CAR_Public/070710.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 10, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 135

                            Headlines

ADECCO USA: Three Firms Face Mass. Labor Code Violations Suit
AGRIPROCESSORS INC: Recalls Meat Due to Undeclared Allergen
AMAZONIA CELULAR: Faces Lawsuit in Brazil Over Cellular Blocks
APOLLO GROUP: No Lead Plaintiff Yet in Ariz. Securities Suit
AUTOMOTIVE DIRECTIONS: “Fresco” Deal Fairness Hearing Set Oct.

CALIFORNIA: Appeals Ruling in Indigents’ Medical Bills Lawsuit
CMS ENERGY: Sept. 6 Hearing Set for $200M Securities Settlement
COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES: Residents File Suit Over Kansas Oil Spill
CYBERONICS INC: Tex. Court Grants Parties’ Motions in Lawsuit
DAIRY FARMERS: Tenn. Suit Claims Price Fixing of Grade A Milk

DIRECTV INC: Sued in Ill. Court Over Credit Card Info Disclosure
E. I. DU PONT: Ill. Court Certifies Class in Sulfuric Acid Case
ELBIT MEDICAL: Continues to Face Investors’ Suit in Haifa Court
ELBIT MEDICAL: Faces Shareholders’ Litigation in Haifa Court
FOURTH FLEET: Faces Mo. Suit Over Credit Reporting Violation

ILLINOIS: County to Settle Suit over Jail’s Unhygienic STD Tests
KOHLBERG KRAVIS: Suit Over Going-Private Transactions Dismissed
MAID BRIGADE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
MANAGED CARE LITIGATION: 11th Circuit Upholds Claims Dismissal
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.

MEDQUIST INC: Aug. 15 Hearing Set for $7.8M Securities Suit Deal
MERCY HEALTH: Mo. Suit Says Copayment Obligations Violate ERISA
MICHAELS STORES: Still Faces Overtime Wage Litigation in Calif.
QUICLICK LOANS: Mo. Lawsuit Alleges Credit Reporting Violation
R.E. MOORE: Ga. Lawsuit Alleges Violation of Employment Code

RYDBOM EXPRESS: Faces Penn. Suit Alleging Denial of Overtime Pay
SA AIRWAYS: Stranded Passenger Mulls Suit Despite Compensation
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissed Pa. Stock Suit
SOUTH DAKOTA: Rochester Sued over “Unnecessary” Strip Searches
SPELTER SMELTER: Class Period in Medical Monitoring Suit Changed

TENNESSEE: Wrongly Arrested Man in Whitleyville Files Lawsuit
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Circuit Court Upholds Nixing of “Sanchez”
UPS STORES: Franchise Owners Sue Over Losses from Business Model
UTILITY COS: Reach $306T Settlement in N.J. Dam Failures Suit
VERMONT: Brandon Female Police Files Discrimination Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Faces “Dead Peasant” Suit in Fla. Federal Court


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BRISTOL-MYERS: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
MIDWAY GAMES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in Ill.
TELIK INC: Finkelstein Thompson Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ADECCO USA: Three Firms Face Mass. Labor Code Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adecco USA, Inc., Kelly Services, Inc. and Fedex Ground Package System. Inc.
are defendants in a class-action complaint filed June 29 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Kristi Gruhn and Richard Tidd allege denial of overtime
compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Tidd et al. v. Adecco USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-11214-
GAO,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
under Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Shannon E. Liss-Riordan
          Pyle, Rome Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
          18 Tremont Street, Suite 500
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-367-7200
          Fax: 617-367-4820
          E-mail: sliss@prle.com


AGRIPROCESSORS INC: Recalls Meat Due to Undeclared Allergen
-----------------------------------------------------------
Agriprocessors, Inc., a Postville, Iowa, establishment is recalling
approximately 35,860 pounds of frozen beef and chicken products because they
may contain egg albumen, a known allergen, which is not declared on the label.

These products are subject to recall:

     -- 20-pound bulk boxes of "AARON'S BEST NUGGET SHAPED
        CHICKEN BREAST PATTIES, GLATT KOSHER, FULLY COOKED."    
        Each box contains the code "8692-1" and establishment
        number "P 4653A" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

     -- 20-pound bulk boxes of "AARON'S BEST MEATBALLS, MADE
        WITH BEEF, GLATT KOSHER, FULLY COOKED."  Each box
        contains the code "8698-1" and the establishment number
        "EST. 4653A" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

     -- 12-pound boxes of "RUBASHKIN'S, AARON'S BEST, GLATT
        KOSHER Kishka, Fully Cooked."  Each box contains the
        code "3852-1" and the establishment number "EST. 4653A"
        inside the USDA mark of inspection.

     -- 1-pound packages of "RUBASHKIN'S, AARON'S BEST, GLATT
        KOSHER Kishka, Fully Cooked."  Each package contains the
        establishment number "EST. 4653A" inside the USDA mark
        of inspection and a date code of "014-07," "015-07,"
        "040-07" or "042-07."

To view labels, click on the link:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_032_2007_Release/index.asp#label
s

The frozen chicken and beef products were produced on various dates between
Jan. 14 and July 3 and were distributed to food service establishments and
institutions nationwide.  In addition, the one-pound packages of Kishka were
also distributed through retail stores.

The problem was discovered by U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service.  There
have been no reports of illness to FSIS or the company due to consumption of
these products.  Anyone concerned about an allergic reaction should contact a
physician.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact company
Technical Services Director William Kiernan at (563) 864-7811, ext. 2915.

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


AMAZONIA CELULAR: Faces Lawsuit in Brazil Over Cellular Blocks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amazonia Celular, a Tele Norte Cellular Holding Co. unit, faces a civil class
action in a Brazilian court over the installation of cellular blocks in
prisons, according to the company’s July 5, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31,
2006.

In June 2006, the Federal Attorney’s Public Office initiated a civil class
action against SMP operators, including Amazonia Celular, for the
installation of cellular blocks in Brazilian prisons.

Based in Brazil Tele Norte Celular Participacoes S.A. --
http://www.telenorteholding.com.br-- provides cellular telecommunications  
services in a region covering the states of Para, Amazonas, Maranhao, Amapa
and Roraima in the north and northeast of Brazil.  The Company’s digital
service is based upon time division multiple access technology.


APOLLO GROUP: No Lead Plaintiff Yet in Ariz. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona has yet to rule on a
motion seeking for the appointment of lead plaintiffs in the purported
shareholder class action, “Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v.
Apollo Group, Inc et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02674-RCB.”

On Nov. 2, 2006, a plaintiff filed a class action complaint purporting to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased the Company’s stock between
Nov. 28, 2001 and Oct. 28, 2006.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
purportedly failing to disclose alleged deficiencies in the Company’s stock
option granting policies and practices.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
and other relief.  

On Jan. 3, 2007, other shareholders, through their separate attorneys, filed
motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their
designated counsel as lead counsel to pursue this action.  

Those motions are pending before the court, according to the company’s June
28, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2007.

The suit is “Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02674-RCB,” which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Robert C. Broomfield.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

              - and –

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq,
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         1 N La Salle St., Ste. 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-377-1181
         Fax: 312-377-1184
         E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Farrell, Esq.
         Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC
         Collier Ctr., 201 E. Washington, Ste. 1100
         Phoenix, AZ 85004-2385
         Phone: 602-262-5900
         Fax: 602-495-2618
         E-mail: mfarrell@jsslaw.com

              - and -

         Joseph E. Floren, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
         101 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10178-0060
         Phone: (212) 309-6000


AUTOMOTIVE DIRECTIONS: “Fresco” Deal Fairness Hearing Set Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida will hold a
fairness hearing on Oct. 24, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement
in the matter, “Richard Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions, Inc., et
al., Case No. CIV-03-61063-Martinez/Klein.”

The final approval hearing will be held before Judge Jose E. Martinez in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 301 North Miami
Avenue, Miami, Florida.

Any objections to and from the settlement must be made on or before Sept. 25,
2007.

                        Case Background

The suit generally alleges violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
and names as defendants the following:

      -- Automotive Directions, Inc.,
      -- ChoicePoint Inc.,
      -- ChoicePoint Precision Marketing Inc.,
      -- ChoicePoint Public Records Inc.,
      -- ChoicePoint Services Inc.,
      -- eFunds Corp.,
      -- Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
      -- KnowX LLC, Reed Elsevier Inc.,
      -- Seisint, Inc.,
      -- Acxiom Corp., and
      -- R.L. Polk & Co.

Of those defendants only Acxiom Corp., and R.L. Polk & Co. have not agreed to
the settlement.  Thus the case will continue against them.

Originally, the class action was filed on Aug. 11, 2003 in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the defendants
obtained, disclosed and used information obtained from the Florida Department
of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) in violation of DPPA.

The plaintiffs seek to represent classes of individuals whose personal
information from Florida DHSMV records has been obtained, disclosed and used
for marketing purposes or other allegedly impermissible uses by the company
without the express written consent of the individual.

                       Settlement Benefits

The Proposed Settlement benefits for Class Members fall under the category
of "injunctive relief."  An injunction is when a court orders a person to do
or not do something.

If finally approved, the Settlement provides that the Court will enter a
Final Judgment requiring the Settling Defendants at their expense to design,
implement, and maintain specific nationwide procedures which will enhance
privacy protections and compliance with the DPPA when they obtain, use, and
disclose personal information from motor vehicle records.

An independent third party will review each of the Settling Defendant's
compliance procedures and make periodic reports to the Court.  All Class
Members will receive the benefit of these valuable injunctive measures.

