CAR_Public/070711.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 11, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 135

                            Headlines

ALASKA: Dept. of Labor Employees File Complaint Over Molds
ARTISAN CONFECTIONS: Recalls Chocolate due to Undeclared Milk
ASURION CORP: Suit Over “Wireless Phone Programs” Gets Final OK
BOULDER GROWTH: Investment Company Act Violation Suit Dismissed
CANADA: Outfitters Sue Over Caribou Sport Hunting Restriction

CARMAX INC: Faces Suit Over Vehicle’s Rental History Disclosure
EXELON CORP: Employees’ 401(k) Suit in Ill. Federal Court Stayed
GAP INC: Aug. 6 Hearing Set for Rewards Coupon Suit Settlement
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over NYSE’s SuperDot System
HILTON HOTELS: Faces Suit in Del. Over $20B Sale to Blackstone

HOOTERS: Fla. Restaurant Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit
ICF EMERGENCY: Suit Over Road Home Program Heard in Court
ILLINOIS: Two Students Withdraw from Suit Against Elgin School
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: BC Court Excludes Govt. from Mild Tobacco Suit
INTERVOICE-BRITE: Furnishes Requested Documents in “Barrie” Case

ISRAEL: Bakers Union Sued for $1.9M Over 'Standard Bread' Strike
JABIL CIRCUIT: Seeks Nixing of Fla. Securities Fraud Complaint
JIFFY LUBE: Settles Lawsuit Over “Illegal” Environmental Fee
JK HARRIS: Faces N.J. Suit Over Unlawful Credit Repair Practices
KAPLAN INC: Cal. Court Certifies Lawsuit Against Maric College

MICROSOFT CORP: Iowa Legal Aid Gets $1M in Antitrust Suit Deal
MICROSOFT CORP: Dismissal of "Windows Vista” Suit in the Offing
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Xbox 360’s Hardware
NAVARRE CORP: Settles Securities Fraud Litigation in Minn.
NEW YORK: Strip Search Suit Against Clinton County Certified

NUTRAMERICA CORP: Calif. Court Approves Trimspa Suit Settlement
ORACLE CORP: Cal. Court Rejects $9M Settlement of Labor Lawsuit
ORACLE CORP: Nov. 26 Trial Scheduled for Calif. Securities Suit
PFIZER INC: Lawyers Fee Award in Celebrex, Bextra Suit Erroneous
QUELLOS GROUP: Faces N.C. Collective Suit Over Tax Advisory

TEMPLE-INLAND: Judge Certifies Suit Over Untimely Reconveyance
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Court Mulls Dismissal of Katrina-Related Suits
UNITED STATES: Skilled Workers Denied Green Cards Sue in Ill.
WACKENHUT CORP: Miss. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violation
WILLIAMS COMMS: Okla. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Online Teleconferences
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MIDWAY GAMES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


ALASKA: Dept. of Labor Employees File Complaint Over Molds
----------------------------------------------------------
The Alaska State Employees Association filed a class-action grievance against
the state over moldy air at the Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Building in Juneau, according to Korry Keeker of Juneau Empire reports.

Forty-two of the Labor Department's 318 employees have been sickened from
mold-based illness, said Angie Parker of the Alaska Public Employees
Association.  Kim Metcalfe, business agent with the ASEA, filed a grievance on
behalf of at least 10 members.  The Alaska Public Employees Association also
plans to file a similar suit, according to the report.

State officials, however, say air samples don't indicate a problem.  An air
sampling has already been conducted at the department building.  Bulk sampling
showed elevated levels of yeasts and molds in Room 202B, where staff fell ill
earlier this year.  But the overall levels in the building were not unusual,
said Steve Haavig, environmental professional with Carson Dorn, a Juneau
engineering firm.


ARTISAN CONFECTIONS: Recalls Chocolate due to Undeclared Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Artisan Confections Co. is voluntarily recalling its Scharffen Berger Kumasi
Sambirano 68 percent Cacao Pure Dark Chocolate bars because they may contain
undeclared milk.  No other Scharffen Berger items are involved in this recall.  

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

The 3 ounce bars are wrapped in distinctive green packaging and were sold over
the Internet and through specialty retail outlets nationwide from March 2006
to June 2007.  All lot numbers of the item are covered by the recall.  This
was a limited-edition item that is no longer in production.

The recall was initiated after a consumer contacted Artisan Confections about
an allergic reaction, and it was discovered that Kumasi Sambirano packaging
did not reveal the possible presence of milk.

Consumers who have purchased the item in question should contact Artisan
Confections Consumer Relations at 866-608-6944.


ASURION CORP: Suit Over “Wireless Phone Programs” Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz granted on June 22, 2007 final approval to
a nationwide class settlement involving 10.3 million cellular phone customers
and the country's largest providers of cell phone equipment insurance, Asurion
Corp. and Lock/Line.

Cellular phone customers who believe they are eligible for claims can visit
http://www.cellphoneinsurancesettlement.comfor more information and to submit
a claim online.

The settlement of “Perez et al. v. Asurion Corp. et al. (case number
06-20734-Civ-Seitz/McAliley),’ ends two and a half years of litigation and
mediation in Florida and California.

Representing the claimants were Miami attorneys Adam Moskowitz, Kozyak, Tropin
& Throckmorton, P.A. and Lance Harke, Harke & Clasby LLP.

Claims filing deadline is July 26, 2007.  The “Wireless Phone Protection
Programs” is offered by Asurion Corp., Asurion Insurance Services, Inc.,
Asurion Florida Warranty Services, Inc., lock\line LLC and lock\line Warranty
Services of Florida LLC and their affiliated companies.

In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misrepresented and
failed to adequately disclose the terms of their “Wireless Phone Protection
Programs.”  Plaintiffs further claim that the Defendants failed to properly
perform their legal and contractual obligations under the programs, and, at
times, provided replacement equipment that was worth less than the deductible
and was not of like kind and quality.

                             Class

There are two Classes of people in the proposed Settlement:

     (1) The National Class includes all former and/or current
         Asurion or lock\line subscribers who reside in the               
         U.S. who, in the time period between February 20, 2004
         and February 28, 2007:

         (i) made any monthly payments to Asurion or lock\line;
             and

        (ii) submitted a claim for loss under penalty of
             perjury; and

       (iii) received a replacement phone that was Refurbished
             (i.e., other than new).

     (2) The Subclass includes all National Class Members who
         received a Refurbished Phone for which the equipment
         cost paid by Asurion for the Refurbished Phone was less
         than deductible, not including other non-equipment
         related costs incurred by Asurion to fulfill the claim.

                        Settlement Terms

The Defendants have agreed to distribute at least $1.5 million worth of long
distance or virtual Phone Cards. Each National Class Member will be able to
make a claim for a card with a face value of $5.00. The Settlement Phone Cards
will be fully transferable and will expire 360 days after the date they are
issued.

Subclass members who paid deductibles of $50 or less will be mailed a voucher
for a replacement phone directly from Asurion with a value of at least $75 but
not more than $100.

Subclass members who paid deductibles of $85 or more will be mailed a voucher
for a replacement phone directly from Asurion with a value of at least $125
but not more than $150.

Defendants will also ensure that all future placards and brochures about the
“Wireless Phone Protection Programs” will include language indicating that
claims may be fulfilled with new and/or refurbished equipment, and that each
replacement phone is subject to a non-refundable deductible or fee per loss.
Asurion has also agreed that the equipment and service costs incurred by
Asurion to provide the replacement phone will not be less than the deductible,
unless the customer is specifically advised of such before Asurion collects
the deductible or fee.

"Much of the credit for this settlement goes to the defendants in this case
who believed it was more important to work with their customers than to
further litigate," said Mr. Moskowitz.

The case centers on claims that the companies were not clear with customers
about replacement policies. The case alleged that defendants Asurion Corp. and
Lock/Line provided customers with inadequate disclosures and refurbished
phones worth less than the originals.

The evidence revealed that, although 10.3 million of the 40 million customers
received refurbished replacement phones, the great majority of these phones
had a value more than the deductibles that were paid by the customers.

"Our objective was to improve the information provided to customers regarding
how the cellular phone insurance and replacement process works and what phones
are actually provided to customers during the claim process," said Mr. Harke.
"We determined that customers were not always aware that they could receive a
refurbished phone that, in a few cases, could be worth less than the customer
was required to pay as a deductible."

In addition to specific changes to all of the advertising and claims process
that will benefit almost 70 million customers that lose and/or damage their
cell phones every year, the settlement also provides monetary relief to the
claimants. Approximately 15,000 customers who received refurbished replacement
phones valued at slightly less than the charged deductible will receive
vouchers for a free replacement phone with a value of between $75.00 and
$150.00. Vouchers are fully refundable for 90 days and require no further
purchase by the customers.

