orbitz, LLC;

     * Site59.com, LLC;

     * Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     * Travelocity.com LP; and

     * Travelnow.com, Inc.  

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated each
jurisdiction’s respective hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the
charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each ordinance.  

Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties
available by law, attorneys’ fees and other relief.  

Such actions include:

      -- “City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al.,”

      -- “City of Fairview Heights v. Orbitz, Inc., et al.,”

      -- “City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,”

      -- “City of Rome, Georgia, et al., v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
         al.,”

      -- “Pitt County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,”

      -- “City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
         al.,”

      -- “City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
         al.,”

      -- “Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc. and
         Marshall County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.”

      -- “City of Orange, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,”

      -- “Leon County and Doris Maloy, Leon County Tax Collector
         v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,”

      -- “City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,”

      -- “City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,”

      -- “Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v.
         Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,” and

      -- “County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al.”

The following developments regarding such legal proceedings occurred during
or after the quarter ended March 31, 2007:

(a) “City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al.”

    On Jan. 17, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss to      
    the City of Los Angeles’ second amended complaint on all
    issues other than misjoinder of defendants and claims.  

    On March 1, 2007, the court denied defendants’ previously-
    filed demurrers on grounds of improper joinder of defendants
    and claims.  

    On March 2, 2007, the City of Los Angeles filed a third
    amended complaint.  On April 11, 2007, the defendants filed
    renewed demurrers to the third amended complaint.  

    On June 11, 2007, the court is scheduled to conduct oral
    argument on defendants’ demurrers.

(b) Pitt County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.:

    On March 29, 2007, the court denied defendants’ motion to
    dismiss the complaint.  


    On April 13, 2007, the defendants moved for reconsideration
    of that decision or, in the alternative, interlocutory
    appeal.  The parties are currently conducting discovery.

(c) “City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.”

    On March 21, 2007, the court denied defendants’ motion to
    dismiss the City of San Antonio’s amended complaint.  

    The parties are currently conducting discovery and the City
    of San Antonio’s motion for class certification is pending.

(d) “City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.”

    On April 18, 2007, the City of Gallup moved to dismiss this
    action voluntarily and without prejudice.  The Court granted
    that motion and the action was dismissed the same day.

(e) “Leon County and Doris Maloy, Leon County Tax Collector v.
    Hotels.com, L.P., et al.”

    Following limited discovery on issue of jurisdiction, on
    February 21, 2007, the parties jointly stipulated to
    dismissal of the action without prejudice.

(f) “City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.”

    On April 12, 2007, the defendants withdrew their previously
    filed motion to stay the action and filed a motion to
    dismiss the City of Jacksonville’s complaint.   That motion
    is being briefed.

(g) “County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al.”

    On January 31, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the
    County of Nassau’s complaint.  That motion is being briefed.

Priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel  
company that offers its customers a range of travel services, including
airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and
destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Faces Litigation in Ark. Over Hotel Taxes
------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com, Inc. faces a purported class action in the Circuit Court of
Washington County, Arkansas over hotel taxes.

The suit is captioned, “City of Fayetteville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,”
which was filed on Feb. 28, 2007 by the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas on
behalf of itself and a putative class of Arkansas cities, counties and
townships that have enacted uniform hotel taxes on lodging.  

In addition to the claim for hotel taxes, the complaint also asserted claims
for a declaratory judgment, conversion, unjust enrichment, and a constructive
trust.  

The Company has been served with the complaint.

priceline.com, Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel  
company that offers its customers a range of travel services, including
airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and
destination services.


QUALITY EQUIPMENT: Fla. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Equipment & Tool Rental, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed July 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Wilson Gavillan alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Gavillan v. Quality Equipment & Tool Rental, Inc., Case No. 9:07-
cv-80580-DTKH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley, with referral to Judge James M.
Hopkins.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Andrew Ross Frisch
          Rosenthal & Levy PA
          1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 350
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-478-2500
          Fax: 561-478-3111


QUANTUM CORP: ADIC Purchase Suit Fairness Hearing Expected July
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final fairness hearing is expected to occur in July for the proposed
settlement of a purported class action filed against Quantum Corp. in King
County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington over its acquisition of Advanced
Digital Information Corp.

On May 18, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court, Seattle,
Washington, naming ADIC and its directors as defendants.  

The lawsuit is a purported class action filed by Richard Carrigan on behalf
of an alleged class of ADIC's shareholders. Plaintiff alleged, among other
things, that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the proposed acquisition of ADIC by Quantum that was publicly
announced on May 2, 2006.

The suit sought to enjoin the defendants from consummating the proposed
acquisition and other relief.  

On Aug. 22, 2006, the company completed its acquisition of ADIC.

Though the acquisition has since been consummated, the lawsuit remained
pending and the company has continued discussions with the plaintiff to reach
a resolution.  

In January 2007 the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle the litigation and the parties submitted a settlement agreement to the
Court for approval in May 2007, which was preliminarily approved.

A hearing for final approval is expected to occur in July 2007, according to
the company’s June 13, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007.