Specifically, the Settling Defendants have agreed to a Final Judgment
requiring substantive procedures including:

      -- a DPPA compliance program approved by senior
         management;

      -- heightened attention to DPPA compliance by senior
         management;

      -- a review process for DPPA compliance;

      -- enhanced training of the company's employees; and

      -- enhanced education of customers regarding DPPA
         compliance.

In addition, according to a Final Judgment to be entered by the Court, each
Settling Defendant will create and maintain a written DPPA compliance
program, approved by its senior management that will:

      -- provide for appointment of a DPPA Compliance Director
         who oversees the DPPA compliance program and reports
         directly to senior management;

      -- require DPPA training procedures for employees;
  
      -- state how the company's existing and new products will
         be reviewed for DPPA compliance;

      -- provide guidelines for customer contracts;

      -- require customer compliance with the DPPA;

      -- establish procedures for permitting access to DPPA
         products; and

      -- establish procedures to address any suspected DPPA non-
         compliance issues.

As a further benefit to Class Members, the Court’s Final Judgment will
require an independent third party to review each Settling Defendant's
compliance procedures and make periodic reports.

Because these enhancements are being done through a Court injunction, the
Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement.

The suit is "Richard Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions, Inc., et al.,
Case No. CIV-03-61063-Martinez/Klein," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida under Judge Jose E. Martinez with referral
to Judge Ted E. Bandstra.

For more details, contact:

         DPPA Settlement Administrator
         P.O. Box 296
         Minneapolis, MN 55440-0296
         Phone: 1-888-279-4224
         Web site: http://www.dppasettlement.com/

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
         Aronovitz Trial Lawyers
         150 W. Flagler Street
         Suite 2700 Museum Tower
         Miami, FL 33130
         Phone: 305-372-2772
         Fax: 375-0243
         E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com

              - and –

         Lawrence Dean Goodman. Esq.
         Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells
         777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-374-8200
         Fax: 374-8208
         E-mail: lgoodman@devinegoodman.com


CALIFORNIA: Appeals Ruling in Indigents’ Medical Bills Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego County attorneys have filed an appeal to the California Supreme
Court to overturn a May decision by the state’s 4th District Court of Appeal
that held San Diego liable for medical bills of indigent people, Union-
Tribune’s Cheryl Clark reports.

The county attorneys said in their motion that San Diego should not be forced
to pay for the medical expenses of several thousands of low-income adults
because the expense could be “a crippling burden.”

The state’s Court of Appeals had unanimously ruled in favor of the 20
plaintiffs, who brought the class action against County Medical Services, or
CMS, the agency paying for care of the indigent in critical conditions.

The three-judge panel said the CMS must include destitute adults whose
incomes exceed the program’s financial limits.  The judges added that state
law requires counties to cover emergency and necessary medical expenses not
only for adults with no ability to pay, but also for those with a limited
ability to pay.

The state Supreme Court, which is known to have accepted only 5 percent of
similar motions, has 60 days to decide whether it’s going to review the case.

If the high court favors the plaintiffs, the county officials will have to
revise the CMS policy, making it friendlier to low-income adults and
hospitals as well.

Richard Rothschild of Western Center on Law and Poverty in Santa Monica,
attorney for the plaintiffs, filed the suit on behalf of Renee Alford and
those who are similarly situated such as indigent adults suffering from
hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, and lung infections among others.

Ms. Alford is suffering from a curable cancer at the time when she was denied
CMS coverage.  Her cancer is no longer treatable now.

County health experts have been complaining about the dismal situation at the
hospitals for several years.  According to them, too many people don’t have
medical care and that the CMS budget is not enough to help all those who need
attention for life-threatening illnesses.

Plaintiffs’ counsel:

          Richard Rothschild, Esq.
          Public Counsel
          3701 Wilshire Suite 208
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2809
          Phone: (213) 385-2977
          Fax: (213) 385-9089


CMS ENERGY: Sept. 6 Hearing Set for $200M Securities Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan will hold a
fairness hearing on Sept. 6, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed $200,000,000
settlement in the matter, “In Re CMS Energy Securities Litigation, Case No.
02 CV 72004 (GCS).”

The hearing will be held in the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231
W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48226.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or
before Aug. 13, 2007.  Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on
Oct. 15, 2007.

The settlement covers all individuals or entities that purchased common stock
and/or 8.75% Adjustable Convertible Trust Securities of the CMS Energy Corp.
during the period from Oct. 25, 2000 through and including March 31, 2003.

The action alleges that CMS and the Individual Defendants misled investors by
issuing a series of material misstatements, and statements which omitted to
state material facts, concerning CMS’s financial results and condition during
the Class Period.  

In particular, the complaint alleged that CMS engaged in round-trip energy
trading practices that were described in a false and misleading manner in
CMS’s financial statements and reports.  

The Complaint further claimed that plaintiffs purchased CMS common stock
during the Class Period at prices artificially inflated as a result of
Defendants’ alleged dissemination of false and misleading statements, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The settlement described provides a total of $200 million in cash for the
Settlement Class.  Lead Counsel estimate that there were approximately 137.23
million shares of CMS common stock and 6.26 million units of 8.75% Adjustable
Convertible Trust Securities (“8.75% ACTS”) traded during the Settlement
Class Period which may have been damaged.  

Lead Counsel estimates that the average recovery per damaged common share
under the Settlement is $1.36, and $2.11 per 8.75% ACTS, before deduction of
Court-awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses.  

A Settlement Class Member’s actual recovery will be a proportion of the Net
Settlement Fund determined by his, her or its Recognized Claim as compared to
the total Recognized Claims of all Settlement Class Members who submit
acceptable Proofs of Claim.

For more details, contact:

         Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
         Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
         280 Park Avenue, 26 Floor West
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 894-7200

              - and -

         Robert A. Wallner, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: (212) 594-5300


COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES: Residents File Suit Over Kansas Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, Hutton & Hutton Law Firm LLC, Neblett, Beard &
Arsenault and Becnel Law Firm LLC filed a lawsuit, seeking class-action
status, in the U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, on behalf of a man
who lost his house and business as a result of oil spilled from the
Coffeyville Resources refinery.

The suit, filed July 5, names as defendants:

     -- Coffeyville Resources, LLC;
     -- Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC;
     -- Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC;
     -- Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC;
     -- Coffeyville Resources Pipeline, LLC; and
     -- Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC.

On July 1 and July 2, 2007, more than 71,000 gallons of crude oil spilled
from the Coffeyville Resources refinery, far more than the 42,000 gallons
that was initially reported. Due to widespread flooding that was occurring at
the time of the oil spill, the crude oil reached and damaged a very large
area.

More than 2,500 residents and businesses have been displaced by the oil slick
and "toxic soup" that made its way on the Verdigris River. In excess of 200
properties have already been destroyed by these uncontrolled waterborne
poisons. Refinery officials said they are still investigating how the spill
occurred.

The economic effects of oil spills can be devastating and far-reaching. Large
companies, sole proprietors, and individuals alike stand to endure major
economic losses when oil spills occur. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,
the responsible party is liable for the costs associated with the containment
or cleanup of the spill and any damages resulting from the spill.

Oil spills cause large-scale damage, destruction and death to aquatic
environments. The type of oil determines the type of damage. Crude oil is
suffocating and has a toxic effect because it is like a heavy tar. Refined
petroleum such as gasoline is generally more toxic but evaporates quickly.
Crude oil causes much damage to birds and mammals; it sticks to their fur or
feathers, causing hypothermia by reducing insulation and making them easy
prey. It also causes loss of weight due to lack of ability to feed and also
causes damage to the digestive systems when the oil is ingested.

Refined petroleum causes damage not due to stickiness but due to toxicity.
Animals become poisoned when they ingest refined petroleum products, and the
poison travels up the food chain. Respiratory, immune and adrenal systems are
also damaged. Blood and organs are damaged. Breeding is interrupted or
halted, or offspring become poisoned and die.

The suit is “Dunham v. Coffeyville Resouces, LLC et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-
01186-JTM-DWB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
under Judge J. Thomas Marten with referral to Judge Donald W. Bostwick.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Andrew W. Hutton
          Hutton & Hutton
          8100 E. 22nd St., North-Bldg. 1200
          P. O. Box 638
          Wichita, KS 67201-638
          Phone: 316-688-1166
          Fax: 316-686-1077
          E-mail: andrew.hutton@huttonlaw.com


CYBERONICS INC: Tex. Court Grants Parties’ Motions in Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas lifted a stay in
the consolidated class action, "In re: Cyberonics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. H-0502121."

On June 17, 2005, a putative class action was filed against the company and
certain of its officers and Robert P. Cummins, then chairman and chief
executive, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The lawsuit is, "Richard Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
H:05-cv-02121."  A second lawsuit with similar allegations is "Stanley Sved
v. Cyberonics, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. H:05-cv-2414," which was filed
on July 12, 2005.

On July 28, 2005, the court consolidated the two cases under Civil Action No.
H-05-2121, captioned, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation," and
entered a scheduling order.

On Sept. 28, 2005, the court appointed EFCAT, Inc., John E. and Cecelia
Catogas, Blanca Rodriguez, and Mohamed Bakry as lead plaintiffs and also
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Nov. 30, 2005.  
The complaint generally alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by making false
and misleading statements regarding the company's VNS Therapy System device
as a therapy for treatment resistant depression.

On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to allege facts that state
any claim for securities fraud.

On July 20, 2006, the district court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, allowing the plaintiffs 30 days to file an
amended complaint.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to plead a
securities fraud claim with particularity, including failures to allege with
particularity a material misstatement or omission, to allege facts sufficient
to raise a strong inference of intent or severe recklessness, and to allege
sufficiently the causal connection between the plaintiffs' loss and the
defendants' actions.