The 10.3 million class members can each claim a $5.00 fully transferable phone
card. All customers have been mailed a postcard instructing them on how to log
into the settlement website to register for these cards.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


BOULDER GROWTH: Investment Company Act Violation Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado against Boulder Growth & Income Fund, Inc. and
its directors, investment advisers and portfolio manager over alleged
violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940 has been dismissed with
prejudice.

The complaint, filed May 18, alleges, among other things that the defendants
failed to make adequate disclosures in the Fund's recent proxy and
registration statements (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2007).

The plaintiff in the lawsuit withdrew the complaint and promised not to pursue
further claims against the Fund, its directors, investment advisers, and/or
portfolio manager. There were no settlement payments involved in the
withdrawal of the lawsuit and the parties will assume their respective legal
fees subject to any applicable insurance reimbursement to the Fund and the
other defendants.

Stephen Miller, the Fund's President, said, "The Board has always looked out
for stockholders' best interests, and the quick and decisive resolution of
this lawsuit should give stockholders confidence of that fact."

The suit is "Paskowitz v. Looney et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01053-WYD," filed in
the U.S. District court for the District of Colorado, under Judge Wiley Y. Daniel.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gerald L. Bader, Jr., Esq.
          Bader & Associates, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue, #200
          Denver, CO 80014-1160
          Phone: 303-534-1700
          Fax: 303-534-1701
          E-mail: gbader@bader-associates.com


CANADA: Outfitters Sue Over Caribou Sport Hunting Restriction
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three outfitters filed a lawsuit against the Tlicho government for restricting
sport hunting of caribou, Jason Unrau of Northern News Services reports.

The restriction was placed after the Environment and Natural Resources reports
that population of caribous is in decline.  The ENR has cut outfitters tags
from 1,260 to 750.

American citizen John Andre and local outfitters Boyd Warner and Gary Jaeb
filed their statement of claim in June.

The suit says the ENR’s decision was based on "erroneous, inaccurate and
incomplete information... relying on partially completed studies (that) have
never been published and scrutinized by the scientific community."  He said it
will result to a loss of sales in the industry at the region of millions this
year alone.

The suit states that recommendations to the We'keezhii Renewable Resources
Board on caribou management strategies and the subsequent amendments to the
wildlife act that reduced outfitter tag limits breached the Tlicho Agreement,
a comprehensive land claim and self-government agreement in the Northwest
Territories that provides certain rights and benefits to land, resources and
self-government to Tlicho citizens.


CARMAX INC: Faces Suit Over Vehicle’s Rental History Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. faces a purported class action in Baltimore County Circuit Court,
Maryland alleging that it has not properly disclosed its vehicles’ prior
rental history, according to the company’s July 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May
31, 2007.  

Regina Hankins filed the suit on June 12, 2007.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and the recovery of
attorneys’ fees.

CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com/-- is a holding company and its
operations are conducted through its subsidiaries.


EXELON CORP: Employees’ 401(k) Suit in Ill. Federal Court Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah put on hold a class action by Exelon Corp.
employees that alleges the company charged excessive fees to participants in
its $3 billion 401(k) plan, reports say.  The suit received class-action
status on June 26.

Exelon asked for the delay pending resolution of an expected appeal in the
dismissal of a lawsuit against Deere & Co., Moline, Ill., and Fidelity
Investments, Boston.  On June 20, John C. Shabaz of the U.S. District Court
judge in Madison, Wis., dismissed the suit filed by Deere employees claiming
the company and Fidelity, trustee and record keeper for Deere’s $2.5 billion
401(k) plan, charged unreasonable fees to participants.

Mr. Shabaz, in his decision, said Deere was protected from fiduciary
responsibility by a provision in ERISA that provides safe harbor for plans
that comply with its Section 404(c) regulations. That provision requires the
plan sponsor to advise plan participants that they are responsible for their
own investment decisions.

Mr. Shabaz also said Department of Labor regulations do not require disclosure
of revenue-sharing arrangements.

Plaintiffs in both suits are represented by the law firm of Schlichter, Bogard
& Denton LLP, St. Louis, which has filed several other similar lawsuits.

Jerome Schlichter, the firm’s managing partner, said a status hearing had been
scheduled in the Exelon case for Sept. 25, according to Pensions and Investments.

                        Class Certification

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP announced that on June 26, 2007, Judge Darrah
certified a class of former, current, and future 401(k) Plan participants in
“Loomis v. Exelon Corp., No. 1:06-CV-04900 (Northern District of Illinois).

Plaintiffs in this case have sued the employer (the sponsor of the 401(k)
Plan) and various other defendants alleged to be Plan fiduciaries, claiming
that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the participants by
allowing investment managers and other service providers to charge allegedly
unreasonable fees to the Plan and by allegedly failing to disclose those fees
to participants.

The certified class is defined as:

All persons, excluding the Defendants, the Committees and/or other individuals
who are or may be liable for the conduct described in the Complaint, who are
or were participants or beneficiaries of the Exelon Employee Savings Plan and
who are, were or may have been affected by the conduct set forth in this
Complaint, as well as those who will become participants or beneficiaries of
the Exelon Employee Savings Plan in the Future.
The class was certified under Rule 23(b)(1)(B).  According to the court, both
the plaintiffs and defendants agreed that if a class was certified,
certification would be most appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1)(B).  The court
stated that this was a “paradigmatic” 23(b)(1)(B) case, in that plaintiffs
sought to bring suit in a representative capacity to recover losses for a plan
as a whole based on actions that took place on a plan-wide basis.

The court also found all of the Rule 23(a) requirements satisfied:

     (a) Numerosity – the court found that the class will be
         made up of about 23,000 participants, satisfying the
         numerosity requirement;

     (b) Commonality – the court noted that plaintiffs had  
         identified 14 common issues of law and/or fact,
         including whether the defendants were Plan fiduciaries,
         whether defendants breached one or more fiduciary
         duties, and whether the alleged breaches of fiduciary
         duty resulted in damage to the Plan;

     (c) Typicality – plaintiffs alleged that defendants caused
         or allowed excessive or unreasonable fees to be charged
         to the Plan as a whole. While noting that the loss
         amount attributable to the allegedly excessive fees
         could differ amongst participants, the court held that
         “individual damages will not defeat a named plaintiff’s
         typicality.” (Quoting Alexander v. Q.T.S. Corp., No.
         98-C-3234, 1999 WL 573358 at *6 (N.D. Ill. 1999);

    (d) Adequacy – in finding that the interests of the named
        plaintiffs were sufficiently aligned with those of the
        non-named class members, the court noted that all the
        participants have a financial stake in the Plan, and
        that the relief sought by the named plaintiffs would go
        to the Plan.

The proposed class was certified over several objections by defendants as to
its scope:

     -- Defendants had objected that future Plan participants
        should be excluded for lack of constitutional standing.
        Judge Darrah, citing “Hodges v. Public Bldg. Comm’n, No.
        93 C 4328, 1994 WL 603105 (N.D. Ill. 1994),” rejected
        this argument, stating that “there is no shortage of
        cases which have certified classes incorporating future
        class members into their definition;”

     -- Judge Darrah also rejected the defendants’ assertion
        that former Plan participants should be excluded from
        the class definition because they lack standing, holding
        that the question raised factual issues better suited
        for resolution at a later time;

     -- Defendants’ argument that Plan participants who signed
        releases when they terminated employment should be
        excluded from the class definition was also rejected.

        Judge Darrah ruled that releases, signed with respect to
        individual claims, might not release claims participants
        could bring on behalf of the Plan, and also that whether
        a release actually waived all the claims a participant
        might bring was a factual issue not properly before the
        court at this stage. Defendants’ contention that ERISA’s
        six-year limitation period required that the class
        period should begin no earlier than September 11, 2000
        was similarly rejected. The court held that the
        complaint could be read to allege fraud such that the
        claims would not be barred until six years after “the
        date of discovery.”

     -- The court also rejected defendants’ argument that any
        class certification should be restricted to claims under
        section 502(a)(3) of ERISA and that no claims could be
        certified under section 502(a)(2), because the
        plaintiffs are suing for individual relief, whereas
        section 502(a)(2) permits only relief on behalf of the
        plan as a whole. (The Supreme Court recently agreed to
        review the relief available in the individual account
        plan context under both section 502(a)(2) and section
        502(a)(3) in “LaRue v. Dewolff, No. 06-856”).

Two days after entering the certification order, the court in Loomis granted
defendants’ motion to stay the case pending the anticipated appeal to the
Seventh Circuit of the order dismissing all claims in a similar ERISA “revenue
sharing” case in “Hecker v. Deere & Co., No. 06-C-719-S” (W.D. Wis. June 20,
2007).