Quantum Corp. -- http://www.quantum.com-- offers storage, delivery of  
reliable backup, recovery and archive solutions that meet demanding
requirements for data integrity and availability.  The company offers
customers of all sizes a range of solutions, from tape drive and media
technologies, autoloaders, and libraries to disk-based backup systems.  It is
also a supplier of both tape drives and tape automation.  Quantum has two
data storage business segments: the Tape Drive business and the Storage
Systems business.  Its Tape Drive business consists of tape drive and tape
media cartridge products and service.  The Company's Storage Systems business
consists of tape automation, disk-based backup systems and service.  On Aug.
23, 2006, Quantum acquired Advanced Digital Information Corp.


QUICKEN LOANS: Homebuyers Sue Over Alleged RESPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quicken Loans, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 2 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, claiming it charges
homebuyers for nothing, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs:

     -- Keidrick C. Wooten,
     -- Mitzi D. Wooten,
     -- Billy R. Buckhaults,
     -- Cheryl A. Buckhaults

claim that Quicken charge thousands of dollars in “points” for “loan
discounts” –- reduced interest rates -- but just take the money without
giving the discount.

These claims arise from real estate loan transactions resulting in mortgages
on Plaintiffs’ principal residences located in this District. Specifically,
Plaintiffs’ claims against Quicken arise under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., in connection with the
imposition of a “Loan Discount” fee for which no interest rate discount was
given or bargained for in connection with their loans.

A Loan Discount fee often called “points” or “discount points” is a one-time
charge imposed by a lender to lower the interest rate at which the lender
would otherwise offer the loan.

The suit claims plaintiffs were charged exorbitant amounts denominated
as “loan discount” fees on their HUD-1s but did not receive a concomitant
reduction in their interest rate.

The specific claims made by Plaintiffs are:

     (a) Quicken routinely charged loan discount points and
         performed no service for the fee in violation of
         section 8 of RESPA;

     (b) A charge by a person for which no or nominal services
         are performed, for which duplicative fees are charged
         or for which an unreasonable fee is charged is an
         unearned fee and is a violation of Section 8 of RESPA.              
         24 CFR 3500.14; and

     (c) That Quicken and Plaintiffs entered into a contract and
         that Quicken’s practice of charging Plaintiffs for
         points and not actually providing a interest rate
         discount or alternatively to charge for points when no
         agreement was made for points constitutes a breach of
         contract.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant, as follows:

     -- For an Order appointing the undersigned counsel to act
        as interim Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
        to act on behalf of the putative Class before the
        determination of whether to certify the Class under Fed.
        R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) is made;

     -- For an Order certifying that this action may be
        maintained as a Plaintiff class action, as defined
        above, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b) and 23(b)(3);

     -- For an Order appointing the Plaintiffs to act as
        representatives of the Class Members and the Class;

     -- For an Order appointing the undersigned counsel as Class
        Counsel;

     -- For an Order directing that reasonable notice of this  
        Class action be given to all members of the Class at the
        appropriate time after discovery and dispositive motions
        have been resolved;

     -- For violating RESPA, an Order finding that the Defendant
        is liable as a matter of law to each member of the Class
        for actual damages;

     -- For violating RESPA, an Order awarding treble damages to
        the Class Members;

     -- For a breach of contract, a judgment awarding damages to
        the Class Members;

     -- For a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, together
        with its officers, directors, employees, agents,
        partners or representatives, successors and any and all
        persons acting in concert with them or by agreement with
        them from directly or indirectly engaging in the
        wrongful acts and practices described above, all for the
        benefit of the Class Members;

     -- For an order directing disgorgement or restitution
        against Defendant as to each Class Member and the
        imposition of an equitable constructive trust over such
        amounts for the benefit of the Class Members;

     -- A judgment of monetary damages against Defendant as to
        each Plaintiff for not only such prohibited or excess
        fees, but for all interest that has been contracted for
        or charged or paid by each of the Class Members, through
        the date of judgment or settlement and the value of such
        interest that is due and owing in the future;

     -- For a judgment of punitive damages against the Defendant
        in a sum that is fair and reasonable;

     -- For reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law and
        statute;

     -- For pre-and-post judgment interest as provided by law in
        amount according to proof at trial;

     -- For an award of costs and expenses incurred in this
        action; and

     -- For such other and further relief as the Court may deem
        necessary and proper.

The suit is “Wooten et al v. Quicken Loans, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-00478-CG-
C,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
under Judge Callie V. S. Granade, with referral to Judge William E. Cassady.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          John W. Sharbrough, III
          P. O. Box 996
          Mobile, AL 36601
          Phone: 251-432-1413
          Fax: 251-432-5297
          E-mail: john@sharbroughlawfirm.com


ROSS STORES: Settles Store Managers' Suit, Still Faces Others
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc. settled purported class actions regarding misclassification
of assistant store managers, but still continues to face others, 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.

In February 2007, the Orange County Superior Court approved a settlement of
the cases involving whether the Company's assistant store managers in
California are correctly classified as exempt under California Wage Orders.  
The approved settlement obligation was paid during the quarter ended May 5,
2007.