The court noted that "the deficiencies in plaintiffs' complaint might well
extend beyond the point of cure," but nonetheless granted plaintiffs the
right to amend their complaint in light of the strong presumption of law
favoring a right to amend.

On Aug. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint for
violation of the securities laws.  The complaint generally alleges, among
other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements regarding the VNS
Device as a therapy for treatment resistant depression.

Lead plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to disclose:

     -- that certain individuals associated with the U.S. Food
        and Drug Administration had safety and efficacy concerns
        about the use of the VNS Device for the treatment of
        depression and questioned the adequacy of evidence of
        safety and effectiveness the company presented to the
        FDA;

     -- that the defendants misrepresented the prospect for
        payer reimbursement for the VNS Device;

     -- that the defendants concealed executive compensation and
        governance issues and that the defendants falsely stated
        that an analyst's statements about options granted in
        June 2004 were inaccurate and without merit.

Lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons and entities, except
those named as defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities during the period Feb. 5, 2004 through Aug. 1, 2006.  

The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and equitable or
injunctive relief, if available.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to allege facts that state
any claim for securities fraud.

The lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on Oct. 23,
2006, and the defendants filed a reply to the opposition on Nov. 6, 2006.

On Oct. 31, 2006, a week before the defendants filed their reply in
connection with the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the Los Angeles
County Employees Retirement Association filed a motion seeking to intervene
and asking the court to require the lead plaintiffs to republish notice of
the amended class action claims.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the court issued an order compelling republication of
notice and staying the proceeding pending determination of the lead plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On Dec. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs published notice of the filing of the
first amended complaint, stating that investors who purchased our securities
during the expanded class period (Feb. 5, 2004 through Aug. 1, 2006,
inclusive) may move the court for consideration to be appointed as lead
plaintiff within 60 days.

In Feb. 2007, the court lifted the stay, and in March 2007, the lead
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend without
prejudice and stayed the litigation in light of issues raised in a case that
is currently submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In June 2007, the court lifted the stay and granted plaintiffs leave
to “supplement —- not amend” their first amended complaint and granted the
company leave to “supplement —- not amend” its motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint.

The suit, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. H-05-2121,"
is originally "Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc. et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-02121,"
and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
under Judge Sim Lake.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Elizabeth A. Abbott, Esq.
         John G. Emerson Esq.
         Scott E. Poynter, Eq.
         Emerson Poynter LLP
         2228 Cottondale Lane, Suite 100
         Little Rock, AR 72202-2037
         E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com
   
         Mark A. Golovach, Esq.
         Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
         Jeffrey R. Krinsk Esq.
         Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
         501 West Broadway, Ste 1250
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-238-1333
         Fax: 619-238-5425
         E-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com
                 fk@classactionlaw.com

              - and -

         Neil Rothstein, Esq.
         David R. Scott, Esq.
         Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
         Scott & Scott LLC
         600 B Street, Ste. 1500
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-233-4565

Representing the defendants is:

         N. Scott Fletche, Esq.
         Vinson & Elkins LLP
         1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300
         Houston, TX 77002-6760
         Phone: 713-758-3234
         Fax: 713-615-5168
         E-mail: sfletcher@velaw.com


DAIRY FARMERS: Tenn. Suit Claims Price Fixing of Grade A Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern dairy farmers have filed an antitrust class action claiming
there was a conspiracy to fix Grade A milk prices, strangle competition and
restrict independent dairy farmers’ and independent coops’ access to milk
bottling plants, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint, filed July 5, names the following defendants:

     -- Dean Foods Co.;  
     -- National Dairy Holdings, L.P., which runs nine bottling
        plants and is the region’s second largest milk bottler;  
     -- Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., which controls 90% of
        the Southeast Grade A milk market;
     -- Dairy Marketing Services, LLC;  
     -- Southern Marketing Agency, Inc.;  
     -- James Baird;  
     -- Gary Hanman; and  
     -- Gerald Bos  

Named plaintiffs:

     -- Sweetwater Valley Farm, Inc.,
     -- Harrison Dairy, Inc.;
     -- D.L. Robey Farms;
     -- Barbara Arwood;
     -- Victor Arwood;
     -- John M. Moore;
     -- Jeffrey P. Bender;
     -- Randel E. Davis;
     -- Mountain View Farms of Virginia, LC,
     -- Sam Smith; and
     -- Thomas R. Watson

claim the defendants conspire with others, including the Kroger Co. to:

     -- control access to bottling plants through long-term
        full-supply agreements;
     -- force independent producers to sell to DFA-controlled
        marketing entities, boycott milk producers who resist;
     -- flood the Southeast with milk to depress prices;
     -- punish independent producers by driving them out of
        business; and
     -- reap unjust profits from their illegal cartel.

They file this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of:

     -- all dairy farmers either directly or through Dairy
        Marketing Services, LLC, sold Grade A milk to defendants
        during any time from Jan. 1, 2001 to the present; and

     -- all dairy farmer members of Maryland & Virginia
        Producers Cooperative Association, Inc. whether
        individuals or entities, who produced Grade A milk  
        through Southern Marketing Agent, Inc. sold Grade A milk
        to defendants during at ny time from Jan. 1, 2001 to the
        present.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
         stabilize, maintain, and/or artificially lower the
         price paid to Southeast dairy farmers for Grade A milk;

     (b) whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy to foreclose
         independent dairy farmers from access to fluid Grade A
         milk bottling plants in the Southeast;

     (c) whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy to foreclose
         dairy farmer members of independent cooperatives from
         access to fluid Grade A milk bottling plants in the
         Southeast;

     (d) whether, in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendants
         entered into full-supply agreements to foreclose such
         independent access;

     (e) whether, in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendants
         engaged in group boycott of independent dairy farmers
         and independent cooperatives;

     (f) whether DFA, and DFA, DMS and SMA collectively,
         exercise monopoly power in the production and marketing
         of Grade A milk in the Southeast United States;

     (g) whether DFA, and or DFA, DMS, and SMA collectively,
         have abused their monopoly power;

     (h) whether Dean, and/or Dean, DFA, and NDH collectively,
         have a monopsony in the purchase of Grade A milk in the
         Southeast United States;

     (i) whether Dean, and/or Dean, DFA, and NDH collectively,
         have abused and/or misused their monopsony;

     (j) whether defendants conspired to monopolize and/or
         monopsonize and/or restrain interstate trade of Grade A
         milk produced and marketed in the Southeast;

     (k) whether defendants' conduct has violated the Sherman
         Act;

     (l) whether Baird, Bos and Hanman participated in,
         authorized, directed and/or knowingly approved or
         ratified defendants' violation of the Sherman Act;

     (m) whether defendants caused injury to plaintiffs and
         proposed class members under the Sherman Act; and

     (n) whether plaintiffs and proposed class members are
         entitled to:

              (i) an injunction prohibiting the continuation of
                  defendants' violations, and ordering such
                  other and further injunctive relief as is
                  necessary to restore competition;

             (ii) a declaration of their eligibility to an award
                  of damages and other monetary relief,
                  including treble damages;

            (iii) interest from the date they should have
                  received all monies rightfully owed to the
                  actual date of payment as a result of this
                  lawsuit; and

             (iv) attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief
                  the court deems just and reasonable.

Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

     -- declare this action to be a proper class action
        maintainable pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure and declaring named plaintiffs to be
        class representatives;

     -- adjudge and declare that defendants have engaged in
        unlawful conduct in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the
        Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1-2;

     -- preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from
        violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Sections 1-2;

     -- declare null and void the full-supply agreements by and
        between Dean, NDH and DFA as described;

     -- preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and/or
        any entity controlled by any of them from entering into
        full-supply agreements as described;

     -- order Dean, NDH, DFA, their subsidiaries or joint
        ventures to divest fluid Grade A milk bottling plants
        necessary to restore competition in the Southeast;

     -- against all defendant, jointly and severally, award
        plaintiffs and the proposed class damages in an amount
        to be proven at tail, to be trebled with interest and
        the costs of this suit, including attorneys' fees; and

     -- award such further relief, including structural
        remedies, as the court deems just and proper.

The suit is “Sweetwater Valley Farm, Inc. et al. v. Dean Foods Co. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-00051,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee under Judge Robert Echols with referral to Judge John
S. Bryant.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Robert G. Abrams
          Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 783-0800


DIRECTV INC: Sued in Ill. Court Over Credit Card Info Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The DirecTV Group, Inc. and DirecTV, Inc. are defendants in a class-action
complaint filed June 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois accusing them of exposing customers to identity theft by printing
too much personal information on credit-card receipts.

Named plaintiff, William Harris brings this action to secure redress for the
violation of the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act (FACTA) amendment to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et. seq.

He brings this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.P.23(a) and (b)(3), on behalf
of all persons in Illinois to whom DirectTV provided an electronically
printed receipt at the point of sale or transaction, in a transaction
occurring after Dec. 4, 2006, which receipt displays either:

     (i) more than the last five digits of the person's credit
         card or debit car number; and/or

    (ii) the expiration date of the person's credit or debit
         card.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant has a practice of providing plaintiff
         and the class members with a sales or transaction  
         receipt on which defendant printed more than the last
         five digits of the credit card or debit card and/or
         expiration date of the credit or debit card;

     (b) whether defendant thereby violated FACTA; and

     (c) whether DirecTV's conduct was willful.

Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and
the class members and against defendant as follows:

     -- for statutory damages;

     -- for attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs;

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

The suit is “Harris v. The Directv Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
03650,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Amy J. St. Eve.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alexander Holmes Burke
          Keith James Keogh
          Law Offices of Keith J. Keogh, Ltd.
          227 W. Monroe St., Suite 2000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 726-1092
          Fax: (312)726-1093
          E-mail: aburke@keoghlaw.com or Keith@Keoghlaw.com


E. I. DU PONT: Ill. Court Certifies Class in Sulfuric Acid Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois certified as a
class action the matter, “In Re: Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation, MDL
Docket No. 1536, Case No. 03 C 4576.”

Named as defendants in the class action are:

      -- E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.,
      -- Norfalco LLC (formerly known as Noranda DuPont LLC),
      -- Noranda Inc.,
      -- Falconbridge Ltd.,
      -- Pressure Vessel Services, Inc.,
      -- PVS Chemicals, Inc. (Ohio),
      -- PVS Chemical Solutions, Inc.,
      -- PVS Nolwood Chemicals, Inc.,
      -- GAC Chemical Corp.,
      -- Marsulex, Inc.,
      -- ChemTrade Logistics (U.S.) Inc.,
      -- Intertrade Holdings, Inc.,
      -- Koch Sulfur Products Co., and
      -- Koch Sulfur Products Co., LLC.

Beginning in 2003, seven class actions were filed against the various
defendants by purchasers of Sulfuric Acid.  

In its Order of July 9, 2003, the Court, among other things, consolidated the
various Sulfuric Acid cases and appointed Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel:

      -- Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC;

      -- Mary Jane Edelstein Fait of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
         Freeman & Herz, LLC;

      -- Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.; and

      -- Steven O. Sidener of Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP.

Plaintiffs have filed a Third Consolidated Amendment Complaint in which they
allege that Defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by
engaging in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the price
of Sulfuric Acid in the U.S. at artificially high prices, and/or to allocate
markets and customers for the sale of Sulfuric Acid in the U.S. during the
Class Period of Jan. 1, 1988 through Jan. 16, 2003.

Plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of the conspiracy, they and other
members of the proposed Class have been injured by paying more for Sulfuric
Acid than they would have paid in the absence of the illegal conduct, and
seek recovery of treble damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an
award of attorneys' fees.

Defendants deny the allegations of the Complaint and state that they have not
engaged in price fixing or markey/customer allocation of any other violation
of the antitrust laws, and that there was no "combination, conspiracy or
agreement" to do so.

On March 21, 2007, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order certifying
the Class.  Discovery has concluded and summary judgment and other motions
are currently pending before the Court.  

The suit is “In Re: Sulfuric Acid, et al. v. EI du Pont, et al., Case No.
1:03-cv-04576,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge David H. Coar with referral to Judge Jeffrey Cole.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Mary Jane Fait, Esq.
         Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLC
         55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 984-0000
         E-mail: fait@whafh.com

         Steven A. Asher, Esq.
         Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC
         1845 Walnut Street Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: (215) 545-7200
         Fax: (215) 545-6535
         Email: info@wka-law.com

         Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
         Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.
         One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: (215) 238-1700
         Fax: (215) 238-1968

              - and -

         Steven O. Sidener, Esq.
         Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2300
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
         Phone: (415) 777-2230 or (800) 778-1822
         Fax: (415) 777-5189


ELBIT MEDICAL: Continues to Face Investors’ Suit in Haifa Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Medical Imaging, Ltd. continues to face a purported class action in
Haifa District Court, according to the company’s July 2, 2007 Form 20-F
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In November 1999, a number of institutional and other investors, holding
shares in Elscint, Ltd., a unit of Elbit, filed a lawsuit in the Haifa
District Court against the company and Elscint.

The plaintiffs also requested the certification of their claim as a class
action on behalf of all those who had held Elscint shares on Sept. 6, 1999,
and continued to do so as at the filing date of the suit (excluding the
Company and certain other shareholders).

The claim alleges discrimination against Elscint’s minority shareholders
arising from various transactions or activities carried out by its
controlling shareholders and directors, which allegedly caused them financial
loss, manifested by the 45% ($100.0 million) decline in the value of
Elscint’s shares in the period from Feb. 24, 1999 to the claim’s filing date.

The principal remedy requested in the claim is a court order instructing the
Company to carry out a tender offer of Elscint’s shares at $14.0 per share as
the former allegedly undertook, in its letter to Elscint of February 1999, or
alternatively, to purchase the shares in their possession, at a price to be
determined by the court.

As another alternative, the plaintiffs requested the court to issue an
injunction prohibiting execution of the Sept. 9, 1999 transactions
(acquisition of the hotel operations and the Arena commercial center in the
Herzliya Marina, by Elscint), and the refund of all and any amounts paid
thereunder.  Part of the remedies was requested as a derivative claim on
behalf of Elscint.

Although, the Haifa district court has rejected the class-action request, it
allowed the plaintiffs, notwithstanding so rejecting the request for class
action proceedings, to pursue their matter.

In November 2001, the plaintiffs were granted leave to appeal on such
decision to the Israeli Supreme Court.  

On Dec. 14, 2006 the high court accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal, ordering the
district court to reconsider its decision in the class-action request in
light of the provisions of the Israeli Class Action Law of 2006.

Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd. -- http://www.emitf.co.il/-- is engaged in five  
principal fields: initiation, construction, operation, management and sale of
shopping and entertainment centers in Israel and in Central and Eastern
Europe; ownership, operation, management and sale of hotels in major European
cities; long term lease of real estate property; investments in the research
and development, production and marketing of magnetic resonance imaging
guided focused ultrasound treatment equipment, through InSightec Ltd., and
other activities that consist of the distribution and marketing of women's
fashion and accessories through its Israeli subsidiary, Mango Israel Clothing
and Footwear Ltd. and venture capital investments.


ELBIT MEDICAL: Faces Shareholders’ Litigation in Haifa Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Medical Imaging, Ltd. faces a purported shareholders’ class action in
Haifa District Court.

On Sept. 6, 2006 the Company, Elscint’ Ltd., and others were served with two
lawsuits to the district court in Haifa.  These statements of claim are a
virtually identical to a previous claim and the Plaintiff requested a joinder
of the deliberation thereof and the deliberation of the said proceeding.

The Plaintiff also requested approval of his suit as a class action, although
to date, copies of the motions, if any, have not been served to the Company.

In the first claim, the Plaintiff alleges acts of deprivation vis-a-vis the
shareholders of the Company and in the second one, the Plaintiff alleges acts
of deprivation vis-a-vis the shareholders of Elscint.

The Plaintiff claims the continuing and systematical deprivation of the
minority shareholders in Elscint and in the Company, which caused him
financial damage and which, he claims, had its origins in Elscint having
executed unfair agreements for the realization of a substantial part of its
assets, continued in:

     -- the concealing of information from the stock exchange
        and from the public,

     -- the sale of control in Elscint to Motti Zisser (the
        Controlling shareholder in the Company and its Chairman
        of the Board),

     -- the breach of the purchase offer which the Company made
        to purchase the minority shares in Elscint and
        culminated in Elscint entering into an agreement with
        Mr. Zisser for the sale of businesses whose value was
        lower than the consideration amount received in respect
        thereof, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

The main relief petitioned in the claim is the relief of damages and it is
composed of punitive damages for the defendants’ acts and damages for “mental
harm” to the Plaintiff and to the group, which he seeks to have approved as
being representative.

In addition the Plaintiff claims damages for the difference between the price
at which the Elscint shares held by the Plaintiff and the members of the
representative group were in fact sold and the price of $14, plus interest
and linkage from 1999 as well as compensation for the damage to the value of
his holdings in the Company’s shares.

Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd. -- http://www.emitf.co.il/-- is engaged in five  
principal fields: initiation, construction, operation, management and sale of
shopping and entertainment centers in Israel and in Central and Eastern
Europe; ownership, operation, management and sale of hotels in major European
cities; long term lease of real estate property; investments in the research
and development, production and marketing of magnetic resonance imaging
guided focused ultrasound treatment equipment, through InSightec Ltd., and
other activities that consist of the distribution and marketing of women's
fashion and accessories through its Israeli subsidiary, Mango Israel Clothing
and Footwear Ltd. and venture capital investments.


FOURTH FLEET: Faces Mo. Suit Over Credit Reporting Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth Fleet Financial, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania accusing it of
obtaining consumers’ credit histories without offering anything in return.

Named plaintiff Marti. L. Klutho is asserting claims under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 16S1n.

The Fair Credit Reporting, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681-1681x, is a consumer
protection statute that regulates the activities of credit reporting agencies
and users of consumer reports, and provides rights to consumers affected by
the use of information that is collected about them.

Defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court under Rule 4
(k)1(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Defendant would be
subject to the jurisdiction of courts of general jurisdiction in Missouri.

Mr. Klutho brings his claim against Fourth Fleet on behalf of the class
consisting of all individuals in the U.S. whose consumer reports were
obtained by Fourth Fleet in connection with a credit transaction not
initiated by the individuals, and who received promotional letters similar to
Exhibit A or B on or after June 1, 2005.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) Whether Fourth Fleet violated the Fair Credit Reporting
         Act by failing to make firm offers of credit to
         consumers after obtaining consumer reports in
         connection with credit transactions not initiated by
         consumers; and

     (b) Whether Fourth Fleet's practice of obtaining consumer
         reports in connection with credit transactions not
         initiated by consumers and then failing to make a firm
         offer of credit to the consumer as required by the Fair
         Credit Reporting Act was "willful" within the meaning
         of the statute.

Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the class, requests that the Court
enter judgment in favor of him and the class and against Defendant:

     -- awarding all damages available under the Fair Credit
        Reporting Act, including statutory damages of $1,000 per
        violation, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees;

     -- enjoining Defendant from further violations of the Fair
        Credit Reporting Act; and

     -- such other relief to which Plaintiff or the class may be
        entitled under the evidence.

The suit is “Klutho v. Fourth Fleet Financial, Inc., Case No. 4:07-cv-01065-
CDP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
under Judge Catherine D. Perry.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          James J. Simeri
          Green and Jacobson, P.C.
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 700
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-862-6800
          Fax: 314-862-1606
          E-mail: simeri@stlouislaw.com


ILLINOIS: County to Settle Suit over Jail’s Unhygienic STD Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cook County Board will vote today to resolve a suit brought by the
inmates who claim they were forced to undergo tests for sexually transmitted
diseases.

According to Patrick Driscoll, the county attorney, about 32,000 inmates are
qualified to collect in the $3.2 million potential settlement.

Cook County Jail inmates brought a class action against the county alleging
they were coerced and threatened into taking a test for chlamydia and
gonorrhea, the Daily SouthTown’s Steve Patterson reports.

According to the plaintiffs, oftentimes, this is done without proper
sanitation like changing gloves.  The inmates claim they go through the tests
without privacy and at an excruciating pain.

Despite these claims, county officials said they followed proper procedures.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Tom Morrissey, Esq.
          Thomas G. Morrissey,Ltd.
          10249 S. Western Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60643-1917
          Phone: (773) 233-7900
          Fax: (773) 239-0387


KOHLBERG KRAVIS: Suit Over Going-Private Transactions Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder class action naming Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.,
L.P. as one of the defendants has been dismissed, according to the company’s
July 3, 2007 Form S-1 Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In early 2007, thirteen private equity firms, including the Company, were
named as defendants in a purported class action complaint by shareholders in
public companies recently acquired by private equity firms.

The complaint alleged that the defendant firms engaged in certain cooperative
behavior during the bidding process in going-private transactions in
violation of antitrust laws and that this purported behavior suppressed the
price paid by the private equity firms for the plaintiffs' shares in the
acquired companies below that which would otherwise have been paid in the
absence of such behavior.

The complaint sought treble damages of an unspecified amount.  In June 2007,
the plaintiffs without prejudice dismissed the suit.

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P. -- http://www.kkr.com-- assembles funds  
from institutional and wealthy investors and profits from management fees and
its direct interests.


MAID BRIGADE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maid Brigade, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 3 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

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

The suit is “Perez v. Maid Brigade, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-03473-BZ,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
under Judge Bernard Zimmerman.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Alan Dale Harris
          David S. Harris
          David Sohn Zelenski
          Harris & Ruble
          5455 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Phone: (323) 931-3777
          Fax: (323) 931-3366 (fax)
          E-mail: law@harrisandruble.com or
                  dsharris@morganlewis.com


MANAGED CARE LITIGATION: 11th Circuit Upholds Claims Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
unanimously a class action filed against United Healthcare and Coventry
Health Care for alleged improper payment practices, Amy Lynn Sorrel of AMNews
reports.

In 2006, a trial court ruled that there are no sufficient evidence to support
that the two health plans, along with eight others, conspired to use software
to systematically reduce or deny reimbursements to doctors in violation of
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division, Multidistrict Litigation.

The lawsuit was filed by a group of physicians as a class action against
Coventry and nine other companies in the managed care industry.  The
plaintiffs alleged violations of RICO, conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding
and abetting a scheme to violate RICO.  

In addition to these federal law claims, the complaint included state law
claims for breach of contract, violations of various state prompt payment
laws and equitable claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.  

The trial court dismissed several of the state law claims and ordered all
physicians who had an arbitration provision in their provider contracts to
submit their direct RICO claims and their remaining state law claims to
arbitration.  As a consequence of this ruling, the plaintiffs who had
arbitration provisions voluntarily dismissed their claims that were subject
to arbitration.  

In its order, the trial court also held that the plaintiffs' claims of
conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding and abetting violations of RICO were
not subject to arbitration.  The trial court then certified various
subclasses of plaintiffs with respect to these two federal law claims.

Seven defendants have entered into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs,
which have received final approval from the trial court.  

Earlier settlements with other insurers named in the case prevent doctors
from suing those health plans on the issue in state or federal court. But
that protection does not apply to United and Coventry, said Edith Kallas, the
physicians’ co-lead counsel.

The plaintiffs have asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida in Miami to hand back their cases, according to Matthew Katz,
executive director of the Connecticut State Medical Society.

The suit is "In Re: Managed Care Litigation," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, Multi-District
Litigation (MDL), No. 1334.
   

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. faces a consolidated securities fraud class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Between Oct. 5, 2006 and Nov. 13, 2006, four putative class actions were
filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.  

The complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements and omissions relating to the grants of stock options.  

The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock
during the period from Oct. 3, 2001 to Oct. 3, 2006, unspecified damages,
interest, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and
disbursements.  

Pursuant to an order of the court dated Feb. 2, 2007, these four putative
class actions were consolidated as a single action entitled, “In re Marvell
Technology Group Ltd. Securities Litigation.”

By an order of the court dated Feb. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs must file a
consolidated complaint no later than 45 days after the Company files restated
financial statements with the SEC, according to the company’s July 2, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2007.

The suit is “In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:06-cv-06286-RMW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge
Richard Seeborg.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Julie Juhyun Bai, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         425 California Street, Suite 2100
         San Francisco, CA 94104-2205
         Phone: 415-433-3200 x241
         Fax: 415-433-6382
         E-mail: jbai@bermanesq.com

              - and -

         Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
         Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610/667-7706
         E-mail: sberman@sbtklaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Boris Feldman, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100
         E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com


MEDQUIST INC: Aug. 15 Hearing Set for $7.8M Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet to grant final
approval to a proposed settlement in the putative shareholder class
action, "William Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05487-
JBS."

The original complaint filed on Nov. 8, 2004 asserted claims under Sections 10
(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

Lead Plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Pension Fund subsequently, on Nov. 15,
2005, filed the operative second amended complaint, which asserts these same
causes of action for violation of the federal securities laws, and alleges
that such violations occurred from April 23, 2002, through Nov. 2, 2004.  The
second amended complaint names MedQuist and several former officers of the
company as defendants.  

On March 23, 2007 MedQuist entered into a memorandum of understanding with
lead plaintiff in which it agreed to pay $7.75 million to settle all claims,
throughout the class period, against all defendants in the action.

On May 16, 2007, the Court issued an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement
and Providing for Notice.  The Court scheduled a final approval hearing for
Aug. 15, 2007.

The settlement is subject to final documentation by the parties and
conditioned on final approval by the Court after notice to the putative
class.

The suit is "Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05487-JBS-
JBR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under
Judge Jerome B. Simandle with referral to Judge Joel B. Rosen.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicole M. Acchione, Esq.
         Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP
         8 Kings Highway
         West Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Phone: (856) 795-9002
         E-mail: nicolem@trrlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         James S. Richter, Esq.
         Winston & Strawn, LLP
         The Legal Center, One Riverfront Plaza, 7th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Phone: (973) 621-2230
         E-mail: jrichter@winston.com


MERCY HEALTH: Mo. Suit Says Copayment Obligations Violate ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercy Health Pans, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri over alleged violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et.
seq.

Named plaintiffs Donald and Alice Starbird bring this class action on behalf
of participants in employer-sponsored medical benefit plans providing
benefits through Mercy Health a health maintenance organization within the
meaning of 354.400 R.S. Mo.

Mercy offers to employers, who wish to sponsor for their employees, health
care services benefit plans that include coverage for preventative primary,
specialty and hospital care through group enrollment agreements.

Mercy’s Agreements provide for Mercy’s payment for health care services in
return for the payment of premiums. It states, “The maximum amount of a
Copayment associated with a single Covered Service, shall not exceed fifty
percent (50%) of the cost the Plan pays to provide that single Covered
Service, nor in the aggregate more than twenty percent (20%) of the cost of
providing all Basic Plan Benefits.”

Further, Mercy’s Agreements state that it provides Benefit Claims and Appeals
Procedures which are “designed to ensure that claim determinations are made
in accordance with governing Plan documents and the Plan provisions have been
applied consistently with respect to similarly situated claimants.”

According to the complaint, Mercy imposed copayment obligations that:

     (i) exceeded fifty percent (50%) of the total cost of
         providing any single service to its enrollees, and

    (ii) in the aggregate were more than twenty percent (20%) of
         the total cost of providing all basic health services,
         in violation of both the terms of the governing Plan
         documents and Missouri Code of State Regulation, 20
         C.S.R. 400-7.100.

Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that Mercy has not programmed its
computer systems or otherwise established administrative processes and
procedures so as to ensure that it does not impose copayments against
participants and beneficiaries that exceed the limits set forth in its
Agreements and imposed by Missouri Code of State Regulation, 20 C.S.R. 400-
7.100.