Sutherland Asbill on the Net: http://www.sablaw.com/


GAP INC: Aug. 6 Hearing Set for Rewards Coupon Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau will hold a
fairness hearing on Aug. 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in the proposed settlement in
the cases:

      -- “Rhonda M. Dupler, et al., v. Old Navy, LLC, and The
         Gap, Inc. Index No. 008356/06;” and

      -- “Shira Chait, et al. v. The Gap, Inc., Index No.
         006606/07.”

The hearing will be held before Justice Ira B. Warshawsky at the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, Nassau County, 100 Supreme Court Drive, Mineola, New
York 11501.  

Deadline for the submission for a proof of claim is on July 17, 2007.

The settlement covers all Gap, Old Navy or Banana Republic credit card holders
who, during the period Feb. 28, 2000 through April 2, 2007, were issued any
rewards coupons, redeemed the coupons and returned merchandise purchased with
a rewards coupon and did not receive a refund or credit in the amount
representing the portion of the rewards coupon allocated (at the time of the
purchase) to the merchandise returned.

For more details, contact:

         Harry I. Katz, PC
         61-25 Utopia Parkway
         Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
         Phone: 718-463-3700

              - and -

         Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C.
         1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
         White Plains, NY 10605
         Phone: (914) 517-5000
         Fax: (914) 517-5055
         Web site: http://www.mdpcelaw.com/contact.cfm


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over NYSE’s SuperDot System
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. along with Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists
LLC and numerous other defendants were named in a purported class action
brought in June 2007 on behalf of investors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal antitrust and
securities laws, as well as common law, in connection with execution of
transactions through the New York Stock Exchange’s SuperDot system.

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified treble damages, according
to the company’s July 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 25, 2007.

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/-- is global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a
range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations,
financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.


HILTON HOTELS: Faces Suit in Del. Over $20B Sale to Blackstone
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder is suing Hilton Hotels Corp. saying a $20 billion agreement to
sell the company to Blackstone Group LP was inadequate, reports say.

Stockholder David B. Shaev filed his complaint in Delaware Chancery Court.  

The complaint asks the court in Wilmington to grant the lawsuit class-action
status and stop the sale, or, if the sale goes through, hold a trial to
determine how much more Hilton should be forced to pay shareholders.  It was
prepared by the New York law firm Hardwood Feffer and the Wilmington firm
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on the Net: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/


HOOTERS: Fla. Restaurant Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hooters restaurant chain in Coconut Grove, Fla. is facing a federal class
action for printing out the full credit and debit card numbers of its
customers on receipts in violation of federal law, Billy Shields of Daily
Business Review reports.

Jorge Fernandez of Miami filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Fort
Lauderdale, Fla.  He claims that policy unnecessarily exposes Hooters of
Coconut Grove, Inc. customers to identity theft.

Federal law allows for up to $1,000 in damages per violation, plus punitive
damages if it's proven that the violation was willful, according to Roniel
Rodriguez of Miami, Mr. Fernandez’s lawyer.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court in July 2006, but
was amended and removed to federal court after the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act came into full effect in December 2006.  

The suit was filed on behalf of cardholders or injured consumers in Florida
who "had more than the last five digits of their payment card's account number
or expiration date printed on the receipt."

The suit is baseless, according to Richard Simeone, in-house counsel for
Atlanta-based Hooters.  The plaintiff has not suffered harm as a result of his
allegations, according to him.

The suit is “Fernandez v. Hooters of Coconut Grove, Inc., Case No.
1:07-cv-21599-WMH,” filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge William M. Hoeveler.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Anthony Manuel Lopez, Esq.
          Cibran Eljaiek & Lopez, P.L.
          2601 S Bayshore Drive Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33133
          Phone: 305-444-5969
          Fax: 305-444-1939
          E-mail: aml@cellaw.com

          Roniel Rodriguez, IV, Esq.
          Alvarez Eljaiek & Rodriguez PL
          2601 S Bayshore Drive
          Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33133
          Phone: 305-444-5885
          Fax: 444-8986

Representing the defendant is:

          Richard John Simeone, Esq.
          4411 Cleveland Avenue
          Fort Myers, FL 33901
         Phone: 239-275-6339
         Fax: 275-3493
         E-mail: rsimeone@hootersfla.com


ICF EMERGENCY: Suit Over Road Home Program Heard in Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action against the firm managing the embattled Road Home Program is
being heard in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana,
according to the Associated Press.

New Orleans' attorney and 99-5FM morning show host Rob Couhig filed the
complaint on behalf of New Orleans attorney and Road Home applicant Donald C.
Massey, alleging Mr. Massey has been subjected to negligence by ICF that
includes lost records, repetitive assessments, delays, and obfuscations.

The complaint is seeking changes in the administration of Louisiana's Road
Home Program and potential damages against the program's contractor, ICF
Emergency Management Services.  One of those changes being asked is the
appointment of a special master to take over the program.

It further alleges that ICF has engaged in a pattern of delay, bad faith, and
conduct designed to impede, delay, and deny the delivery of grants to
applicants.  

The complaint asks the court to prevent ICF from retracting or modifying to
the detriment of an applicant, any monetary award once the amount has been
offered.  

Plaintiff requests injunctive relief and damages.

The case is “Massey v. ICF Emergency Management Services, LLC, Case No:
3:07-cv-00462-JJB-DLD,” under Judge James J. Brady with referral to Judge
Docia L. Dalby.

Plaintiffs’ attorney:

          Robert E. Couhig, III, Esq.
          Couhig Partners, LLC - N.O.
          1100 Poydras Street Suite 1150
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Phone: 504-588-1288
          Fax: 504-588-9750
          E-mail: rcouhig@couhigpartners.com

Defendants’ attorney:

          Thomas A. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Jones, Walker
          201 St Charles Ave
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: 504-582-8000
          Fax: 504-582-8583
          E-mail: tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com


ILLINOIS: Two Students Withdraw from Suit Against Elgin School
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two plaintiffs in a class action against Elgin School District U46 asked the
court to drop their names in the case after they graduated in May.

Eduardo and Grisella Burciaga asked a federal judge to dismiss them from the
suit, Erin Calandriello of the Courier News reports.

Remaining as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are 15 students and their parents:
Tracy McFadden, Marielena Montoya, Griselda Burciaga, Beverly Ivy and Irma
Sifuentes, according to Carol Ashley of Futterman and Howard, the law firm
representing the five families suing the district.

A ruling on a class certification motion is expected soon, the report said.

Filed on Feb. 7, 2005, suit accuses the school district of:

     -- treating minority students with hostility,
    
     -- disproportionately referring black and Latino students
        to an alternative high school,

     -- providing fewer academic opportunities for minorities,
        and

     -- failing to provide proper services to Latino students
        with limited English proficiency.

The suit plans to seek relief for all Hispanic and black students who claim
they were discriminated against in assignments, transportation, school
closings and educational programs.

It was filed after the District U46 board of education decided in 2004 to
adjust elementary and middle school attendance zones so pupils would attend
schools closest to their homes.

The original suit is "Daniel et al. v. Board of Education for Illinois School
District U-46, Case No. 1:05-cv-00760," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Carol Rose Ashley, Esq.
          Futterman & Howard Chtd.
          122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 427-3600
          E-mail: cashley@futtermanhoward.com  

Representing the defendants is:

          Patricia J. Whitten, Esq.
          Franczek Sullivan, P.C.
          300 South Wacker Drive
          Suite 3400, Chicago, IL  
          60606-6785
          Phone: (312) 986-0300
          E-mail: pjw@franczek.com


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: BC Court Excludes Govt. from Mild Tobacco Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A British Columbia court has denied plaintiffs’ motion to make the government
liable for peddling light cigarettes as a safer alternative for smokers,
Valerie Chang of AHN News reports.

But despite its rejection, the court ruled that the class action will continue
against Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.

The class action was originally filed in 2004 in Vancouver Court.  The
plaintiffs consisted of those people who purchased the light and mild
cigarettes for a certain period.  

It alleged the company deceived customers by saying "light" or "mild"
cigarettes are less harmful than regular brands.

The BC Court of Appeals rejected Imperial’s motion to dismiss the class-action
status of the case in May 2006.

Both the plaintiffs and Imperial wanted the government named as third party in
the suit because it allegedly persuaded tobacco companies to manufacture mild
cigarettes and to make people smoke those products.

The plaintiffs and Imperial further claim that the government deceived the
consumers by promoting and convincing people to use these products, saying
they would be at a lower risk of acquiring smoking-related diseases.  They
said the government was negligent and violated the Business Practices and
Consumers Protection Act (BPCPA).

The court said the government could not be liable, saying the BPCPA creates a
remedy against a "supplier" who engages in deceptive practices, and that the
government did not meet the statutory definition of a "supplier" merely by
regulating an industry.

In addition, the judges said the government is not negligent because it owed
no duty to the plaintiffs or to Imperial.

Attorney David Klein represents the plaintiffs.