Other class action litigation involving allegations that hourly associates
have missed meal and/or rest break periods remains pending as of May 5,
2007.  

Ross Stores, Inc. -- http://www.rossstores.com/-- operates two chains of off-
price retail apparel and home accessories stores.


SECURITY PLAN: Master Complaint Over Katrina Claims Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Master Class Action Insurance Complaint that supersedes all previously
filed class actions over insurance claims relating to Hurricane Katrina
remains stayed, according to the company's May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007.


The complaint names Security Plan Fire Insurance Co. (SPFIC), Citizens,
Inc.'s property and casualty insurance subsidiary, as one of the defendants.  
SPFIC was initially named in one lawsuit pursuing class certification filed
in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana.  

The suit was initially filed on Aug. 28, 2006, and was styled, “Abadie, et al
v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., et al.”  That suit sought payments for
claims denied by SPFIC and other declaratory relief relating to Hurricane
Katrina.

Most property and casualty insurers in Louisiana were named in that lawsuit.  
The Abadie suit was consolidated into an action styled, “In Re: Katrina Canal
Breaches Consolidated Litigation (Katrina Consolidated Litigation).”

On Nov. 27, 2006, the trial court judge, in three of the cases which comprise
the Katrina Consolidated Litigation (not the Abadie case), concluded that the
flood exclusions contained in the policies at issue in those three cases were
ambiguous as to whether the exclusions pertained to flooding resulting from
the negligence of third parties and, therefore, that the policies in those
three cases provide coverage for all flooding resulting from the negligence
of third parties.

The trial court judge immediately certified his opinion for appeal, which was
accepted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Appeal briefs
have already been submitted by the parties in the specific cases in which the
ruling was made.

The oral argument was scheduled June 6 2007.  The insurers involved in the
appeal assert, among other things, that the flood exclusions at issue should
apply.

On March 27, 2007, the Abadie matter was administratively closed by the
court.  

Prior to that, a Master Class Action Insurance Complaint was filed in the
Katrina Consolidated Litigation in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Louisiana on March 15, 2007.

The Master Class Action Insurance Complaint supersedes all previously filed
class action complaints.  SPFIC is named as a defendant in the Master Class
Action Insurance Complaint.

The class allegations in Abadie were dismissed on April 18, 2007, as they
have been superseded by the Master Class Action Insurance Complaint.

Presently, the Master Class Action Insurance Complaint is stayed by order of
the court.  The stay will presumably remain in place until the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rules on the appeal relative to the
applicability of the flood exclusion.

Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com-- is an insurance holding  
company serving the life insurance needs of individuals the United States and
around the world.  The Company's core operations include the issuance of
ordinary life insurance in U.S. dollar denominated amounts to foreign
nationals through outside marketing consultants, principally in Latin America
and the Pacific Rim, and offering final expense ordinary life insurance
through its home service distribution channel. Citizens markets its products
through its network of marketing consultants, independent agents and employee
agents.  The Company organizes and manages its life insurance business
through two primary business segments: Life Insurance and Home Service
Insurance.


SERVICEMASTER CO: Faces Tenn., Ill., Del. Suits Over CD&R Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
ServiceMaster Co. faces three separate class actions filed in Tennessee,
Illinois, and Delaware over the acquisition of the company by New York-based
Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc. (CD&R).

According to Eric Smith of The Memphis Daily News, ServiceMaster shareholders
approved the merger agreement late last week, thus allowing the acquisition
of ServiceMaster by a corporation called ServiceMaster Global Holdings Inc.,
formerly CDRSVM Topco Inc.

About 67 percent of the outstanding shares entitled to vote at a special
meeting approved the merger, which now is subject to regulatory approval.  
The transaction is expected to close in the third quarter.

The company's May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 stated that
following the announcement of the proposed acquisition of ServiceMaster by
CD&R, five complaints were filed against ServiceMaster concerning the
proposed deal.  These are:

       -- Kaiman v. Spainhour, et al. (filed in Chancery Court
          in Memphis, Tennessee);

       -- Golombuski v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al. (filed in
          Circuit Court in Memphis, Tennessee);

       -- Sokol and Bowen v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al.
          (filed in Circuit Court in Memphis, Tennessee);

       -- Palmer v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al. (filed in
          Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois); and

       -- Smith v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al. (filed in
          Chancery Court for Newcastle County, Delaware).

All of the complaints name ServiceMaster, its chief executive and its Board
of Directors as defendants.  The Kaiman, Golombuski and Smith complaints
additionally name CD&R as a defendant and the Smith complaint also names the
investors in CDRSVM Topco, Inc., CDRSVM Topco, Inc. and CDRSVM Acquisition
Co., Inc., the acquisition vehicle, which is being merged with and into
ServiceMaster at the effective time of the merger.

All of the complaints allege breach of fiduciary duties and seek injunctive
relief.   

The Kaiman complaint also contains a specific count seeking indemnification
of costs.   