As a result, Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated Plan participants and
their beneficiaries, are routinely denied benefits through the imposition of
copayments that exceed the maximum limits set forth in Mercy’s Agreements and
Missouri Code of State Regulation, 20 C.S.R. 400-7.100.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons who, in the ten years
prior to the filing of this action, have been participants (or beneficiaries)
in ERISA-governed HMOs underwritten and administered by Mercy, and against
whom Mercy imposed copayments which exceeded 50% of the total cost of
providing any single service to the participants and beneficiaries, and/or
imposed copayments that in the aggregate were more than 20% of the total cost
of providing all basic health services.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) Whether Mercy has imposed copayments against Plaintiffs
         and the Class members which exceed fifty percent (50%)
         of the total cost of providing any single service to
         them;

     (b) Whether Mercy has imposed copayments against Plaintiffs
         and the Class members which in the aggregate exceed
         20% of the total cost of providing all basic health
         services;

     (c) Whether Mercy’s copayment practices violate the terms
         of the governing Plan documents;

     (d) Whether Mercy’s copayment practices violate Missouri
         Code of State Regulation, 20 C.S.R. 400-7.100;

     (e) Whether Missouri Code of State Regulation 20 C.S.R.
         400-7.100 is saved by ERISA Section 514(b)(2)(A), 29
         U.S.C. Section 1144(b)(2)(A);

     (f) Whether Mercy owes Plaintiffs and the Class additional
         benefits;

     (g) Whether Mercy has sent out written explanations of
         benefits to participants and beneficiaries inaccurately
         showing the amounts payable by the class members as
         copayments under the terms of Mercy’s Plan documents;

     (h) Whether Mercy has sent out written explanations of
         benefits to participants and beneficiaries inaccurately
         showing the amounts payable by the class members as
         copayments in light of Missouri Code of Regulation, 20
         C.S.R. 400-7.100;

     (i) Whether as a result of Mercy’s imposing excessive
         copayment obligations on Plaintiffs and the class
         members, Plaintiffs and the class members are owed
         additional benefits from Mercy;

     (j) Whether Mercy’s actions in imposing excessive copayment
         obligations and thereby reducing the amounts paid as
         benefits to participants benefited Mercy to the
         detriment of the Plan participants and thereby violated
         the “exclusive benefit” rule that governs Defendant’s
         standard of fiduciary duty; and

     (k) Whether Plaintiffs and the Class members are entitled
         to declaratory and injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs request that this Court grant judgment in their favor and against
Mercy and enter an Order declaring that:

     -- this action is properly brought as a class action under
        Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3),
        that Plaintiffs Donald Starbird and Alice Starbird can
        adequately represent the class in pursuit of the claims
        certified for class treatment, and that Ralph Phalen and
        Dave Spencer be appointed class counsel pursuant to
        Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g);

     -- that Defendant Mercy is required to and must under the
        terms of the relevant Plan documents and Missouri Code
        of State Regulation 20 C.S.R. 400-7.100 limit the
        application of copayments “in any calendar year so as
        not to exceed 50 percent of the cost of providing a
        single Covered Service, nor in the aggregate, more than
        20% of the cost of providing all Basic Plan Benefits;”

     -- a determination that Defendant Mercy has applied and
        received the benefit of copayments which exceed 50% of
        the cost of providing a single Covered Service, and has
        applied and received the benefit of copayments which in
        the aggregate exceed 20% of the cost of providing all
        Basic Plan Benefits, with respect to Plaintiffs and the  
        Class and judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class;
        and

     -- such other and further relief as this Court may deem  
        just, equitable and proper, including but not limited to
        an award to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class of
        the expenses of this suit, including costs, reasonable
        attorneys' fees, and other disbursements.

The suit “Starbird, et al.v. Mercy Health Plans of Missouri, Inc., Case No.
4:07-cv-01050-DDN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, under Judge David D. Noce.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          David J. Spencer
          McGonagle Spencer, P.C.
          105 E. Fifth Street, Suite 302
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: 816-221-2222
          Fax: 816-221-2245
          E-mail: mcspen@yahoo.com


MICHAELS STORES: Still Faces Overtime Wage Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On Dec. 2, 2005, Sandra Olivas and Jerry Soskins, former Michaels store
managers in Los Angeles, California, commenced a proposed class action in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles against Michaels Stores,
Inc.  

Plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of themselves and current and former
salaried store employees employed in California from Dec. 1, 2001 to the
present.

The Company was served with the complaint on Jan. 31, 2006.  The Olivas suit
alleges that the Company, failed to pay overtime wages, accurately record
hours worked, and provide itemized employee wage statements.

The suit also alleges that this conduct was in breach of California's unfair
competition law.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, damages for unpaid
overtime pay, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 1, 2006, the Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The company reported no development in the case at its May 22, 2007 Form 10-K
filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 28, 2006.

The suit is "Sandra Olivas, et al. v. Michaels Stores Inc., et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-01281-RSWL-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge Ronald S.W. Lew with referral to Judge
Jeffrey W. Johnson.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Scott Ashford Brooks, Esq.
         Paul R. Fine, Esq.
         Craig S. Momita, Esq.
         Daniels Fine Israel Schonbuch and Lebovits
         1801 Century Park E, Ste. 900
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-2332,
         Phone: 310-556-7900

              - and -

         Stephen Glick, Esq.
         Stephen Glick Law Offices
         3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Phone: 213-387-8888
         Fax: 213-387-7872

              - and –

         Ian Herzog, Esq.
         Ian Herzog Law Offices
         233 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 550
         Santa Monica, CA 90401-1210
         Phone: 310-458-6660

Representing the defendants are:

         Catherine A. Conway, Esq.
         Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
         S. Adam Spiewak, Esq.
         Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
         Phone: 310-229-1000 and 310-522-6436
         Fax: 310-229-1001
         E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
                 aspiewak@akingump.com


QUICLICK LOANS: Mo. Lawsuit Alleges Credit Reporting Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
QuickClick Loans, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania accusing it of
obtaining consumers’ credit histories without offering anything in return.

Named plaintiff Thomas J. Klutho is asserting claims under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 16S1n.

The Fair Credit Reporting, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681-1681x, is a consumer
protection statute that regulates the activities of credit reporting agencies
and users of consumer reports, and provides rights to consumers affected by
the use of information that is collected about them.

Defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court under Rule 4
(k)1(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Defendant would be
subject to the jurisdiction of courts of general jurisdiction in Missouri.

Mr. Klutho brings his claim against QuickClick on behalf of the class
consisting of all individuals in the United States whose consumer reports
were obtained by QuickClick in connection with a credit transaction not
initiated by the individuals, and who received promotional letters similar to
Exhibit A or B on or after June 1, 2005.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) Whether QuickClick violated the Fair Credit Reporting
         Act by failing to make firm offers of credit to
         consumers after obtaining consumer reports in
         connection with credit transactions not initiated by
         consumers; and

     (b) Whether QuickClick's practice of obtaining consumer
         reports in connection with credit transactions not
         initiated by consumers and then failing to make a firm
         offer of credit to the consumer as required by the Fair
         Credit Reporting Act was "willful" within the meaning
         of the statute.

Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the class, requests that the Court
enter judgment in favor of him and the class and against Defendant:

     -- awarding all damages available under the Fair Credit
        Reporting Act, including statutory damages of $1,000 per
        violation, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees;

     -- enjoining Defendant from further violations of the Fair
        Credit Reporting Act; and

     -- such other relief to which Plaintiff or the class may be
        entitled under the evidence.

The suit is “Klutho v. QuickClick Loans, Inc., Case No. 4:07-cv-01064-JCH,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, under
Judge Jean C. Hamilton.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          James J. Simeri
          Green and Jacobson, P.C.
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 700
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-862-6800
          Fax: 314-862-1606
          E-mail: simeri@stlouislaw.com


R.E. MOORE: Ga. Lawsuit Alleges Violation of Employment Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
R.E. Moore Construction, Inc. is facing a class-action filed July 2 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiffs -- Adam Ledford, Brent Hoffman, Rory Ramby, Taylor Trueblood
and Tom Hoffman -- allege denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Hoffman et al. v. R.E. Moore Construction, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-01550-CC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, under Judge Clarence Cooper.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Diane Cherry
          The Cherry Law Firm
          1301 Shiloh Road, Suite 1620
          Kennesaw, GA 30144
          Phone: 770-444-3399
          Fax: 770-444-3376
          E-mail: cherrylaw@mindspring.com

          - and-

          Alan Howard Garber
          Marc N. Garber
          The Garber Law Firm, P.C., Suite 14
          4994 Lower Roswell Road, NE
          Marietta, GA 30068
          Phone: 404-523-0296 or 678-560-5066
          Fax: 404-523-1545 or 678-560-5067
          E-mail: ahgarber@garberlaw.net or
                  mngarber@garberlaw.net


RYDBOM EXPRESS: Faces Penn. Suit Alleging Denial of Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rydbom Express, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 26 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Kyle Mayan alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Mayan v. Rybdom Express, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02658-
LS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge Lawrence F. Stengel.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Peter D. Winebrake
          The Winebrake Law Firm LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 114
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Phone: 215-884-2491
          Fax: 215-884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


SA AIRWAYS: Stranded Passenger Mulls Suit Despite Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
South African Airways could face a class action over the cancellation of its
flights during a 2005 pay increase strike after a passenger succeeded in a
suit seeking for compensation, according to Sunday Times.

Michiel Spaapen, who was unable to leave Amsterdam for Cape Town due to the
demonstration, said he had initiated a campaign to gather together those
passengers who were also involved in the flight cancellation.

He intends to mobilize and encourage all those who got stranded for more than
four hours due to the incident to file a class action in Europe on their
behalf.  In fact, he has established a website http://www.saastrike.co.zaas  
a point of contact.

An Amsterdam civil court has already awarded Mr. Spaapen R15,000
corresponding to a European Union’s law, stipulating that passengers on a
flight originating from any E.U. member state that is delayed for more than
four hours and is longer than 3,500 km., receive EUR600 as compensation.

According to Robyn Chalmers, SAA’s corporate affairs head, they already paid
Mr. Spaapen, thus, the issue is closed.


SMITHFIELD FOODS: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissed Pa. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to rule on
plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania of the securities fraud class action against
Smithfield Foods, Inc.

In June 2001, the company acquired a 50% interest in Pennexx and extended
Pennexx a $30 million line of credit, secured by Pennexx's assets.

In July 2003, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of
shareholders of Pennexx Foods, Inc. against Pennexx, its directors, the
company and two of its officers who were former directors of Pennexx.  

Plaintiffs, who sought unspecified compensatory damages, allege that:  

      -- defendants artificially inflated the price of Pennexx  
         stock by disseminating materially false and misleading  
         statements concerning the company's financial  
         performance, business operations and prospects; and,

      -- the company breached its fiduciary duties owed to the  
         non-controlling shareholders of Pennexx through its  
         scheme to control and undermine Pennexx's business.  

At that same time, Pennexx defaulted under the Smithfield Credit Agreement.  
The company subsequently seized all of the tangible property assets of
Pennexx and transferred the assets to its wholly owned subsidiary,
terminating Pennexx's ability to continue its business.

In January 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class action,
which the court granted in part and denied in part in  
September 2004.  

In February 2005, the shareholder plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class of certain Pennexx shareholders.  In June 2005, the court dismissed the
class action without prejudice for lack of prosecution.  The court took this
action following the withdrawal of the lead plaintiff and the failure of any
other putative class member to step forward as lead plaintiff.  

In July 2005, the class action plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the appeal in
November 2006 and has not yet issued its ruling.

Smithfield Foods, Inc. reported no development in the matter on its June 28,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended April 29, 2007.

The suit is "The Winer Family Trust v. Queen et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-04318-
JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge John R. Padova.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Alan K. Cotler, Robert A. Nicholas and Milind M. Shah  
         of Reed Smith, LLP, 1650 Market St., 2500 One Liberty  
         Pl., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-851-8100 and  
         215-851-8298, Fax: 215-851-1420, E-mail:  
         acotler@reedsmith.com, rnicholas@reedsmith.com and  
         mshah@reedsmith.com;  

     (2) Edward J. Fuhr and Terence J. Rasmussen of Hunton &  
         Williams, LLP, Riverfront Plaza, E. Tower, 951 E. Byrd  
         St., Richmond, VA 23219-4074, Phone: 804-788-8201 and  
         804-788-8632, Fax: 804-788-8218; and

     (3) Eric F. Spade of Mitts Milavec & Spade, LLC, 1835  
         Market Street, 15TH Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103,  
         Phone: 215-569-1800, Fax: 215-569-1822, E-mail:  
         espade@mittslaw.com.


SOUTH DAKOTA: Rochester Sued over “Unnecessary” Strip Searches
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Rochester resident and two others filed a class action against Minnehaha
County, South Dakota over alleged unreasonable strip searches at the county’s
juvenile detention center, Josh Verges of ArgusLeader.com reports.

Jillian Clark was arrested for shoplifting at a department store in Sioux
Falls nearly seven years ago.  She was 17 at the time.

She claims she was brought to a holding room and was asked to strip naked.  A
female corrections agent made her bend over, shake out her hair and spread
her breasts apart, while watching.

Ms. Clark said she kept the humiliating experience to herself until Jodie
Smook told a similar story, which ended in March.  Ms. Smook lost the case.

The other two plaintiffs suing Minnehaha County are Nicole Stauffacher,
detained for shoplifting in 1997, and Ross Engelbrecht, who was arrested at
17 for underage alcohol consumption.

Ms. Stauffacher said the experience scarred her emotionally and that she’s
participating in the suit so no other minors would be violated in the same
manner.

The suit seeks compensatory damages.

According to JDC director Todd Cheever, the purpose of the searches is to
keep the juveniles safe.  He added that some kids come with weapons or drugs
and others have hidden injuries that need immediate attention.


SPELTER SMELTER: Class Period in Medical Monitoring Suit Changed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The residency requirements to be able to qualify as member of a class seeking
medical monitoring as a result of the Spelter Smelter smelting operation has
been changed, according to wboy.com.

The medical monitoring class, which used to require a total of 277 days of
residency in certain areas near the site, now requires one, three, or five
years of total residency since 1966.

                        Case Background

In the suit, plaintiffs who are residents in West Virginia allege that
hazardous substances from the Spelter Smelter facility, located in Spelter,
Harrison County, West Virginia, have been released onto private real property
in the Class Area, and that these substances have health risks.  Plaintiffs
allege that the released hazardous substances include arsenic, cadmium and
lead.

Name plaintiffs are Lenora Perrine, Carolyn Holbert, Waunona
Messinger Crouser, Rebeccah Morlock, Anthony Beezel, Mary
Montgomery, Mary Luzader, Truman r. Desist, and Larry Beezel, and Joseph
Bradshaw.

Defendants dispute that hazardous substances from the Spelter Smelter
facility have covered the entire class area, and dispute that plaintiffs are
entitled to any damages, medical monitoring, or other relief.

On Sept. 14, 2006, Honorable Thomas A. Bedell certified two classes, and
determined that the claims in this case be maintained as a class action:

     -- The Property Class consists of those who currently own,
        or who on or after Dec. 1, 2003 have owned, private real
        property lying within the Class Area;
   
     -- The Medical Monitoring Class consists of those who
        currently reside, or who at any time in the past have
        resided for a total of 277 days on private real property
        lying within the Class Area.

Excluded from the Property Class are those who owned property within the
class area, but only before Dec. 1, 2003 or only after Sept. 14, 2006.

Excluded from the Medical Monitoring Class are persons who resided in the
Class Area less than a total of 277 days.  However, according to a June 22
report by wboy.com, this period has been extended.

Also excluded from the class action are defendants in this case, any entity
in which a defendant has a controlling interest, or a current employee,
officer, director, legal representative, heir successor, assign, or spouse of
a defendant in this case.

In February, all parties involved in the Spelter Smelter class action agreed
to dismiss defendants Joe Paushel and Nuzum Trucking Co. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 26, 2007).  The remaining defendants that time, excluding T.L.
Diamond & Company, Inc., are E.I. Du Pont Nemours and Co., Meadowbrook Corp.,
and Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Company, Inc.

The suit is Case No. 04-C-296-2.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mike Papantonio, Esq.
          Virginia Buchanan, Esq.
          Steven A. Medina, Esq.
          Neil E. McWilliams, Jr., Esq.
          Levin, Papantonio, Esq.
          Thomas, Mitchell, Esq.
          Echsner & Proctor, P.A.
          P.O. Box 12308 316 S. Baylen Street
          Suite 600 Pensacola, Florida 32591
          Toll-free: 1-888-435-7001
          Fax: 850-436-6074

          J. Farrest Taylor, Esq.
          Angela Mason, Esq.
          Cochran, Cherry, Givens, Smith, Lane & Taylor, P.C.
          163 W. Main Street Dothan, Alabama 36302
          Toll-free: 1-888-526-2472
          Fax: 334-793-8280


TENNESSEE: Wrongly Arrested Man in Whitleyville Files Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Whitleyville man who said he was wrongly arrested last year by Putnam
County law officers has filed a suit against the county, Mary Jo Denton of
Herald-Citizen reports.

Danny Asberry claims he was mistaken for another Danny Asberry in the
computer system of the Putnam Circuit Court Clerk's office last year.  The
computer database in the clerk's office "when presented with multiple
individuals with the same name erroneously and automatically pulls background
information, such as address, SSN, and date of birth, for one individual
regardless of whether or not it is the correct individual," the lawsuit says.

The second Danny Asberry was issued a "capias" or bench warrant for failing
to pay $1,194 he owed to the court in 2002.  The warrant was not served and
remained in the computer system on police computer networks.

The erroneous match resulted to the arrest of the Whitleyville Mr. Asberry
and his detention for a few hours in Georgia, where he had traveled on
business in May of 2006, the lawsuit says.  

The suit alleges that the computer database in the clerk's office here is at
fault because it does not cross-reference identification markers and also
alleges that the problem has been known to officials "as far back as 1995
when the computer system was updated."

His attorneys, Jimmy White of Celina and Michael R. Giaimo of Livingston,
filed a suit in Putnam Circuit court to seek unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys fees, and "other and general relief."  The suit seeks
class-action certification to include people who met the same fate as Mr.
Asberry.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Circuit Court Upholds Nixing of “Sanchez”
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld a ruling that dismissed
the class action, "Sanchez, et al. v. Triple-S Management, et al."

Though plaintiffs complained of extortion in the form of threats of exclusion
from the network of insurance plans administered by defendants, most of the
plaintiffs could not testify to receiving such threats and none of the
attempts at extortion harmed plaintiffs, the court ruled, according to
CourtHouseNews Service.

The purported class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Puerto Rico, alleges violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act against:

      -- Triple-S Management Corp.;
      -- certain of its present and former directors;
      -- certain of Triple-S, Inc.'s present and former
         directors and others.

Filed on Sept. 4, 2003 by Jose Sanchez, the suit specifically alleges, a
scheme to defraud the plaintiffs by acquiring control of Triple-S, Inc.
through illegally capitalizing Triple-S and later converting it to a for-
profit corporation and depriving the stockholders of their ownership rights.

Plaintiffs base their later allegations on the supposed decisions of Triple-
S' board of directors and stockholders, allegedly made in 1979, to operate
with certain restrictions in order to turn Triple-S into a charitable
corporation, basically forever.