INTERVOICE-BRITE: Furnishes Requested Documents in “Barrie” Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
InterVoice-Brite, Inc. is in the process of continuing to produce documents in
response to the plaintiffs’ requests for production of such documents in the
class action, "David Barrie, et al. v. InterVoice-Brite, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3-01CV1071-D."

Initially, several related class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of common stock of
InterVoice, Inc. during the period from Oct. 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000.

Plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding,
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the company as well as
certain named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on
behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs claim that the company and the named current and
former officers and directors issued false and misleading statements during
the Class Period concerning the financial condition of Intervoice, the results
of the merger with Brite Voice Systems, Inc. and the alleged future business
projections of Intervoice.

Plaintiffs have asserted that these alleged statements resulted in
artificially inflated stock prices.

The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ complaint because it lacked the
degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards
applicable to federal securities litigation.

The Plaintiffs’ appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
5th Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part.  The
5th Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further proceedings in the
District Court.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion to
certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice stock during the Class
Period between Oct. 12, 1999 and June 6, 2000.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted the company’s petition to appeal
the District Court’s decision to grant Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class.

The briefing on the merits of company’s appeal is now complete, and the
company is currently waiting for the Fifth Circuit to either schedule oral
argument or issue a ruling on the merits.

The company filed a motion to stay further discovery pending the Fifth
Circuit’s decision on the merits of its appeal, but the District Court denied
that motion.

It is in the process of continuing to produce documents in response to the
plaintiffs’ requests for production, according to the company’s May 31, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 6, 2007.

The suit is "Barrie, et al. v. Intervoice Brite Inc., et al., Case No.
3:01-cv-01071," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division under Judge Ed Kinkeade.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
         Stanley Mandel & Iola
         3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
         Dallas, TX 75205
         Phone: 214/443-4301
         Fax: 214/443-0358
         E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com

              - and -

         Lauren M. Winston, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         100 Pine St., Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415/288-4545.

Representing the defendants is:

          Timothy R. McCormick, Esq.
          Thompson & Knight
          1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 3300,
          Dallas, TX 75201-4693
          Phone: 214/969-1103
          Fax: 214/880-3253
          E-mail: timothy.mccormick@tklaw.com


ISRAEL: Bakers Union Sued for $1.9M Over 'Standard Bread' Strike
----------------------------------------------------------------
Israel's largest bakeries and the Bakers' Union of Israel are facing a $1.89
million class action in the matter of the "Standard Bread" strike,
IsraelNN.com reports.

The bakeries are refusing to bake the government-subsidized "standard" bread,
the staple for most low-income families, unless the government allows an
immediate price hike of at least 8 percent.  Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had
signed an agreement with Minister Yishai to freeze the price hike until September.

The suit, filed by Attorney Yochi Geva on behalf of Henri Alush, alleges that
Mr. Alush wanted to buy Standard Bread for $0.67 on, as he usually does, but
was told that the bread was unavailable and that he could only buy more
expensive breads. He therefore had to buy sliced white bread for $1.35.

Plaintiff demands that the defendants compensate "every citizen whose ability
to purchase Standard Bread or Standard Challah was denied between July 5–8,
and had to buy more expensive bread products."


JABIL CIRCUIT: Seeks Nixing of Fla. Securities Fraud Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jabil Circuit, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated securities
fraud complaint filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned, “Edward J.
Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No. 8:06-cv-01716”
against the Company and various present and former officers and directors,
including Forbes I.J. Alexander, Scott D. Brown, Laurence S. Grafstein, Mel S.
Lavitt, Chris Lewis, Timothy Main, Mark T. Mondello, William D. Morean,
Lawrence J. Murphy, Frank A. Newman, Steven A. Raymund, Thomas A. Sansone and
Kathleen Walters on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs comprised of
persons that purchased shares of the Company between Sept. 19, 2001 and June
21, 2006.

The complaint asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as under
Section 20(a) of that Act.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had engaged in a scheme to
fraudulently backdate the grant dates of options for various senior officers
and directors, causing the Company’s financial statements to understate
management compensation and overstate net earnings, thereby inflating the
Company’s stock price.

In addition, the complaint alleged that the Company’s proxy statements falsely
stated that the Company had adhered to its option grant policy of granting
options at the closing price of the Company’s shares on the trading date
immediately prior to the date of the grant.

A second putative class action, containing virtually identical legal claims
and allegations of fact, captioned, “Steven M. Noe v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., et
al., No., 8:06-cv-01883,” was filed on Oct. 12, 2006.

The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and on Jan. 18,
2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern
California and Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiffs
in the action.

On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is purported to be brought
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company’s publicly traded
securities between Sept. 19, 2001 and Dec. 21, 2006, and names the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, including Forbes I.J. Alexander,
Scott D. Brown, Wesley B. Edwards, Chris A. Lewis, Mark T. Mondello, Robert L.
Paver and Ronald J. Rapp, as well as certain of the Company’s Directors, Mel
S. Lavitt, William D. Morean, Frank A. Newman, Laurence S. Grafstein, Steven
A. Raymund, Lawrence J. Murphy, Kathleen A. Walters and Thomas A. Sansone, as
defendants.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b),
20(a), and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act and the rules
promulgated thereunder.

It contained allegations of fact and legal claims similar to the original
putative class actions and, in addition, alleged that the defendants failed to
timely disclose the facts and circumstances that led the Company, on June 12,
2006, to announce that it was lowering its prior guidance for net earnings for
the third quarter of fiscal year 2006.

On April 30, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint asserting claims substantially similar to the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint it replaced but adding additional allegations relating to the
restatement of earnings previously announced in connection with the correction
of errors in the calculation of compensation expense for certain stock option
grants.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint on June 29, 2007, according to the company’s July 6, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarterly period ended May 31, 2007.

The suit is “Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc. et
al., Case No. 8:06-cv-01716-SDM-EAJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge Steven D. Merryday with referral to
Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William E. Hoese
         Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
         1101 Market St., Suite 2400
         Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
         Phone: 215/238-1700
         E-mail: whoese@kohnswift.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Chapman, Esq.
         Holland & Knight, LLP
         100 N. Tampa St. – Ste. 4100
         PO Box 1288
         Tampa, FL 33601-1288
         Phone: 813/227-8500
         Fax: 813/229-0134
         E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com


JIFFY LUBE: Settles Lawsuit Over “Illegal” Environmental Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jiffy Lube in Seattle, Wash. is sending out refunds and discounts to some
customers who were unnecessarily charged a fee for disposing the company’s
excess oil, reports say.

The compensation was for the settlement of a class action brought by attorney
Mike Hunsinger, who filed suit against a group of local franchisees on behalf
of Dave Stephan from Edmonds.

Mr. Stephan claimed the company’s $2 to $3 environmental fee amounted to a
type of government surcharge.  In reality, oil change facilities are not
required to charge a fee by any federal, state or local government agency.
His lawsuit alleges the franchise owner improperly charged the fees, and
improperly retained and sold the used oil for profit.

The proposed settlement includes Jiffy Lube customers who paid an
Environmental Service and/or Shop fee to the 46 Jiffy Lube stores Thompson
owned, between Nov. 1, 2001, and April 27, of 2006.

Customers who had a Jiffy Lube Signature Service oil change during that period
will get post cards explaining how to get a refund.  The card offers $5 off a
Jiffy Lube oil change.  Customers have until August 31 to get a refund.  They
must have a receipt to collect.  There are 400,000 potential customers in the
class, according to King 5 News.

The settlement is subject a judge's approval after a hearing in September.
The franchise owner has set aside $350,000 to settle up, according to Carwash
Online.

Jiffy Lube denies any wrongdoing.


JK HARRIS: Faces N.J. Suit Over Unlawful Credit Repair Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Joseph A. Mullaney, III of the Law Offices of Dimitrios Kolovos filed,
on July 3, a class action against John K. Harris, operator of JK Harris
Financial Recovery Systems and JK Harris & Co. over alleged unlawful credit
repair practices, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Karen Tragesser brings this suit pursuant to the Credit Repair
Organizations Act (CROA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1679h, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and
28 U.S.C. Section 1337; in personam jurisdiction exists under N.J. Ct. R.
4:4-4.; and venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b).

She accuses Mr. Harris of allegedly misrepresenting himself as “one of the few
persons in the country to have a 99.99% credit deletion history.”

According to Ms. Tragesser, Mr. Harris also claimed to be “one of the nation’s
dual attorney and CPA,” and that his company was “the largest debt negotiator
in the world.”

She further claims Mr. Harris makes a slew of other unsubstantiated and
misleading statements to get his hands on debtors’ money.

Ms. Tragesser demands that judgment be entered against the defendants for
actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, costs, reasonable
attorney’s fees, and other relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is “Tragesser v. JK Harris Financial Recovery Systems, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-03081-RBK-JS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Robert B. Kugler with referral to Judge
Joel Schneider.

Representing plantiffs is:

          Joseph A. Mullaney, III
          Law Offices of Dimitrios Kolovos
          701 White Horse Road, Suite 3
          Voorhees, NJ 08043
          Phone: (856) 784-0101
          Fax: 856-784-5558
          E-mail: jam@pennjerseylawyers.com


KAPLAN INC: Cal. Court Certifies Lawsuit Against Maric College
--------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Superior Judge Rolf M. Treu ruled that a lawsuit filed by a group
of students against Maric College, owned by Kaplan Inc., can proceed as a
class action.

The suit alleges that the school was not truthful when it told students
enrolling in its Radiologic Technologist training program that upon graduation
they would be able to sit for a national certification exam offered by the
American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT). In fact, the school's
program was not accredited and the students were unable to sit for the ARRT
when they graduated.

"Maric advertised its program as one which would make graduates eligible to
take an exam and receive the ARRT certificate. But the students couldn't sit
for the exam, because Maric was not, in fact, accredited," commented John N.
Quisenberry, an attorney representing the plaintiff class.

"These students are hardworking adults, many of whom made a personal sacrifice
in pursuing an expensive course of technical instruction at Maric College for
18 months," said Heather M. McKeon with The Quisenberry Law Firm. "Most
hospitals in California require that radiologic technologists be ARRT
certified as a condition of employment. In addition, these students were
unable to work outside of California as radiologic technologists."

Many students who go through this program look to continue furthering their
careers by obtaining additional certificates, such as an MRI certificate,
which they are unable to do without the ARRT certification. Henry G.
Weinstein, also representing the plaintiffs, noted, "These students paid about
$20,000 to Maric College for the program. Many are still paying off their
student loans. They did not receive the value of what they bargained for when
they enrolled."

The students brought their lawsuit under provisions of the California
Education Code known as the Maxine Waters Act, a consumer protection statute
which prohibits vocational schools such as Maric College from making untrue
statements to students about the school's accreditation and the programs it
offers.

Although this statute has expired, consumer groups are working on a
replacement act that would serve the same purpose as the Maxine Waters Act.
This case, which demonstrates the harm an educational institution can inflict
on its students through misleading or untrue statements, is a good example of
why such acts are important and necessary.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          John N. Quisenberry
          Heather M. McKeon
          The Quisenberry Law Firm
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-785-7966


MICROSOFT CORP: Iowa Legal Aid Gets $1M in Antitrust Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. presented a $1 million check to the Iowa Legal Aid
organization as part of a settlement of an antitrust class action filed
against the company in Iowa, KCCI.com reports.

The $179.95 million settlement was reached on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased certain Microsoft software, or a computer on which Microsoft
products were installed for use in Iowa.  A Polk County District Court has
granted preliminary approval to the settlement (Class Action Reporter, May 25,
2007).

Plaintiffs claim that Microsoft violated Iowa antitrust laws. Because of this,
the lawsuit claims that consumers and businesses paid more for Microsoft
Software.  Microsoft denies the claims and says it developed and sold high
quality software products at fair and reasonable prices.

The class includes all individuals and businesses that purchased a license for
Microsoft software for use in Iowa from someone other than Microsoft between
May 18, 1994, and June 30, 2006.  
The class also includes Iowa State and its local governments that purchased a
license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa from someone other than
Microsoft between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2006.

Microsoft has agreed to provide benefits totaling more than $179 million to
the class.  Class members are entitled to receive:

     - $16 for each copy of Windows or MS-DOS;
     - $25 for each copy of Microsoft Excel;
     - $29 for each copy of Microsoft Office; and
     - $10 for each copy of Microsoft Word, Works and Home
       Essential software.

Payment will be in the form of cash or vouchers that can be used towards the
purchase of computers, peripheral computer hardware, and software from any
manufacturer, not just Microsoft.

Half of any funds that are not claimed will be provided as vouchers for
hardware, software and technology services to Iowa public schools.  One
hundred percent of the volume license vouchers claimed but not redeemed will
also be provided to Iowa public schools.

Lead plaintiffs in the suit are Joe Comes of Riley Paint Inc., an Iowa
Corporation, Skeffington's Formal Wear of Iowa Inc., and Patricia Anne Larsen.

The case is "Joe Comes, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No.
CL82311" filed in Iowa District for Polk County.

Deadline for mailing of claims is December 14, 2007 or 30 days after the court
grants final approval of the settlement, whichever comes later.  

Claims may also be mailed to this address:

          Settlement Claims Administrator
          Microsoft - Iowa Settlement
          P.O. Box 128
          Minneapolis, MN 55440-0128

Objections to the settlement must be mailed and received by the court no later
than July 30, 2007.  Objections may also be mailed to the class and defense
counsels or to the court:

          Clerk of Court
          Attn: CL82311
          Polk County Courthouse
          500 Mulberry Street
          Des Moines, IA 55487

Fairness hearing and the hearing for final approval of settlement are
scheduled at 9:00 a.m. on August 31, 2007, at the Polk County Courthouse.

For more information regarding the class action settlement and the legal
rights of class members, including how to make a claim and to make a claim
online, visit
http://www.IowaMicrosoftCase.com  

Plaintiffs' lawyer information:
     
          Roxanne B. Conlin
          Roxanne B. Conlin and Associates, P.C.
          319 7th Street, Suite 600
          Des Moines, Iowa 50309-3826
          Phone: 515-283-1111
          Fax: 515-282-0477
          Web Site: http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com  

Representing the defendants is:

          David B. Tulchin, Esq.
          Sullivan and Cromwell LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2498
          Phone: (212) 558-4000
          Fax: (212) 558-3588
          Web Site: http://www.sullcrom.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Dismissal of "Windows Vista” Suit in the Offing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington set a trial
date of Oct. 28, 2008 for a suit accusing Microsoft Corp. of misleading
customers by unfairly labeling machines only capable of running Windows Vista
Home Basic as "Windows Vista Capable," Matt Mondok of ARS Technica reports.

Although the trial date is more than a year away, a resolution in Microsoft's
favor may occur within the next month, according to Mr. Mondok.  Judge Marsha
Pechman said earlier in the month that she still may consider dismissing the
case.  Otherwise, a decision as to whether or not the case will move forward
as a class action could come by September, according to the report.

                        Case Background

Dianne L. Kelley filed the suit on March 29 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.  Her legal representative in the case is the
law firm of Gordon Murray Tilden LLP.

Prior to the availability of Vista, Microsoft launched a marketing campaign
that allowed PC makers to place a sticker on computers alerting potential
buyers that they could upgrade to Vista when it became available.

Generally, Microsoft defines a PC as "Windows Vista Capable" when it uses "at
least" an 800MHz processor, 512 megabytes of RAM, and DirectX 9 compatible
graphics card.

However, according to the suit, "a large number" of those PCs were only
capable of running the Home Basic version of Vista, which lacks many of the
features, such as media center, and enhanced graphics (an "Aero" graphical
user interface with flip 3D and thumbnails), which Microsoft advertises as
included in Vista.

The suit adds that the PCs could not run or poorly run the next edition, "Home
Premium," the least expensive version of Vista that includes most of the
heavily advertised features.

It was reported that when Microsoft later offered buyers of "Windows Vista
Capable" computers free or reduced-price upgrades to Vista, the company
offered Home Basic to many customers.

Despite making the information on the differences widely available on its site
and through partners, suit accused the company of engaging in "bait and
switch" by assuring consumers they were purchasing "Vista Capable" machines
when, in fact, they could only obtain a stripped-down operating system lacking
the functionality and features that the company advertised as "Vista."

Additionally, the suit claims that Bill Gates contributed to the deception by
saying on NBC's Today Show, PC users could upgrade to Windows Vista for just
$100.   

It states, "In fact, one can only 'upgrade' to Home Basic for that price,
which Mr. Gates and Microsoft know is a product that lacks the features
marketed by Microsoft as being Vista."

The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-MJP," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge
Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          E-mail: office@gmtlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Xbox 360’s Hardware
------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint has been filed in Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) against
Microsoft alleging the company’s Xbox 360 game console causes “destructive
scratches” to game discs, according to the Miami Herald.

The suit was filed on behalf of Jorge Brouwer, a Broward County resident who
bought the product sometime last year.

Jeffrey M. Ostrow, the lawyer who brought the suit, said the laser that reads
the game discs ruin games.  The plaintiff wants Microsoft to pay not only the
expense of fixing the problem but also for individual games ruined due to the
error.

To date, Microsoft has refused to replace or provide monetary compensation for
the damaged games.

Plaintiff’s counsel:

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          The Hodkin Kopelowitz Ostrow Firm, P.A. (THKO)
          350 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 980
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100 or (877) 525-4100
          Fax: (954) 525-4300
          Web site: http://www.accidentinjured.com


NAVARRE CORP: Settles Securities Fraud Litigation in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------
Navarre Corp. reached an agreement to settle a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against it and certain of its officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Under the terms of the pending settlement, a fund will be created to pay
claims of class members and the fees of plaintiffs' attorneys. This fund will
be created with amounts paid primarily by the Company's insurance carrier and
without any contribution by the Company or the individual defendants.
Accordingly, the settlement will not have an impact on the Company's earnings
or cash balances.

The Company as well as the individual defendants have steadfastly maintained
that the claims raised in the class action litigation were without merit and
have vigorously contested those claims. As part of the settlement, the Company
and other defendants continue to deny any liability or wrongdoing.

"We have agreed to settle this lawsuit so that we may put this matter behind
us and continue to focus Navarre's energies and resources on the continued
accomplishment of its business objectives," said Ryan Urness, Navarre's
General Counsel. "We have fought these allegations for over two years, and we
were fully prepared to take this matter to a trial on the merits. Although we
believe we would have prevailed, this settlement provides the Company with a
sensible opportunity to avoid the significant distraction that could otherwise
result from this litigation."

This settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions,
including the negotiation and execution of a final stipulation of settlement
and approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

In addition, the Company announced today that no appeals were taken in
connection with the dismissal in May 2007 by the U.S. District Court of
several related shareholder derivative cases. Those derivative cases were
dismissed with prejudice, meaning that they cannot be filed again.

                         Case Background

Two groups filed lead plaintiff motions for the consolidated class action
litigation against Navarre Corp., which were initially commenced in June 2005.  

The complaints allege that these accounting irregularities benefited company
insiders including the individual defendants. It further alleged that the
company failed to properly recognize executive deferred compensation and
improperly recognized a deferred tax benefit as income.  

Plaintiffs sought compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly sustained as
a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs, counsel fees and experts’ fees.   

The actions are identified as:  

      -- "AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case
         No. 05-1151 (PAM/RLE);"  

      -- "Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-01211   
         (MJD/JGL);" and  

      -- "Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-  
         1260 (DWF/JSM)."

By memorandum opinion and order dated Dec. 12, 2005, the court appointed, as
Lead Plaintiff:

     * "The Pension Group," comprised of the Operating Engineers
       Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund; and

     * Ms. Grace W. Lai.

The court also appointed, as lead counsel:

     * the Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield law firm
       as liaison counsel, and

     * the Lerach, Coughlin law firm.  

In addition, the court also ordered that the cases be consolidated under the
caption, "In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation," and further ordered that
a consolidated amended complaint be filed.

The consolidated suit is "In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
0:05-cv-01151-PAM-RLE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota under Judge Paul A. Magnuson with referral to Judge Raymond L. Erickson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Laura M. Andracchio, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W Broadway Ste 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-338-3829 or 619-231-1058 or 619-338-3858
         E-mail: lauraa@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants is:

         David A. Davenport, Esq.
         Winthrop & Weinstine, PA
         225 S. 6th St., Ste. 3500,
         Mpls, MN 55402-4629
         Phone: 612-604-6716
         Fax: 612-604-6816
         E-mail: ddavenport@winthrop.com


NEW YORK: Strip Search Suit Against Clinton County Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Norman A. Mordue granted class-action status to a suit
filed against Clinton County by a local woman, claiming she was illegally
strip-searched, Lois Clermont of the PressRepublican.com reports.

The suit was filed by Phyllis Mitchell in 2006.  She claimed she was illegally
strip-searched at Clinton County Jail in March 2003 when she was being
admitted on misdemeanor charges of abandonment of animals and failure to
provide proper food and drink to animals.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York against Sheriff David Favro, Undersheriff Jerry Maggy and Maj. Michael
Smith, the jail administrator.  It seeks a judgment of at least $3 million.

The class-action certification would allow other people charged with
misdemeanors, violations and infractions who were strip-searched at the County
Jail to join the action.

Judge Mordue ruled that “persons charged with a misdemeanor and remanded to a
local correctional facility ... have a right to be free of a strip search
absent reasonable suspicion that they are carrying contraband or weapon.”

The classes certified are:

     (1) E Class A: People who were brought in on misdemeanors
         or more minor crimes who were strip-searched from Feb.  
         28, 2003, to Oct. 24, 2003.  These people will be the
         subject of a directed-verdict motion.

     (2) E Class B: People who were brought in on misdemeanors
         or more minor crimes who were strip-searched from Oct.
         24, 2003, up until the jail stopped doing blanket strip
         searches.  These people will have liability determined
         by jury trial.

The suit is "Mitchell v. The County of Clinton et al., Case No.
8:06-cv-00254-NAM-DRH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Nothern
District of New York under Judge Norman A. Mordue with referral to Judge David
R. Homer.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Elmer R. Keach, III, Esq.
          Office of Elmer R. Keach, III
          1040 Riverfront Center
          P.O. Box 70
          Amsterdam, NY 12010
          Phone: 518-434-1718
          Fax: 518-770-1558
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com

Representing the defendant is:

          Gregg T. Johnson, Esq.
          Girvin, Ferlazzo Law Firm
          20 Corporate Woods Boulevard
          2nd Floor Albany, NY 12211-2350
          Phone: 518-462-0300
          Fax: 518-462-5037
          E-mail: gtj@girvinlaw.com


NUTRAMERICA CORP: Calif. Court Approves Trimspa Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court preliminarily approved a proposed
settlement in the matter, “Belkis LaRosa v. Nutramerica Corp., et al., Case
No. BC 309427.”

Consumers who purchased TRIMSPA X32 dietary supplement pills from April 1,
2003 through October 31, 2006, may benefit from the settlement.  

Under terms of the proposed settlement, class members who submit a timely and
valid claim form will receive a cash payment, a free bottle of multivitamins,
and a transferable discount coupon for each bottle of TRIMSPA X32 purchased
during the class period.

The proposed settlement, which is subject to a final Fairness Hearing, would
resolve allegations that statements made in the labeling and advertising for
TRIMSPA X32 during the class period were false and misleading; allegations
which the defendants deny any associated liability or wrongdoing.

Deadline to file for objection and exclusion is on Aug. 2, 2007.  Deadline to
file claims is on Aug. 31, 2007.

The court will hold the fairness at 11:00 a.m. on August 21, 2007 at the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central Civil West
Courthouse, 14th Floor, Department 309, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los
Angeles, California 90005, before the Honorable Judge Anthony J. Mohr.

                         Case Background

The suit was filed against Nutramerica Corp., Trimspa Corp., Goen Technologies
Corp., and Alex Goen.

In the suit, plaintiff alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements in their labeling and advertising of TrimSpa 32.

                Summary of Settlement Benefits

For each bottle of TrimSpa X32 purchased in the U.S. for personal use and not
for resale during the period April 1, 2003 through Oct. 31, 2006, the
Settlement will provide all of the following benefits:

      -- A Settlement Check: $1.00 for each bottle of TrimSpa
         X32 purchased during the Class Period;

      -- One (1) Free Bottle of Winfuel multivitamin or MultiSpa
         Men’s or MultiSpa Women’s multivitamin, at Defendant's
         discretion, for each bottle of TrimSpa X32 purchased
         during the Class Period;

      -- A $5.00 Coupon for each bottle of TrimSpa X32 purchased
         during the Class Period.  Each coupon can be redeemed
         for a discount on any 90-count TrimSpa product.

For more details, contact:

         TrimSpa Settlement Administrator
         P.O. Box 6175
         Novato, CA 94948-6175
         Phone: 1-888-889-5841
         Web site: http://www.trimspasettlement.com


ORACLE CORP: Cal. Court Rejects $9M Settlement of Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge William Alsup rejected a $9 million settlement entered
between Oracle Corp. and employees who complained they were not paid for
overtime work, Bloomberg News reports.

The court said the settlement was to the benefit of the company and is unfair
to employees.  The suit was filed Oct. 6 by three sales consultants.  The
plaintiffs accuse Oracle of misclassifying workers as exempt from overtime.

"Oracle is trying to use a California court to erase the workers' rights in 35
states and under 150 different local laws," the judge said in his ruling.

He said the settlement does not provide adequate notification to hundreds of
Oracle's U.S. hourly workers, blocks future claims by those who weren't
contacted and provides non-California workers lower compensation.

Judge Alsup ordered the case to proceed toward certification of a group, or
class action.  Oracle may be forced to pay $52.7 million if it loses at trial,
Judge Alsup said, citing estimates by lawyers in the case.

The settlement could benefit up to 1,500 sales workers.

The suit is “Kakani et al. v. Oracle Corp., Case No. 3:06-cv-06493-WHA,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
William H. Alsup.

Representing the plaintiff is

          Todd Schneider, Esq.
          Schneider & Wallace
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, California 94104
          Phone: (415) 421-7100
          Toll Free: (800) 689-0024
          Fax: (415) 421-7105
          TTY: (415) 421-1655
          E-mail:  info@schneiderwallace.com


ORACLE CORP: Nov. 26 Trial Scheduled for Calif. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 26, 2007 trial is slated for a purported securities class action filed
against Oracle Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Initially, stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the company and its chief
executive officer on and after March 9, 2001.

Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed plaintiffs’
consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a revised second amended
complaint.  The last dismissal was with prejudice.

On September 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The revised second amended complaint named its chief executive officer, its
then chief financial officer (who currently is chairman of the company’s board
of directors) and a former executive vice president as defendants.

This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of our stock during the
period from Dec. 14, 2000 through March 1, 2001.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements
about our actual and expected financial performance and the performance of
certain of the company’s applications products, while certain individual
defendants were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws.

Plaintiffs further alleged that certain individual defendants sold Oracle
stock while in possession of material non-public information.  They are also
alleging that the defendants engaged in accounting violations.

The suit seeks unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs,
and equitable and injunctive relief.

Currently, the parties are conducting discovery.  The court has set a trial
date of Nov. 26, 2007, according to the company’s June 29, 2007 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2007.  

The suit is "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-0988,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Martin J. Jenkins with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
         Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
         1438 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94102
         Phone: 415-896-1000
         Fax: 415-896-2249
         E-mail: jennie@libertylawoffice.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Dorian Daley, Esq.
         500 Oracle Parkway
         Redwood City, CA 94065
         Phone: (650) 506-5200
         Fax: (650) 506-7114


PFIZER INC: Lawyers Fee Award in Celebrex, Bextra Suit Erroneous
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 7th Circuit said the lower court erroneously awarded attorneys fees in a
suit against Pfizer Inc. over its Celebrex and Bextra drugs, according to
CourtHouse News Service.

A district court remanded the suit and awarded plaintiffs $23,000 in attorney
fees in the case that accuses the company of misrepresenting the hazards of
the drugs and of charging customers more than their fair market value.  The
district court stated in its ruling that the Class Action Fairness Act only
applies to lawsuits filed on or after the date enactment.

According to the CourtHouse News report, Pfizer had an objectively reasonable
basis to seek removal, so the district court erroneously awarded attorney
fees. As a result, the court need not consider whether Pfizer’s attempt to
invoke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction was also reasonable.

The suit was filed by Ricky Lott, Gerald Sumner, Sandy Becker and Mike
Baldwin.  Plaintiffs’ counsels are:

          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Aaron Zigler, Esq.
          Korein Tillery LLC
          10 Executive Woods Court
          Belleville, Illinois 62226

Defendant’s counsel is:

          Robert Shultz, Esq.
          Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Professional
          Corporation
          Suite 100, Mark Twain Plaza II, 103 West Vandalia  
          Street, P.O. Box 467
          Edwardsville, Illinois 62025
          Phone: 618-656-4646
          Telecopier: 618-656-7940


QUELLOS GROUP: Faces N.C. Collective Suit Over Tax Advisory
-----------------------------------------------------------
The court hasn't yet ruled on whether to certify as class action a suit filed
against Quellos Group in North Carolina over its tax-advisory practice, The
Seattle Times reports.  In the 1990s, the practice allegedly helped construct,
market and execute several tax shelters that were later disallowed by the
Internal Revenue Service.

The suit was filed in September by 22 individuals and one company.  It accuses
various Quellos entities and PricewaterhouseCoopers of fraud and
misrepresentation.  Quellos and PricewaterhouseCoopers have until July 16 to
formally answer the complaint, according to the report.

The lawsuit accuses the companies of teaming up to promote a series of
investments called a "contingent deferred swap" in the late 1990s and early
2000s that were allegedly disallowed by the IRS.


TEMPLE-INLAND: Judge Certifies Suit Over Untimely Reconveyance
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Superior Court judge granted class-action status to a case accusing
Temple-Inland Mortgage Corp. of Austin, Texas of failing to timely reconvey
home loans, according to LawyersandSettlements.com.

Superior Court Judge Stephen J. Sundvold of Orange County, Calif. certified
the case “Soriano v. Temple-Inland Mortgage Corp.” on July 6.

The lead plaintiff in the case used to be a customer of Temple-Inland Mortgage
Corp.  He claims his title was not properly reconveyed by the company after
his loan was refinanced, violating California Civil Code Section 2941.

The statute stipulates that lenders must timely reconvey title to homeowners’
properties after loans are paid in full.  In addition, the statute requires a
$300 to $500 penalty each time it is violated.

According to the plaintiffs’ attorney Robert Brava-Partain, thousands of home
owners in California have been affected by the mortgage company’s unlawful
practices.  

The judge has scheduled a trial for August 20, 2007.

Plaintiffs’ counsel:

          Robert M. Brava-Partain, Esq.
          Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Goldman & Menzies, P.C.
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 950
          Los Angeles, California 90025-7106
          Telephone: 310-207-3233
          Facsimile: 310-820-7444
          Web Site: http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Court Mulls Dismissal of Katrina-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi has ye to
rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a suit accusing the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) and several oil companies of helping increase Hurricane
Katrina's destructive force.

In April 2006, 14 residents of Mississippi allegedly injured by Hurricane
Katrina added TVA as a defendant to a purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

In general, plaintiffs sued seven large oil companies and an oil company trade
association, three large chemical companies and a chemical trade association,
and 31 large companies involved in the mining and/or burning of coal,
including TVA and other utilities.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' greenhouse gas emissions
contributed to global warming and were a proximate and direct cause of
Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force.

They are seeking monetary damages among other relief.

TVA has moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that TVA’s operation of its
coal-fired plants is not subject to tort liability due to the discretionary
function doctrine.

The company reported no development in the case at its July 6, 2007 Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Sept. 30, 2006

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H.  
Walker.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         F. Gerald Maples, Esq.
         Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq.
         F. Gerald Maples, PA
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504/569-8732
         E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
                 mmayberry@geraldmaples.com

         Randall Allan Smith, Esq.
         Stephen M. Wiles, Esq.
         Smith & Fawer
         201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
         New Orleans, LA 70170
         Phone: 504/525-2200
         Fax: 504/525-2205
         E-mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net
                 smwiles@smithfawer.com

              - and –

         Carlos A. Zelaya, Esq.
         Maples & Kirwan, LLC
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504-569-8732
         Fax: 504/525-6932


UNITED STATES: Skilled Workers Denied Green Cards Sue in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC filed on July 6 a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of its
clients and all those like them, against:

     -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
     -- the Department of State,
     -- Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff,
     -- the Department of Homeland Security,
     -- U.S. Department of State and the and U.S. Citizenship
        and Immigration Services (USCIS), and
     -- Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer of USCIS

for announcing that they would refuse to accept employer-sponsored green card
applications on behalf of the skilled workers.

In the shadow of the debate about comprehensive immigration reform tens of
thousands of skilled employment based immigrants awaiting their opportunity to
legally apply for green cards have been unfairly denied the opportunity due to
potential deliberate miscommunication -- and an attempt to collect higher
filing fees -- from the USCIS, the agency that processes visa and citizenship
requests.

On June 12, the State Department announced in its monthly Visa Bulletin that
beginning July 2 and for at least the entire month of July, all skilled
workers seeking employer-sponsored green cards would be eligible to apply.

However, on July 2, the State Department announced that they were breaking
with 30 years of tradition and issued an update claiming that no more green
cards were available because "the sudden backlog reduction efforts by
Citizenship and Immigration Services offices during the past month."

USCIS followed and said that as a result they were going to reject the green
card applications of anyone who applied relying on the July Bulletin. This
meant that the thousands of immigrants who followed the government's
instructions and obtained the correct paperwork actually had no chance to
receive a green card.

The suit seeks a ruling that would keep applications filed in accordance with
the original July Visa Bulletin from being rejected.

"These are legal immigrants who have followed all the rules," explained Ira
Azulay, CEO of the firm. "They are productive members of our society and
deserve to be treated fairly by our federal government. The State Department
and USCIS acted against their own rules and 30 years of historical practice
when they updated the Visa Bulletin and reneged on their historical
obligations. They need to be held accountable for their actions and do right
by these people. Acting any other way sends the horrible message that
following the rules is worthless."

The representative plaintiff in the case is Chicagoan Gabriela Ptasinska, a
native of Poland who is lawfully present in the United States on a
non-immigrant visa, working as a land planner with Manhard Consulting, Ltd.
Given the Bulletin, Ptasinska and thousands of legal immigrants across the
country worked to obtain the necessary documentation for their chance to
receive a green card only to have it snatched away on July.

"I am a law-abiding, hardworking member of American society and have worked
relentlessly to lawfully become a permanent resident of America," said Ms.
Ptasinska. "Now I feel like the rug has been pulled out from under me. I
held-up my end of the bargain by doing everything the government told me to
do, but USCIS did not keep their word."

Azulay Horn & Seiden is the first firm to act proactively and file a complaint.

The suit is “Ptasinska v. United States Department of State et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-03795,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, under Judge Charles P. Kocoras.

Representing defendants is:

          AUSA
          United States Attorney's Office (NDIL)
          219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 353-5300
          E-mail: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Judd Azulay
          Sara M. Collins
          Roland C Lara
          Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312)832-9200
          Fax: (312)832-9212
          E-mail: scollins@ahslaw.com or rlara@ahslaw.com


WACKENHUT CORP: Miss. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Wackenhut Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 27 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiffs:

        -- Aaron L. Jackson           -- Adam C. Townsend
        -- Alphonse Malone            -- Angelia Armstrong
        -- Arthur Brandon             -- Athen Wells, Jr.
        -- Barbara Ann Demby          -- Beyonka N. Jackson
        -- Byron Knox                 -- Calvin Richardson
        -- Cardell Felton             -- Carl Hall
        -- Carl W. Jackson            -- Carsethia Calvin
        -- Cassandra Johnson          -- Cassandra Sucharski
        -- Charles Walker             -- Charles E. Johnson, Jr.
        -- Charlie Reed               -- Chester Wright
        -- Clarence Robinson          -- Coretta L. McDonald
        -- Cornelious Davis           -- Daron M. Wright
        -- Darryl Johnson             -- David B. Cobb
        -- David Perry                -- DeJovon L. Coleman
        -- Dennis J. Demby            -- Derrick D. Smith
        -- Donald Tyler               -- Earnest L. Tarleton
        -- Edward Wells               -- Emico D. Grandberry
        -- Eric V. Martin             -- Felicia C. Holland
        -- Felton Berry               -- Floyd Ashmore
        -- Frank M. Washington        -- Frederick Hunter
        -- Harold E. Spencer, Jr.     -- Jack W. Tillotson, Jr.
        -- James L. Thomas            -- James W. Washington
        -- Je'tonga D. White          -- Jeffery M. Hill
        -- Jerry Hampton              -- Jimmy Wiley
        -- Joey D. Jackson            -- Johnny E. Brinkley
        -- Joshua P. Opoka            -- Keithric L. Woods
        -- Kela Pickett               -- Kerry Pree
        -- Kristen Anderson           -- Lakendra Knight
        -- Larry D. Ward              -- Latunia Littleton
        -- Laura Earls                -- Levi Harris, Jr.
        -- Lewis C. Claiborne, Jr.    -- Lorenzo Davis
        -- Luther Bolin               -- Manuel Bonds
        -- Marcus D. Parker           -- Mariam M. Jones
        -- Marie B. Walker            -- Martha Lee Cruel
        -- Maurino Williams           -- Melvin Turner
        -- Michael T. Bonds           -- Michael S. Emerle
        -- Michael D. Gordon          -- Michael Malone
        -- Milton Coleman             -- Napoleon Felton
        -- Natasha Shaw               -- Nate S. Shaw
        -- Patricia Mallory           -- Patricia Shorter
        -- Paulette L. McClure        -- Phillip M. Roshing
        -- Randolph Washington        -- Raynor Jones
        -- Rebecca James              -- Richard Curtis
        -- Richard D. Washington      -- Robert N. McDaniel
        -- Ron Quinn                  -- Roselyn Turner
        -- Shayla L. Shannon          -- Shermon Patterson
        -- Sylvester Warner           -- Terrian Earl Bailey
        -- Traniecy Robertson         -- Travis Rankin
        -- Vickie Herron              -- Wanda Anderson
        -- William W. Hash            -- William Brandon, III
        -- Yvette R. Buck             -- Katherine Clark

allege denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The suit is “Anderson et al v. Wackenhut Corp., Case No.
5:07-cv-00137-DCB-JMR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi under Judge David C. Bramlette III, with referral to
Judge John M. Roper.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Michael L. Mullin
          Michael L. Mullin, Attorney
          4650 General DeGaulle Dr., Suite 100
          New Orleans, LA 70131
          Phone: (504) 393-1811


WILLIAMS COMMS: Okla. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen Friot of the U.S. District Court for the Northern  
District of Oklahoma dismissed the class action "In Re Williams Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-72-SPF-FHM," Tulsa World reports.

The judge ruled in favor of the defendants, which included the former
directors and officers of Tulsa-based Williams Communications, auditing
company Ernst & Young LLP and Williams Cos. Inc., and dismissed the suit.

The suit, originally filed in 2002, defines the class as all persons who
purchased any of the following securities of Williams Communications Group,
Inc. between July 24, 2000 and April 22, 2002, inclusive:

      -- WCG common stock;
   
      -- WCG 10.700% Senior Notes issued Sept. 6, 1999 and due  
         Sept. 1, 2007;
   
      -- WCG 10.875% Senior Notes issued Sept. 6, 1999 and due  
         Sept. 1, 2009;
   
      -- WCG 11.700% Senior Notes issued Aug. 8, 2000 and due  
         Aug. 1, 2008; or
   
      -- WCG 11.875% Senior Notes issued Aug. 8, 2000 and due  
         Aug. 1, 2010.

In the WCG subclass litigation, plaintiffs are former shareholders of WCG who
assert that certain defendants, including:

     --former officers and directors of WCG;  

     -- The Williams Companies, Inc. (WMB), WCG's former parent  
        company;  

     -- Keith E. Bailey, WMB's former chairman and chief  
        executive officer; and  

     -- Ernst & Young, LLP, WMB's and WCG's outside auditor,  

during the period between July 24, 2000 and April 22, 2002, made false and/or
misleading statements regarding, among other subjects, WCG's reported
financial condition and prospects for future success.  WCG itself is not a
named defendant in the action because it filed for bankruptcy protection on
April 22, 2002.

Specifically, plaintiffs assert that certain former executive officers of WCG:

     * Howard E. Janzen,  
     * Scott E. Schubert,  
     * Ken Kinnear,  
     * Matthew W. Bross,  
     * Bob F. McCoy,  
     * Howard S. Kalika,  
     * John C. Bumgarner, Jr., and  
     * Frank M. Semple), as well as  
     * WMB,  
     * Bailey and  
     * E&Y,  

violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and further, that all of the defendants except
for E&Y violated Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Defendants vigorously deny all of the plaintiffs' allegations of wrongdoing
and deny they have any liability whatsoever.

The parties disagree on both liability and damages in this case and the court
has not made any finding on either liability or damages.  The issues on which
the parties disagree include:

      -- whether statements made or facts allegedly omitted were  
         false, material or otherwise actionable under the  
         federal securities laws;  

      -- the amount by which WCG securities were allegedly   
         artificially inflated (if at all) during the class  
         period;  

      -- the extent to which external factors, such as general  
         market conditions, including the overall decline of the  
         stock market in general and the telecommunications  
         sector in particular before and during the Class  
         Period, affected the price of WCG securities at various  
         times during the class period;  

      -- the extent (if any) to which the various matters that  
         plaintiffs allege were materially false or misleading  
         affected the price of WCG securities at various times
         during the class period; and  

      -- the extent (if any) to which the various allegedly  
         adverse material facts that plaintiffs allege were
         omitted affected the trading price of WCG securities at  
         various times during the Class Period.

Plaintiffs in this lawsuit represent a class of persons and entities who
purchased WCG securities during the period between July 24, 2000 and April 22,
2002, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.  

On behalf of the class, they sought to establish liability against the
defendants and resulting damages.  

Plaintiff Alex Meruelo was appointed by the court to serve as the Lead
Plaintiff and the law firms of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman and Yourman,
Alexander & Parekh have been appointed to serve as co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs
then filed a consolidated amended complaint.

On June 12, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and certified the
action to proceed as a class action.

James L. Kincaid of the Tulsa firm of Crowe & Dunlevy -- representing Howard
Janzen, Scott Schubert, Ken Kinnear, Matthew Bross and others -- said the
resolution of the suit was an overdue relief.

"We're overjoyed," the attorney said. "It's a true justification of the
defendants' position."

For more details, contact:
  
          Joshua H. Vinik, Esq.
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: (212) 594-5300

          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP
          3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90066
          Phone: (310) 725-6400

          - and -

          In re Williams Securities Litigation
          c/o Analytics, Inc., Notice Administrator
          P.O. Box 2006
          Chanhassen, MN 55317-2006
          Phone: 1-866-535-1630


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MIDWAY GAMES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that a class
action has been commenced 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.  Midway develops and
publishes software for major video game systems.

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.  

Members of the class described above must move the court within 60 days for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more information about the suit, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP          
          Phone: (800) 449-4900 or (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com
          Web Site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/midwaygames/  


                            *********


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  * * *