The Golombuski and Smith complaints also allege that CD&R aided and abetted
the individual defendants breach of fiduciary duties, while the Kaiman
complaint generally alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties
or aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Smith complaint also alleges that there are material omissions in the
preliminary proxy statement relating to the proposed acquisition that the
Company filed with the SEC on April 16, 2007.

ServiceMaster has been served in each of the actions.  It has secured an
extension of time to answer or otherwise plead in the Kaiman, Golombuski and
Sokol cases, and expects that these cases will be consolidated.

ServiceMaster has moved to dismiss the Palmer action on the grounds of the
three prior filed Tennessee actions.  Its response with respect to the Smith
action was due May 23, 2007; however, the plaintiff in the Smith case
scheduled a motion for expedited discovery May 14, 2007 and requested the
scheduling of a preliminary injunction hearing prior to the special meeting
of stockholders scheduled to be held June 28, 2007 for the purpose of voting
on approval of the merger agreement.

The ServiceMaster Co. -- http://www.servicemaster.com-- is a national  
company serving both residential and commercial customers.  The Company's
services include lawn care, landscape maintenance, termite and pest control,
home warranty, disaster response and reconstruction, cleaning and disaster
restoration, house cleaning, furniture repair, and home inspection.


SONY CORP: Faces SRAM Antitrust Suits in Canada, United States
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corp. faces purported antitrust class actions in both the U.S. and
Canada over static random access memory, a type of semiconductor memory,
according to the company’s June 22, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended March 31, 2007.

On Oct. 18, 2006, class actions were filed in California in which the
plaintiffs allege that Sony Corp., Sony Corp. of America, Sony Electronics
Inc., other named defendants, and other unnamed parties entered into and
carried out an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain
or stabilize the prices of, and allocate the market for and production of
SRAM.

There have been numerous similar lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions
throughout the U.S., which have been consolidated in a single federal court
for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

Also there have been similar lawsuits filed in Canada (British Columbia and
Ontario) against those Sony entities in addition to Sony of Canada Ltd. and
other major SRAM manufacturers.

Sony Corp. -- http://www.sony.net-- is the ultimate parent company of the  
Sony Group.  The company operates through five segments: Electronics, Games,
Pictures, Financial Services and All Other. Sony’s principal manufacturing
facilities are located in Japan, Malaysia, China, the United States,
Singapore, Spain and Mexico, and its products are marketed by sales
subsidiaries and unaffiliated local distributors and sold through direct
sales via the Internet throughout the world.


SOUTHERN SHUTTLE: Sued in Fla. Over Denied Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Shuttle Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July
2 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Steven Abel alleges denied overtime compensation, a violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Abel v. Southern Shuttle Services, Inc., Case No. 9:07-cv-80584-
KLR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
under Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp, with referral to Judge Ann E. Vitunac.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Charles Leroy Pickett, Jr.
          Casey Ciklin Lubitz Martens & O'Connell
          515 N Flagler Drive, Suite 1900
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4343
          Phone: 561-832-5900
          Fax: 833-4209
          E-mail: Cpickett@caseyciklin.com


SOUTHERN STAR: Kans. Court Mulls Intervention Motion in Price I
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on a Motion to
Intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to a portion of
any recovery obtained by Plaintiffs in the purported class action, “Will
Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 99 C 30, or Price
Litigation I.”

In this putative class action filed May 28, 1999, the named plaintiffs, or
Plaintiffs, have sued over 50 defendants, including Southern Star Central
Corp.

Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and
unjust enrichment, their Fourth Amended Class Action Petition alleges that
the defendants have undermeasured the volume of, and therefore have underpaid
for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured for Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead for punitive damages.

On Aug. 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Central.  
Despite a denial by the court on April 10, 2003 of their original motion for
class certification, the Plaintiffs continue to seek the certification of a
class.

The Plaintiffs motion seeking class certification for a second time was fully
briefed and the court heard oral argument on this motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed
by a third party who is claiming entitlement to a portion of any recovery
obtained by Plaintiffs.  

It is unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions, according to
the company's May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/operates as a holding company for its  
regulated pipeline operations and development opportunities.  Southern Star
Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its only operating subsidiary.  Southern Star
also owns the development rights for Western Frontier, which could be
developed in the future.  The company owns and operate an approximately 6,000
mile interstate natural gas pipeline and associated storage facilities in the
Midwest, serving customers in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of
Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Texas.


SOUTHERN STAR: Kans. Court Mulls Intervention Motion in Price II
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on a Motion to
Intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to a portion of
any recovery obtained by Plaintiffs in the purported class action, “Will
Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 03 C 23, or Price
Litigation II.”

In this putative class action filed May 12, 2003, the named Plaintiffs from
Price Litigation I have sued the same defendants, including Central.

Asserting substantially identical legal and/or equitable theories, as in
Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that the defendants have
undermeasured the British thermal units, or Btu, content of, and therefore
have underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured for
Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead for punitive damages. On
November 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Central.