On March 4, 2005 the court issued an Opinion and Order.  In this opinion and
order, of the 12 counts included in the complaint, eight counts were
dismissed for failing to assert an actionable injury, six of them for lack of
standing and two for failing to plead with sufficient particularity in
compliance with the Rules.

All shareholder allegations were dismissed in the opinion and order.  The
remaining four counts were found standing, in a limited way, in the opinion
and order.  

Parties finished class certification discovery and fully briefed the issue of
class certification.  While waiting for the court's decision on the issue of
class certification, the court, sua sponte, issued an Order to Show Cause to
plaintiffs as to why the complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice.

The court's Order to Show Cause is predicated on the parties' submissions
about class certification.  The court then granted plaintiffs leave to file a
sur-reply, which they did on April 21, 2006.

In its Order to Show Cause the court indicated that it would decide first the
sustainability of the complaint before deciding plaintiffs' request for class
certification.  

On May 4, 2006, the court issued an Opinion and Order, which entered a
summary judgment in favor of all the defendants, and dismissing the case.

The suit is "Sanchez, et al.  v. Triple-S Management, et al.,
Case No. 3:03-cv-01967-JAF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico under Judge Jose A. Fuste.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert G. Blakey, Esq.
          1341 East Wayne Street North, South
          Bend, IN 46615, Phone: 219-239-5717;

          Paul H. Hulsey, Esq.
          Marco Tulio Torres-Moncada
          Hulsey Litigation Group, L.L.C.
          Charleston Harbor, 2 Wharfside 3
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: 843-723-5303,
          Fax: 843-723-5307
          E-mail: phulsey@hulseylitigationgroup.com

          Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan, Esq.
          Quetglas Law Office, PO Box
          16606, San Juan, PR 00908-6606,
          Phone: 787-722-7745
          Fax: 787-725-3970
          E-mail: quetglaslaw@hotmail.com

Representing the company are:

          Seth B. Kosto, Esq.
          Gael Mahony, Esq.
          10 St. James Avenue, Boston, MA 02114
          Phone: 617-523-2700
          Fax: 617-523-6850


UPS STORES: Franchise Owners Sue Over Losses from Business Model
----------------------------------------------------------------
UPS Stores and its franchiser Mail Boxes Etc. are facing complaints from more
than 200 owners of stores across the county claiming UPS’ business model
makes it difficult for franchisees to make a profit, Anika Myers of Orlando
Sentinel reports.

The franchise owners claim UPS and Mail Boxes used the branded stores as drop-
off points for prepaid packages and forcing the owners to focus on providing
document and printing services.  As a result, customers no longer paid the
stores directly for shipping, making the franchise owners dependent on
payments from UPS for those packages.  The practice has "drastically reduced"
the stores' profitability, they say.

Franchisees received only $0.65 per drop-off package while previously they
had received as much as $5.00 and $6.00 and up for handling a typical
package, according to the complaint.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles in April.


UTILITY COS: Reach $306T Settlement in N.J. Dam Failures Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications Inc., South Jersey Gas Co. and Public Service Electric
& Gas Co. tentatively agreed to pay a total of $306,000 to settle a lawsuit
filed by Burlington County property owners over dam failures in July 2004,
reports Mike Mathis of Burlington County Times.

The class action was filed by 180 property owners in Superior Court against
public and private owners of 51 dams as well as several homeowners
associations and the Burlington County and the state Department of
Environmental Protection.  

Twenty one dams failed and 30 were damaged in a July 2004 storm.  The dam
owners were accused of failing to properly maintain the structures.  
Plaintiffs estimate property damages at $25 million.

A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for Aug. 22 in U.S. District Court
in Camden.

Two settlements totaling $2.78 million have already been approved by a
Superior Court judge.  The parties include Medford Lakes, Medford Township,
the Evesham Municipal Utilities Authority and Atlantic Electric Co. and a
contractor that reconstructed one of the structures.

Non-settling defendants are the Girl Scouts of Camden County, YMCA Camp
Ockanickon and JCC Camps at Medford.

Representing the property owners is:

          Edward Petkevis, Esq.
          1380 Hornberger Ave
          Roebling, NJ 08554 Map
          Phone: (609) 499-4300


VERMONT: Brandon Female Police Files Discrimination Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon’s only female police officer until her dismissal from service two
months ago filed a class action claiming sex discrimination and retaliation,
Boston Globe reports.

According to the report, Laurie Krupp was fired May 29 after an incident in
which she allegedly failed to follow an order by the Vermont State Police to
check on an open door at a Chinese restaurant.  Ms. Krupp said she was ill
that time.

Ms. Krupp who began working for the town in 1989, has filed a class action
grievance on May 14 against the town complaining that it is "is paying
Officer Jeffrey White a rate above and beyond what has been negotiated."

Her attorney, James G. Levins, said she was retaliated against because she
also filed a sexual discrimination claim May 8.  He filed a suit on her
behalf against the town in Superior Court on June 28.

Town Manager Keith Arlund said the town has received a copy but has yet to
file a response.

For more information, contact:

          James G. Levins, Esq.
          73 Center Street
          Rutland, Vermont 05701-4017
          Phone: 802-775-4361
          Fax: 802-775-4363
          Web site: http://www.tepperdardecklevinslawfirm.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces “Dead Peasant” Suit in Fla. Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The husband of a deceased Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employee filed a class action
against the company claiming the company enrolled his wife in an insurance
policy without her knowledge and collected on the benefits after her death.

Richard Armatrout, husband of Karen, who died of cancer in 1997, filed
the "dead peasant" suit in Tampa Florida U.S. District Court.  The suit also
alleges that the company misappropriated Karen Armatrout's name and personal
information for the purposes of taking out the policy.  He seeks disgorgement
and punitive damages.  

He claims she was one of 350,000 employees for whom Wal-Mart did this.  He
claims Wal-Mart began the practice on Dec. 28, 1993, when it began buying the
life insurance policies, from nonparties AIG Life Insurance and Hartford Life
Insurance.

Lawyers estimate there must be $80,000 in benefits that Wal-Mart supposedly
collected "in bad faith" on a corporate-owned life insurance policy,
according to courtTVnews.

Co-defendant in the suit is Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Corp. Grantor Trust in
Georgia, according to CourtHouseNews.

The case is "Armatrout v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-
01113-JSM-TBM," filed in the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of
Florida under judge James S. Moody, Jr. with referral to Judge Thomas B.
McCoun.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Scott M. Clearman, Esq.
          Robert H. Espey, Esq.
          Michael D. Myers, Esq.
          McClanahan & Clearman, L.L.P.
          4100 Bank of America Center
          700 Louisiana
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713/223-2005
          E-mail: scott@mcllp.com

         Craig Peter Kalil
         Aballi, Milne, Kalil & Escagedo, P.A.
         1 S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 2250
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305/373-6600


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


BRISTOL-MYERS: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
all purchasers of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s securities from March 22, 2006
to August 8, 2006, inclusive.

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

On March 22, 2006, Bristol-Myers announced that it had entered into a
settlement agreement with Apotex, Inc. to resolve a patent infringement
lawsuit related to the drug Plavix. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company had relinquished material legal rights
         in order to induce the patent litigation settlement
         with Apotex;

     (2) that the Company had negotiated improper side
         agreements with Apotex to induce settlement;

     (3) that these side agreements, and the subsequent
         investigation, had exposed the Company to serious
         criminal charges; and

     (4) that senior executives of the Company had made
         criminally false statements to the FDA in connection
         with the FDA's review of the Apotex patent litigation
         settlement.

On July 27, 2006, the Company shocked investors when revealed that the U.S.
Department of Justice was conducting a criminal investigation into the Apotex
settlement. On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $1.95 per
share, or 7.5 percent, to close on July 27, 2006 at $24.04 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

The following day, the Company stated that it had also failed to receive
antitrust clearance from numerous State Attorney Generals. On this news,
shares of the Company's stock declined an additional $0.50 per share, or 2
percent, to close on July 31, 2006 at $23.97 per share. Then, on August 8,
2006, the Company further revealed that it had substantially modified the
settlement agreement with Apotex to the Company's detriment.

On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined an additional $1.56 per
share, or approximately 7 percent, to close on August 8, 2006 at $21.21 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

Bristol-Myers engages in the discovery, development, licensing,
manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and sale of pharmaceuticals in the
United States and worldwide.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706


MIDWAY GAMES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
purchasers of Midway Games Inc. common stock during the period between August
4, 2005 and May 24, 2006.

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants assured
investors that Midway would perform as expected in the fourth quarter of
2005. In fact, the Company did not perform as expected because defendants had
decided to lay off 8% of the Company's workforce and engage in costly
restructuring. Before the full costs of these decisions were made public,
however, defendants were able to sell off over $14 million of their shares on
the open market within three weeks of one another.

On May 24, 2006, defendants announced that they would have to sell $75
million in convertible notes that would be highly dilutive to current
shareholders in order to raise cash. In response to this announcement,
Midway's stock price fell to $7.39 per share.

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

Midway develops and publishes software for major video game systems.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com


TELIK INC: Finkelstein Thompson Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP 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.

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.

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 and is
represented by Finkelstein Thompson LLP. Finkelstein Thompson LLP has spent
almost three decades delivering outstanding representation to institutional
and individual clients in connection with securities and other finance-
related litigation, and has been appointed as lead or co-lead counsel in
dozens of shareholder class actions. Indeed, in the past decade, the firm has
served in leadership roles in cases that have recovered over $1 billion for
investors and consumers.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is August 6, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          Phone: (202) 337-8000
          Toll Free: (877) 337-1050
          E-mail: info@finkelsteinthompson.com
          Web site: 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.                        


                            *********


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  * * *