The Plaintiffs motion seeking class certification, along with Plaintiffs
second class certification motion in Price Litigation I, was fully briefed
and the court heard oral argument on this motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed
by a third party who is claiming entitlement to a portion of any recovery
obtained by Plaintiffs.  

It is unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions, according to
the company's May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/operates as a holding company for its  
regulated pipeline operations and development opportunities.  Southern Star
Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its only operating subsidiary.  Southern Star
also owns the development rights for Western Frontier, which could be
developed in the future.  The company owns and operate an approximately 6,000
mile interstate natural gas pipeline and associated storage facilities in the
Midwest, serving customers in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of
Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Texas.


TAMPA SERVICE: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Alleged FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Service Co., Inc. and Plan-Art Associates, Inc. are facing a class-
action complaint filed July 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Thomas McCoy Braswell alleges denied overtime compensation, a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Braswell v. Tampa Service Cmpany, Inc. et al., Case No. 9:07-cv-
80581-DTKH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley, with referral to Judge James M.
Hopkins.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Andrew Ross Frisch
          Rosenthal & Levy PA
          1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 350
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-478-2500
          Fax: 561-478-3111


TICOR TITLE: Md. Customers Complain of Premium Overcharges
----------------------------------------------------------
Ticor Title Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 2 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, accusing it of
overcharging thousands of customers for premiums.

Named plaintiffs Thomas A. Arthur and Jennifer Whitehead bring this action on
behalf of Maryland homeowners seeking relief from the predatory practices of
a title insurer, Ticor Title that violated both its statutory and common law
obligations.

Plaintiffs allege defendant participated in a scheme to systematically cheat
Maryland consumers who refinance their mortgages, by charging them premiums
for title insurance that are far in excess of the rates permitted under
Maryland law.

Under the common law of Maryland, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act (RESPA), this action seeks to recover the excess and unearned premiums
paid to Ticor Title.  Throughout the applicable statute of limitations, Ticor
alledgedly systematically collected funds from class members it was not
entitled to collect.

In particular, the suit states, instead of charging and collecting a
discounted premium filed with and approved by the Maryland Insurance
Administration (MIA) as the "reissue rate" for Maryland purchasers of title
insurance who were insured under an owner's policy issued by any company,
Ticor Title, through its agents and/or employees, instead collected much
higher premiums from such class members, including the "original issue rate"
as well as a rate that is 120% of the standard, original issue rate that is
charged in connection with the issuance of Ticor Title's Extended Coverage
Policy that no owner or lender ever requested or required.

Further, according to the complaint, rather than provide the best rates filed
with the MIA, as required under Maryland law, the defendant charged class
members an amount of money it was neither entitled to have nor receive.  The
excess premiums charged to and collected from plaintiffs were then split with
the local title company that procured the title policy on behalf of Ticor
Title, as an additional referral fee or kickback, in violation of both
Maryland and Federal laws.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule:

     (a) whether the defendant and its agents systematically
         collected premiums from class members in amounts not
         permitted under the Maryland Insurance Code;

     (b) whether the defendant and its agents intentionally
         and/or negligently failed to disclose material facts to
         the named plaintiffs and the class that they need only
         pay the discounted premiums for the reissuance of title
         insurance on the refinancing of their mortgages or fee
         interests;

     (c) whether the defendant and its agents intentionally
         and/or negligently failed to disclose material facts to
         the named plaintiffs and the class that need not pay
         for Extended Policy Coverage;

     (d) whether any lenders' in their standard Closing     
         Instructions ever required the purchase of Extended
         Policy Coverage;

     (e) whether the defendant and its agents should be enjoined
         from further engaging in such improper conduct;

     (f) whether the defendant and its agents should be enjoined
         from further engaging in such improper conduct;

     (g) whether the defendant and its agents were part of a
         conspiracy that harmed the class;

     (h) whether the defendant and its agents split fees in
         connection with the provision of settlement services on
         federally related mortgage loans in violation of RESPA;

     (i) whether named plaintiffs and members of the class have
         sustained damages and the proper measure of such
         damages; and

     (j) whether the defendant and its agents paid and/or
         received illegal referral and unearned fees of the
         title insurance issued to the class.

Plaintiffs and classes pray that:

     -- the court determine, as provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
        that this action proceed as a class action;

     -- plaintiffs and other members of the classes recover
        damages determined to have been sustained by each of
        them and that judgment be entered against the defendant
        for the amount determined, including pre-judgment
        interest;

     -- plaintiffs and members of the classes recover the costs
        and expenses of this suit, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees;

     -- the court grant such other and further relief as the
        case may require, including equitable and/or injunctive
        relief.

The suit is “Arthur et al. v. Ticor Title Insurance Co. of Florida, Case No.
1:07-cv-01737-AMD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Andre M Davis.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Philip Scott Friedman
          Friedman Law Offices PLLC
          2401 Pennsylvania Ave NW Ste 410
          Washington, DC 20037
          Phone: 12022934175
          Fax: 12023180395
          E-mail: psf@consumerlawhelp.com

          Richard S. Gordon
          Cory L Zajdel
          Quinn Gordon and Wolf Chtd
          102 W Pennsylvania Ave Ste 402
          Towson, MD 21204
          Phone: 14108252300
          Fax: 14108250066
          E-mail: rgordon@quinnlaw.com or czajdel@quinnlaw.com


TOPPS CO: Delaware Court Blocks Tornante-MDP Merger Vote
--------------------------------------------------------
Delaware Court of Chancery rendered a decision which enjoined The Topps Co.,
Inc. from proceeding with the stockholder vote on a proposed Merger Agreement
with Tornante-MDP until Topps makes additional disclosures in its proxy
materials related to the transaction.

On March 5, 2007, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
with Tornante-MDP Joe Holding LLC (Parent) and Tornante-MDP Joe Acquisition
Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub), under which Merger
Sub would merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing after
the merger as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent.

According to the company's June 1, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 3, 2007,
subsequent to the March 6, 2007 announcement of the Transaction purported
class actions were filed -- four in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York and five in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware -- naming as
defendants the Company and the following directors of the Company:

     -- Arthur T. Shorin,
     -- Allan A. Feder,
     -- Stephen D. Greenberg,
     -- Ann Kirschner,
     -- David M. Mauer,
     -- Jack H. Nusbaum, and
     -- Richard Tarlow

In seven of the actions The Tornante Company LLC was also named as a
defendant; in seven actions Madison Dearborn Partners LLC was also named as a
defendant; in three actions Parent Holding LLC was also named as a defendant;
in three actions Merger Sub was also named as a defendant; in one action
Madison Dearborn Capital Partners V-A L.P. was also named as a defendant; in
one action Madison Dearborn Capital Partners V-C L.P. was also named as a
defendant; and in one action Madison Dearborn Capital Partners V Executive-A,
L.P. was also named as a defendant.

The actions, purportedly on behalf of all public stockholders of the Company
other than the defendants, in substance allege that the terms of the
Transaction are unfair to the Company's public stockholders because the value
of Company's publicly held common stock is greater than the $9.75 per share
price being offered to the Company's public stockholders in the Transaction.

All of the complaints assert purported claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Director Defendants, and eight of the complaints allege abetting
the breaches of fiduciary duty against the Company and the Buyers.

All of the complaints, in their prayers for relief, seek, inter alia, to
enjoin the Transaction.   

Discovery requests have been served in the Delaware and the New York actions,
and discovery is currently proceeding in both Delaware and New York.

The four New York actions are captioned as follows:

     -- William Lipscomb v. The Topps Company, Inc., No.
        600715/07 (Sup. Ct. March 7, 2007);

     -- New Jersey Carpenters Pension Fund v. Topps Co.,
        Inc., No. 600768/07 (Sup. Ct. March 9, 2007);

     -- New Jersey Building Laborers Statewide Benefit Funds
        and New Jersey Carpenters Pension Fund v. Topps
        Company, Inc., No. 600822/07 (Sup. Ct. March 14,
        2007); and

     -- Fishbury Ltd. v. Topps Company, Inc., No. 600837/07
        (Sup. Ct. March 15, 2007).

On April 20, 2007, the Supreme Court of the State of New York signed an order
consolidating the four New York actions under the caption, In re Topps Co.,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 600715/07 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County).

The five Delaware actions are captioned as follows:

     -- Phyllis Freiman v. The Topps Company, Inc., C.A. No.
        2777-N (Del. Ch. March 8, 2007);

     -- Gerald Tannenbaum v. Arthur T. Shorin, C.A. No. 2788-N
        (Del. Ch. March 9, 2007);

     -- Plymouth Country Retirement Systems v. The Topps
        Company, Inc., C.A. No. 2786-N (Del. Ch. March 9,
        2007);

     -- Barry Lustig v. The Topps Company, Inc., C.A. No.
        2790-N (Del. Ch. March 12, 2007); and

     -- City of Worcester Retirement System v. Arthur T.
        Shorin, C.A. No. 2802- VCS (Del. Ch. March 16, 2007).

On March 26, 2007, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating the five Delaware actions under the caption, “In re Topps
Company Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2777 (VCS).”  A
Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in Delaware on April 30, 2007.   

On April 27, 2007, the Company and the Director Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the consolidated action pending in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  That motion was denied on May 9, 2007.

On May 10, 2007, Tornante and Madison Dearborn filed a motion to dismiss the
action for failure to state a claim against them.   

The Delaware Court of Chancery scheduled a hearing on a motion for a
preliminary injunction for June 11, 2007.

On May 7, 2007, the Company and the Director Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the consolidated action pending in New
York.

The New York court heard oral argument on the motion on May 30, 2007, and
took the motion under advisement.  The New York court has scheduled a hearing
on a motion for a preliminary injunction for June 18, 2007.

On June 14, 2007, the Delaware Court of Chancery rendered a decision which
enjoined Topps from proceeding with the stockholder vote on the proposed
transaction until Topps makes additional disclosures in its proxy materials
related to the pending merger agreement.

The Topps Co., Inc. -- http://www.topps.com/-- operates in two business  
segments: Confectionery and Entertainment.  In the Confectionery segment, the
Company markets confectionery brands, including lollipops, such as Push Pop,
Baby Bottle Pop and Juicy Drop Pop, Bazooka brand bubble gum and certain
licensed candy items.  The Company also manufactures and markets Ring Pop
lollipops.  In the Entertainment segment, Topps markets branded products,
including trading cards and sticker album collections featuring professional
athletes and television, movie and other licensed characters.  The Company
also markets branded collectible strategy games.


TOYOTA MOTORS: Seeks to Settle Antitrust Act Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corp. is working to settle several antitrust class actions that
generally allege that the defendants violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by
conspiring among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to
U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market.

In February 2003, Toyota, General Motors Corp., Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Honda,
Nissan and BMW and their U.S. and Canadian sales and marketing subsidiaries,
the National Automobile Dealers Association and the Canadian Automobile
Dealers Association were named as defendants in purported nationwide class
actions on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since
January 1, 2001.

Twenty-six similar actions were filed in federal district courts in
California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania.

Additionally, 56 parallel class actions were filed in state courts in
California, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Arizona,
Florida, Iowa, New Jersey and Nebraska on behalf of the same purchasers in
these states.

As of April 1, 2005, actions filed in federal district courts were
consolidated in Maine and actions filed in the state courts of California and
New Jersey were also consolidated, respectively.

The nearly identical complaints allege that the defendants violated the
Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring among themselves and with their dealers
to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian
market.

The complaints allege that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower
than those in the U.S. and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to U.S.
citizens resulted in U.S. consumers paying excessive prices for the same type
of vehicles.

The complaints seek permanent injunctions against the alleged antitrust
violations and treble damages in an unspecified amount.

In March 2004, the federal district court of Maine dismissed claims against
certain Canadian sales and marketing subsidiaries, including Toyota Canada,
Inc., for lack of personal jurisdiction but denied or deferred to dismiss
claims against certain other Canadian companies, and dismissed the claim for
damages based on the Sherman Antitrust Act but did not bar the plaintiffs
from seeking injunctive relief against the alleged antitrust violations.

The plaintiffs have submitted an amended compliant adding a claim for damages
based on state antitrust laws and Toyota has responded to the plaintiff’s
discovery requests.

In the interest of quickly resolving these legal actions, however, Toyota
entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs at the end of
February 2006.

The settlement agreement is pending the approval of the federal district
court, and immediately upon approval the plaintiffs will, in accordance with
the terms of the settlement agreement, withdraw all pending actions against
Toyota in the federal district court as well as all state courts and all
related actions will be closed.

Toyota Motor Corp. -- http://toyota.jp/-- primarily conducts business in the  
automotive industry.  Toyota also conducts business in the finance and other
industries.  Its business segments are automotive operations, financial
services operations and all other operations.  Its automotive operations
include the design, manufacture, assembly and sale of passenger cars,
minivans and trucks and related parts and accessories. Toyota's financial
services business consists primarily of providing financing to dealers and
their customers for the purchase or lease of Toyota vehicles.  Its financial
services also provide retail leasing through the purchase of lease contracts
originated by Toyota dealers.  Related to Toyota's automotive operations is
its development of intelligent transport systems.  Toyota sells its vehicles
in more than 170 countries and regions.  Toyota’s primary markets for its
automobiles are Japan, North America, Europe and Asia.


UNITED STATES: Bills Seek to Allow Black Farmers to File Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers are considering two proposals aimed at eventually compensating
numerous farmers who failed to meet the deadline in filing for compensation
in the settlement of a suit accusing the government of discriminating against
black farmers, Ben Evans of Associated Press reports.

Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala. is sponsoring a bill that would allow farmers who
didn’t receive notice to refile claims.  Another bill sponsored by Rep. Bobby
Scott, D-Va. could allow the denied farmers to have their claims heard.

The suit was filed against the Agriculture Dept., which is accused of denying
black farmers loans because of their race.  The case was settled in 1999, but
a large part of the settlement remained unclaimed because many farmers missed
the claims filing deadline.  

The department agreed to pay at least $50,000 to farmers who quality as class
member.  About two-thirds of the 22,442 farmers who filed have won claims,
and the government has paid almost $950 million in compensation, according to
a court-appointed monitor.  However, more than 63,000 claims have not been
heard because farmers missed the filing deadline years ago.


VAN DER MOOLEN: No Class Certified in NYSE Specialist Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified in the purported class action, “In re New
York Stock Exchange Specialists Securities Litigation, Case No.03-8264,”
which names Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC (VDM Specialists) as a
defendant.

In the fourth quarter of 2003, four putative class actions were filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against VDM
Specialists and other New York Stock Exchange specialist firms.

On March 11, 2004, a similar suit, which was brought by an individual
plaintiff who was not purporting to represent a class, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

One of the class actions and the individual suit also name the New York Stock
Exchange and Van der Moolen Holding N.V. as defendants.

Each of these five actions was filed on behalf of plaintiffs who allege that
the defendants violated U.S. federal securities law by conducting improper
trading activity to the detriment of pending customer orders.

The actions were filed on the grounds of the alleged trading violations that
were the subject of the New York Stock Exchange and SEC investigation
mentioned above.

The actions seek unspecified restitution and damages.  On May 27, 2004, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order
consolidating the four class actions and the individual action, appointing
lead plaintiffs, and directing that a consolidated amended complaint be filed
within 45 days, absent an agreement by the parties concerning the preliminary
schedule.

The co-lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on Sept. 16,
2004 (In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, No.03-8264 (S.D.N.Y.)).

On Nov. 16, 2004, Van der Moolen Holding NV, VDM Specialists and the other
New York Stock Exchange specialist firms moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.

On Dec. 15, 2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss, thereby allowing plaintiffs’ claims to go forward against Van der
Moolen Holding NV, VDM Specialists and the other specialist firms.

Plaintiffs served request for the production of documents on defendants on or
about Feb. 16, 2006, and the parties have begun to produce discovery.  

Van der Moolen Holding NV and VDM Specialists answered the complaint on Feb.
23, 2006.

No class has yet been certified, according to the company’s June 22, 2007
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Van Der Moolen Holding N.V. -- http://www.vandermoolen.com/-- is a  
securities trading firm, principally engaging in trading equities,
derivatives, equity index options, futures, exchange traded funds (ETF) and
bonds on many of the securities exchanges in the U.S. and Europe.  The
Company operates in three business segments: US Trading, European Trading and
Holding and unallocated, which consists of four principal subsidiaries.


WELLMAN INC: Seeks to Settle Suits Over Polyester Staple Fibers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wellman, Inc. is working to settle all pending litigation against it in
relation to polyester staple fiber, according to the company’s May 10, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Initially, the company was named in 24 federal actions brought by direct
purchasers of polyester staple fiber asserting claims of violations of U.S.
antitrust laws due to alleged price fixing and market allocation in the
polyester staple fiber industry. Ten of these cases were brought as class
actions.  

Direct and indirect purchasers also brought a class action against Wellman
and certain other companies in Canada under Canadian law.  All of these cases
have been settled.

In addition to the cases discussed above, indirect purchasers of polyester
staple fiber products filed 41 purported class actions alleging violations of
federal antitrust laws, state antirust or unfair competition laws and certain
state consumer protection acts in one federal court and various state courts.

Each lawsuit alleged a conspiracy to fix prices of polyester staple fiber
products.  In addition, certain of the actions claim restitution, injunction
against alleged illegal conduct and other equitable relief.

These cases were filed in Arizona, California, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina South
Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin and sought damages of
unspecified amounts, attorneys’ fees and costs and other, unspecified relief.

All of these cases except the one pending in California have been settled,
and the court has approved the settlements; these settlements are now final
and the Company is seeking dismissals of all of the settled cases.

In California, the parties have entered into a settlement agreement, but it
remains subject to final court approval.

Wellman, Inc. -- http://www.wellmaninc.com/-- operates through two segments,  
a chemical-based segment and a recycled-based segment. The Company’s chemical-
based segment is principally engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of
PermaClear polyethylene terephthalate (PET) packaging resin and Fortrel
polyester staple fiber.  Wellman manufactures these products at two major
production facilities in the U.S.  Its recycled-based segment is principally
engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of recycled-based polyester staple
fiber in Europe and Wellamid, and Wellamid Ecolon recycled-based nylon
engineering resin in the U.S. for use in the injection molding industry.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


TELIK INC: Finkelstein Thompson Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Telik, Inc. between March 27, 2003 and June 4, 2007, inclusive, including
purchasers in the Company's November 5, 2003 and January 28, 2005 stock
offerings.

The Complaint charges Telik and certain of the Company's executive officers
with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' material omissions and dissemination
of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
business and prospects caused Telik's stock price to become artificially
inflated, causing damage to investors.

Specifically the Complaint alleges that when the Company issued preliminary
results from its Phase III clinical trials of TELCYTA, defendants materially
misled the investing public by concealing that patients in those trials were
dying much sooner than patients receiving the standard chemotherapy treatment.

On June 3, 2007 the Company announced additional details concerning the
negative results of the Phase III clinical trials of TELCYTA. This news
caused the Company's stock to open on Monday, June 4, 2007 more than 15%
lower than the previous trading day's closing price. By the end of trading
that day, the stock had dropped even further.

The Company further announced on June 4 that the FDA had initiated a clinical
hold on the New Drug Application for TELCYTA, causing Telik stock to fall
more than 25% on June 5, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 6, 2007, for lead
plaintiff appointment.

Telik is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the discovery and
development of small molecule therapeutics for the treatment of cancer and
inflammatory diseases. The Company's lead product candidate is TELCYTA, a
small molecule cancer drug product candidate designed to be activated in
cancer cells. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
misled investors about the effectiveness and safety of TELCYTA and the
conduct of certain clinical trials for TELCYTA.

For more information, contact:

          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          Phone: +1-877-337-1050
          E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com
          Website: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *