CAR_Public/070716.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 16, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 138

                            Headlines


AG EDWARDS: Faces Financial Consultants’ Suits in Several States
A&K ENERGY: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denied Overtime Compensation
ALPHARMA INC: Faces N.J. Suit Claiming Non-payment of Overtime
AMERICAN CLASSIC: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violation
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: NAACP Files Suit Over Racial Discrimination

A&P: N.Y. Supreme Court Certifies Suit Over Denied Overtime Pay
AUDIOVOX CORP: Still Faces Litigation Over Cell Phone Radiation
GATEHOUSE MANAGEMENT: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denied Overtime Wages
GENESYS ASSOCIATES: Tex. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Wages
HELEN OF TROY: Discovery Underway in Tex. Securities Litigation

HUNTSMAN CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Del. Over Basell Deal
IWI HOLDING: Plaintiffs’ Counsel Yet to Respond to “Rosen” Deal
JOE HENDERSON: Ala. Suit Alleges Fair Credit Reporting Violation
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Multiple Flash Memory Antitrust Suits
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Cal. Court Junks Part of DRAM Antitrust Suit

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Cal. Court Junks Complaint Over Lexar Merger
NATIONAL BEEF: Defendants in “Schumacher” Case Appeal Judgments
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit Now Final
POLY IMPLANTS: Dec. 6 Status Conference Set for “Schnebel” Case
PROSPERITY RESOURCES: Recalls Dried Sweet Potato with Sulfites

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Upholds $15M Lawyers’ Fee
REGAL 150: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
REPSOL YPF: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
SIRVA INC: Oct. 2 Hearing Set for $53.5M Securities Suit Deal
SOLECTRON CORP: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Flextronics Merger

SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: July 2008 Trial Set for Suit Over Disposal
TOYS ‘R’ US: Faces $400M Suit in N.Y. Over “Biased” Inspections
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: 1st Circuit Hears Arguments in RICO Suit
UMPC ST. MARGARET: Disabled Workers Sue for “Wrongful” Dismissal
UNITED STATES: San Diego Doctors’ Suit Alleges $2.B Underpayment

UNITED STATES: Women CIA Spies Complain of Discrimination
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Disabled Workers Sue Over Dismissals
UPMC SHADYSIDE: Disabled Workers Sue for “Wrongful” Dismissal
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Lawsuit Still Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Exit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MIDWAY GAMES: Shalov Stone Bonner Files Ill. Securities Lawsuit


                            *********


AG EDWARDS: Faces Financial Consultants’ Suits in Several States
----------------------------------------------------------------
A.G. Edwards, Inc. faces separate lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Courts
for the Northern District of New York, the Southern District of Ohio, the
District of New Jersey, the District of Oregon, the Western District of
Pennsylvania, and the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in
Pennsylvania.

Each of the suits seeks to be a class action on behalf of defined groups of
financial consultants or employees being trained to be financial consultants
during specified periods that vary in each lawsuit.

Each of the suits seeks, among other relief, overtime pay for the purported
class members and two of the suits seek reimbursement of certain amounts
deducted from commissions allegedly owed the employees or paid by the
employees, according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May
31, 2007.

Missouri-based A.G. Edwards, Inc. -- http://www.agedwards.com/-
- is a financial services holding company, which through its directly owned
and indirectly owned subsidiaries provide securities and commodities
brokerage, investment banking, trust, asset management, financial and
retirement planning, insurance products, and other related financial services
to individual, corporate, governmental, municipal and institutional clients
through retail branch distribution systems.


A&K ENERGY: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denied Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A&K Energy Conservation, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July
11 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Thomas E. Niederhelman alleges denial of overtime
compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Niederhelman v. A&K Energy Conservation, Inc. et al., Case No.
8:07-cv-01212-JSM-TBM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, under Judge James S. Moody, Jr. with referral to Judge
Thomas B. McCoun, III.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Carlos V. Leach
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Phone: 407/420-1414
          Fax: 407/423-7928
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


ALPHARMA INC: Faces N.J. Suit Claiming Non-payment of Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey
against Fort Lee-based pharmaceutical company Alpharma, Inc.

The suit alleges that more than 200 pharmaceutical sales representatives were
denied overtime pay, in violation of state and federal labor laws.

The complaint alleges that the company's pharmaceutical representatives have
been paid for only forty hours a week even though they often work in excess
of 55 hours per week.  The complaint, which alleges violations of both state
and federal wage and hour laws claims that in addition to not paying workers’
overtime the company violated federal record keeping requirements.

The complaint also alleges that Alpharma Inc. is presently active in more
than 60 countries.  Alpharma has a growing branded pharmaceutical franchise
in the chronic pain market.  In addition, Alpharma is among the world's
leading producers of several specialty pharmaceutical-grade bulk antibiotics,
and is internationally recognized as a leading provider of pharmaceutical
products for poultry and livestock.  The company trades on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol ALO.

For more information about the suit, contact:

          Reuben Guttman, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP                       
          1920 L Street, N.W. Suite 400
          Washington D.C. 20036
          Phone: 202-783-6091
          Fax: 202-350-5908
          
               -  or  -
          
          Robert Morgan, Esq.
          Morgan Carlo Downs & Everton
          Executive Plaza IV, Suite 100
          11350 McCormick Rd.
          Hunt Valley, MD 21031
          Phone: 410-584-2800 x102
          Fax: 410-584-2020
          E-mail: RCMorgan@morgancarlo.com


AMERICAN CLASSIC: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Classic Cleaners LLC and L.D. Enterprises of South Florida, Inc. are
facing a class-action complaint filed July 10 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Marie Chery alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The suit is “Chery v. L.D. Enterprises of South Florida, Inc. et al., Case
No. 0:07-cv-60970-WPD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Keith Michael Stern
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com


AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: NAACP Files Suit Over Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed
a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California accusing:

          -- Ameriquest Mortgage Co.,
          -- Fremont Investment & Loan,
          -- Option One,
          -- WMC Mortgage Corp.,
          -- Citigroup Inc.,
          -- BNC MOrtgage Inc.,
          -- Accredited Home Lenders,
          -- Bear Sterns Residential Mortgage Corp. d/b/a
             Encore Credit,
          -- First Franklin Financial Corp.
          -- HSBC Finance Corp.,
          -- Washington Mutual, Inc.,

of discriminating against black homebuyers, who are 30 percent more likely to
be charged higher rates for subprime mortgages than white applicants “with
the same qualifications,” the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The NAACP accuses the lending industry, including 11 other named defendants,
of “institutionalized, systematic racism,” in violation of fair housing,
civil rights and credit laws. It claims mortgage lenders were put on notice
of this racist behavior in 2004, but the problem has become even worse since
then.

NAACP brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and (b)(2) on behalf of itself and a class consisting of members of the NAACP.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether there are disparities between the interest rate
         imposed upon African-American mortgages and those
         imposed on Caucasian mortgagees of equal credit risk
         and creditworthiness;

     (b) whether such disparities are statistically significant
         enough to demonstrate a causal connection between the
         race of the mortgagee and the interest rate charged;

     (c) whether such disparities violate the Fair Housing Act,
         Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Civil Rights Act; and

     (d) whether these policies and practices have proximately
         caused damages and injury to plaintiff and the class
         entitling them to injunctive and declaratory relief,
         and the measure of that relief.

Plaintiff prays for entry of judgment as follows:

     -- certifying the putative class and appointing plaintiff
        and its counsel to represent the class;

     -- entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and the putative
        class against defendants;

     -- declaring that defendants' practices, as described,
        violate the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Opportunity Act,
        and the Civil Rights Act;

     -- enjoining the complained of conduct and ordering
        defendants to modify their lending practices to comport
        with the law.  Plaintiff and the class request that the
        court exercise its equitable jurisdiction and order
        defendants. their agents, subsidiaries, and affiliated
        companies to cease and desist from the unlawful conduct
        described above, and hereafter modify their lending
        practices to conform with statutory requirements.  
        Plaintiff and the class further request that the court
        order defendants their agents, subsidiaries, and
        affiliated companies to establish and publish
        informative materials and programs to fully inform
        African-Americans about their rights to equal treatment
        with respect to home loans and subprime loans.  
        Plaintiff further requests that the court retain
        jurisdiction on an ongoing basis in order to ensure and,
        where necessary, enforce compliance.

     -- awarding attorney fees and costs to plaintiff and
        members of the class as allowed by law; and

     -- for such other relief as the court deems just under the
        circumstances.

The suit is "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et
al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company et al., Case No. SACV07-0794 AG," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Brian S. Kabatek
          Richard L. Kellner
          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, California 90017
          Phone: (213) 217-5000
          Fax: (213) 217-5010
          E-mail: bsk@bklawyers.com

          - and -

          Austin Tighe
          Vic Feazell
          Feazell & Tighe, LLP
          6300 Bridgepoint Parkway
          Bridgepoint 1, Suite 220
          Austin, Texas 78730
          Phone: (512) 372-8100
          Fax: (512) 372-8140


A&P: N.Y. Supreme Court Certifies Suit Over Denied Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Supreme Court Judge Herman Cahn entered an Order on July 3,
2007 granting class certification to claims by Benedetto LaMarca, Delores
Guiddy, and Steven Tedesco that The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., The
Food Emporium, and Waldbaum's, all part of parent company A&P, systematically
denied overtime pay to their hourly employees.

The class action originated on June 24, 1998, when former employees of A&P
brought a lawsuit in New York State Court alleging that A&P illegally allowed
off-the-clock work throughout its stores, and even overtly manipulated
employees' time records.

Plaintiffs asked the Court to grant the case class-action status, which
allows them to represent a class of full-time, hourly-paid employees at A&P
who worked overtime for which they were not paid.

Plaintiffs offered evidence that A&P systematically deprived employees of pay
for hours worked in excess of 40 a week, and that company officials were well
aware of the continuing violations. For example, plaintiffs presented the
court with internal company audits conducted by trained auditors that found
that stores deleted employees' hours to avoid having to pay for overtime, and
with store-wide memos confirming rampant time-keeping problems.

In the Class Certification Order, the court ordered that plaintiffs could
represent a class of all full-time hourly employees of defendants who are
employed in defendants' supermarket stores located in the State of New York,
for the period from June 24, 1998 through the date of the commencement of the
action, whom defendants required or permitted to perform work in excess of 40
hours per week without being paid overtime wages.

The court also appointed Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Outten
& Golden LLP to serve as Class Counsel.

The judge’s recent order means that the case will continue on behalf of
thousands of cashiers, clerks, bakers, deli, and other hourly-paid workers in
New York State who are challenging A&P's alleged failure to pay overtime
since 1998.

"I am trying to seek a fair deal for myself and other workers -you should get
paid for all the hours that you work," explained Steven Tedesco, plaintiff
and court-appointed class representative. Mr. Tedesco worked in a variety of
positions, including as a clerk and night manager, at Waldbaum's stores in
Long Island. Plaintiff and court-appointed class representative Benedetto
LaMarca, who worked in the produce department at A&P stores in Westchester,
said, "I worked hard for 12 years at A&P. It wasn't right that they didn't
pay me overtime I'd earned." A third Plaintiff and Court-appointed Class
Representative, Dolores Guiddy, worked in the bakery department at the
Mamaroneck Food Emporium store.

"We are pleased that the Court recognized that the workers' claims against
A&P for willfully forcing employees to work 'off-the-clock' to reduce payroll
expenditures are suitable for review on a class-wide basis," said Rachel
Geman, a partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein.

Explained Piper Hoffman, a partner at Outten & Golden LLP, "New York law
prohibits companies, like A&P, from making employees work over 40 hours a
week without receiving overtime pay. We intend to prove at trial that A&P's
wage and hour practices towards low-paid employees were unfair and illegal."

A&P operates on or about 140 stores in New York state, with a strong presence
in the five boroughs, Long Island, and Westchester.

For more details, contact:

          Rachel Geman
          Lieff, Cabraser
          Phone: 212-355-9500
          Website: http://www.lieffcabraser.com

          - and -

          Tarik Fouad Ajami
          Outten & Golden
          Phone: 212-245-1000


AUDIOVOX CORP: Still Faces Litigation Over Cell Phone Radiation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Audiovox Corp., and other suppliers, manufacturers and distributors of hand-
held wireless telephones face certain consolidated class actions that were
transferred to a Multi-District Litigation Panel of the U.S. District Court
of the District of Maryland.

The suits are generally alleging damages relating to exposure to radio
frequency radiation from hand-held wireless telephones.  

Audiovox Corp. -- http://www.audiovox.com/-- is an international distributor  
and value added service provider in the accessory, mobile and consumer
electronics industries.


GATEHOUSE MANAGEMENT: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denied Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gatehouse Management, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 11
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Miguel Garcia Alvarez alleges denial of overtime
compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Alvarez v. Gatehouse Management, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-
01213-SDM-MAP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, under Judge Steven D. Merryday, with referral to Judge Mark A. Pizzo.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Carlos V. Leach
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Phone: 407/420-1414
          Fax: 407/423-7928
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


GENESYS ASSOCIATES: Tex. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genesys Associates LLC, Atos Origin Inc., Atos Origin IT Services Inc. are
facing a class-action complaint filed July 11 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Michael Moran and Michael J. Richey allege denial of
overtime compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The suit is “Richey et al v. Genesys Associates LLC et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
01231,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
under Judge David C. Godbey.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          James N. Francis
          Law Office of James N Francis
          Sherry Lane Place
          5956 Sherry Lane, Suite 800
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Phone: 214/368-1765
          Fax: 214/368-3974
          E-mail: jimnfrancis@aol.com

          - and -

          Robert E. Goodman, Jr.
          Law Office of Robert Goodman
          5956 Sherry Lane, Suite 800
          Dallas, TX 75225-6597
          Phone: 214/368-1765
          Fax: 214/368-3974
          E-mail: rgdallas@flash.net


HELEN OF TROY: Discovery Underway in Tex. Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in a securities fraud class action filed against Helen
of Troy, Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Class actions have been filed and consolidated into one action against the
company, Gerald J. Rubin, the company's chairman of the board, president and
chief executive officer, and Thomas J. Benson, the company's chief financial
officer, on behalf of purchasers of publicly traded securities of the company.

The company understands that the plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10
(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, on the grounds that the company and the two officers
engaged in a scheme to defraud the company's shareholders through the
issuance of positive earnings guidance intended to artificially inflate the
company's share price so that Mr. Rubin could sell almost 400,000 of the
company's common shares at an inflated price.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, interest, fees, costs, an
accounting of the insider trading proceeds, and injunctive relief, including
an accounting of and the imposition of a constructive trust and/or asset
freeze on the defendants' insider trading proceeds.  The class period stated
in the complaint was Oct. 12, 2004 through Oct. 10, 2005.

The lawsuit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas and is still in the preliminary stages.  

On May 15, 2006 the company filed a motion to dismiss the aforementioned
lawsuit citing numerous deficiencies with the claims it asserted.  On May 24,
2007, the motion to dismiss was denied.  

The discovery phase of the litigation is now underway, according to the
company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Helen of Troy, Ltd., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-
cv-00431-DB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas under Judge David Briones.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ariel Acevedo, Esq.
         Tower One, 5200 Town Center Circle, #600
         Boca Raton, FL 33486
         Phone: (561) 361-5000

              - and -

         Daniel R. Malone, Esq.
         The Malone Law Firm
         300 East Main, #1100
         El Paso, TX 79901
         Phone: (915) 533-5000
         Fax: 915/533-5009

Representing the defendants are:

         Nicholas Even, Esq.
         Noel M. Hensley, Esq.
         Haynes Boone, LLP
         901 Main St., Ste. 3100
         Dallas, TX 75202-3789
         Phone: (214) 651-5000
         Fax: 214/651-5940 and 214/200-0470
         E-mail: nick.even@haynesboone.com

              - and -

         H. Christopher Mott, Esq.
         Krafsur Gordon Mott, PC
         4695 North Mesa Street
         El Paso, TX 79912-6103
         Phone: (915) 545-1133
         Fax: 915/545-4433
         E-mail: cmott@gordonmottpc.com


HUNTSMAN CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Del. Over Basell Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Huntsman Corp. shareholder filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in
Chancery Court in Delaware over a pending takeover by Basell, arm of
Netherland-based Access Industries Holdings, The Salt Lake Tribune’s Steven
Oberbeck reports.

Investor Isaac Augenstein brought the suit after the company’s acquisition
announcement in June 26.  

Mr. Augenstein alleges Huntsman’s directors and officers “failed to conduct a
sufficient process to investigate and obtain maximum value for the company's
shares.”

He wants the court to block the $9.6 billion sale “until a proper” process is
accomplished to obtain the company’s maximum worth.

Just days after Huntsman and Basell’s agreement, another company, Hexion
Specialty Chemicals, made a higher bid.  The company confirmed Hexion offered
a better deal than Access Industries.  But it’s not ready to refuse Basell’s
offer of $25.25 per share.  

Huntsman, claiming the lawsuit is “without merit,” said it can still get out
of Hunstman-Basell deal by paying $200 million breakup fee, which Hexion
offered to pay half.


IWI HOLDING: Plaintiffs’ Counsel Yet to Respond to “Rosen” Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs’ counsel in a purported class action against IWI Holding, Ltd. in
connection with the company’s initial public offering on Dec. 16, 1994, and
in connection with the dissemination of financial data thereafter, have yet
to respond to a settlement proposed in the matter.

In September 1996, Robert J. Rosen filed a class action in the Supreme Court
in the state of New York alleging claims of fraudulent misrepresentations by
IWI Holding Ltd. and some company officers, accountants and lawyers in
connection with the company’s initial public offering.

The plaintiff claims damages on behalf of the class in excess of $11,000,000,
which allegedly resulted from a decline of the market value of the company’s
common stock after the initial public offering.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the claim for a
significantly lesser amount, which was accrued as of December 31, 1999.

The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and the Company may
decline to proceed with the agreement if a significant number of class
members “opt out” of the settlement.

As of April 30, 2007 there has been no response from counsel for the class
action or from the lead counsel, according to the company’s July 11, 2007
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

IWI Holding Ltd. is engaged in the design, assembly, merchandising and
wholesale distribution of jewelry.  The company provides a range of
fashionable jewelry targeted at consumers who seek fine jewelry at moderate
prices for everyday wear.  These customers are likely to purchase jewelry at
frequent intervals as fashions and styles change.  The majority of the
Company's United States sales are under the trade name, World Pacific
Jewelry.  Its customers are principally retail establishments with jewelry
departments and mass media marketers.


JOE HENDERSON: Ala. Suit Alleges Fair Credit Reporting Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Henderson Auto Sales, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed July
12 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Named plaintiff Angela Edwards alleges Joe Henderson illegally pulls up a
credit report from customers’ driver’s licenses without their consent, after
demanding the licenses for test drives.

Defendant's actions violate the FCRA in that the defendant impermissibly
accessed and used plaintiff's credit report as prohibited by 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681(b)(f), and because it was negligent under Section 1681(n) and or
willful under Section 1681(o).

Plaintiff seeks damages as follows:

     (a) punitive damages, statutory damages, attorney's fees,
         costs incurred and court costs; and

     (b) any and all other damages which are reasonable,
         premises considered.

Plaintiff prays that after all due proceedings are had, there be judgment in
favor of plaintiff and against defendant as follows:

     -- that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff and against
        defendant;

     -- damages sustained by plaintiff, including, statutory and
        punitive damages;

     -- attorneys' fees, costs incurred, court costs and other
        assessments proper by law, together with legal interest
        thereon from date of judicial demand until paid; and

     -- for all such additional, general and equitable relief as
        may be necessary and proper in the premises.

The suit is “Edwards v. Joe Henderson Auto Sales, L.L.C., Case No. 7:07-cv-
01299-SLB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama under Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          R. Brent Irby
          McCallum Hoagland Cook & Irby LLC
          2062 Columbiana Road
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
          Phone: 205-824-7767
          Fax: 205-824-7768
          E-mail: birby@mhcilaw.com

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Multiple Flash Memory Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. was named as a defendant in a number of purported
antitrust class actions in relation to the sale of flash memory, according to
the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period May 31, 2007.

In the first calendar half of 2007, at least 22 purported class actions were
filed against the company and other suppliers of flash memory products in
various federal and state courts on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers
alleging price-fixing in violation of federal and state antitrust laws,
violations of state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating
to the sale and pricing of Flash memory products during the period from Jan.
1, 1999 through the date the various cases were filed.

The complaints seek treble monetary damages sustained by purported class
members, in addition to restitution, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of  
advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its worldwide operations, Micron
manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other
semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Cal. Court Junks Part of DRAM Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. still faces antitrust class actions in the U.S. and
in Canada over Dynamic Random Access Memory products, according to the
company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period May 31, 2007.

On June 17, 2002, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California seeking information
regarding an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice into possible antitrust violations in the DRAM industry.  

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ DRAM investigation, at least 68
purported class actions have been filed against the Company and other DRAM
suppliers in various federal and state courts in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico
on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging price-fixing in violation of
federal and state antitrust laws, violations of state unfair competition law,
and/or unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products
during the period from April 1999 through at least June 2002.  

The complaints seek treble damages sustained by purported class members, in
addition to restitution, costs, and attorneys’ fees.  

On June 1, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  Plaintiffs have subsequently
sought leave from the Court to file an amended complaint.

Three purported class action lawsuits also have been filed in Canada, on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging violations of the Canadian
Competition Act.  The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to
those asserted in the cases filed in the U.S.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of  
advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its worldwide operations, Micron
manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other
semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Cal. Court Junks Complaint Over Lexar Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, Alameda County granted a
motion by Micron Technology, Inc. and Lexar Media, Inc. to dismiss an amended
class action complaint in relation to a merger agreement.

Filed starting March 2006, the complaints allege that the defendants
breached, or aided and abetted the breach of, fiduciary duties owed to Lexar
shareholders by, among other things, engaging in self-dealing, failing to
engage in efforts to obtain the highest price reasonably available, and
failing to properly value Lexar in a merger transaction.   

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing, or an
order of rescission reversing, the merger, compensatory damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs.   

On May 19, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction
seeking to block the merger.  On May 31, 2006, the Court denied the motion.  
An amended consolidated complaint was filed on Oct. 10, 2006.  

On June 14, 2007, the Court granted Lexar's and the Company's motions to
dismiss the amended complaint but allowed plaintiffs leave to file a further
amended complaint, according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period May
31, 2007.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of  
advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its worldwide operations, Micron
manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other
semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


NATIONAL BEEF: Defendants in “Schumacher” Case Appeal Judgments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the class action, “Schumacher v. Tyson Foods, et al.,” are
appealing certain judgments made in the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eight Circuit, according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended April 26, 2007.

On July 1, 2002, a lawsuit was filed against:

     -- Farmland National Beef Packing Co., L.P. (FNBPC or the
        predecessor to National Beef Packing Co., LLC (NBP)),

     -- ConAgra Beef Co.,

     -- Tyson Foods, Inc., and

     -- Excel Corp.

in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, seeking
certification of a class of all persons who sold cattle to the defendants for
cash, or on a basis affected by the cash price for cattle, during the period
from April 2, 2001 through May 11, 2001 and for some period up to two weeks
thereafter.

Three named plaintiffs on behalf of a putative nationwide class filed the
case.  The complaint alleged that the defendants, in violation of the Packers
and Stockyards Act of 1921, knowingly used, without correction or disclosure,
incorrect and misleading boxed beef price information generated by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to purchase cattle offered for sale by the
plaintiffs at a price substantially lower than was justified by the actual
and correct price of boxed beef during this period. Plaintiffs also sought
recovery against all defendants under a theory of unjust enrichment.   

The case was certified as a class-action matter in June of 2004.
The plaintiffs claimed damages against FNBPC in the amount of approximately
$4.5 million plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and court costs.   
The claim is subject to reduction in an unknown amount by the number of class
members who have opted out of the class.  

Trial began March 31, 2006.  On April 13, 2006, the jury returned a verdict
in favor of FNBPC but not against the other defendants.  

The defendants found liable filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter
of law, which were denied.  The plaintiffs did not file a post-trial motion
seeking to set aside the jury's verdict for FNBPC.  

The court has not yet entered a final judgment or appealable order and, until
it does, the time for an appeal does not begin to run.

On April 13, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of FNBPC but against
the other defendants.  The court has not yet entered a final judgment or
appealable order as to FNBPC and, until it does, the time for plaintiffs to
file an appeal against FNBPC does not begin to run.  

However, the court did enter a final order granting judgments against the
other three defendants on the jury’s verdict and those defendants have filed
an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The suit is "Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-01027-
CBK," filed in the U.S. District Court of South Dakota under Judge Charles B.
Kornmann.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Elizabeth J. Anderson, Esq.
         David F. Herr, Esq.
         Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand
         3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. 7th St.
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
         Phone: (612) 672-8200
         Fax: (612) 672-8397

Representing the defendants are:

         William H. Baumgartner, Jr., Esq.
         Sidley Austin LLP
         One South Dearborn Street
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 853-7000
         Fax: (312) 853-7036
         E-mail: wbaumgartner@sidley.com

              - and -

         Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq.
         McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO
         1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700, First Natl. Tower
         Omaha, NE 68102-1627
         Phone: (402) 341-3070
         Fax: (402) 341-0216
         E-mail: pbrookhouser@mnmk.com


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit Now Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
A dismissal of an amended securities fraud class action filed against Parlux
Fragrances, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida has become final.
  
An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 8, 2006, consolidating five class
action complaints previously filed during August and
September 2006.

The class actions alleged the company made knowingly false statements about
its revenues and profitability beginning on Feb. 8, 2006.

It also contains allegations regarding the sale of company shares by certain
former company directors while allegedly in possession of material non-public
information.  On June 14, 2006, the company's board of directors received an
unsolicited letter from company chairman and chief executive, Mr. Ilia
Lekach, representing PF Acquisition of Florida LLC, pertaining to the
possible acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of the company at
a proposed price of $29.00
($14.50 after the Stock Split) per share in cash, representing a premium of
55% over the closing price of the company's common stock on June 13, 2006
(Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006).

The proposal was subject to financial and other contingencies, and was
referred to the Special Committee of Independent Directors of the Parlux
board of directors.

The amended complaint included the allegations in the class actions, as well
as new allegations that the company improperly recognized revenue on sales to
related parties during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2005 and failed to
comply with certain U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules
surrounding "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations".

On Feb. 14, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida entered an order granting the motion of the defendants, including the
company, to dismiss the amended complaint.  

The Court held that the allegations in the case failed to meet the pleading
requirements applicable to the case.  The dismissal was without prejudice to
the filing of another amended complaint by the plaintiffs, however, the
plaintiffs did not file another amended complaint within the time period set
by the Court.

As a result, the plaintiffs now are unable to file another amended complaint
and the Court’s Order of Dismissal is final, according to the company’s July
11, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Haugh v. Parlux Fragrances, et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-61250-PCH,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under
Judge Paul C. Huck.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Maya Susan Saxena, Esq.
         Joseph E. White, III
         Saxena White PA
         2424 N Federal Highway, Suite 257
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Phone: 561-394-3399
         Fax: 561-394-3382
         E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
                 jwhite@saxenawhite.com

Representing defendants is:

         Richard Eugene Brodsky, Esq.
         Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
         Wachovia Financial Ctr., 200 S. Biscayne Blvd.
         Miami, FL 33131-2398
         Phone: 305-577-7000
         Fax: 305-577-7001
         E-mail: rbrodsky@ssd.com


POLY IMPLANTS: Dec. 6 Status Conference Set for “Schnebel” Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 6, 2007 status conference is scheduled for the purported class action
against Poly Implants Protheses, S.A. (PIP), an acquisition of Heritage
Worldwide, Inc.

In November 2003, Jessica Fischer Schnebel and 15 other women filed a Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint against PIP, PIP/USA, Inc., and
III Acquisition Corp. d/b/a PIP.America in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  

The Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint contains counts
alleging product liability, breach of the implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and a contract claim alleging third-party
beneficiary status.

Unspecified monetary damages, exemplary damages and attorneys fees and costs
are sought.  Motions to dismiss filed by PIP and PIP.America remains pending
and discovery is underway.  The plaintiffs have not sought to date to certify
any putative class.

On June 7, 2006, PIP filed a motion to dismiss third amended consolidated
class action Complaint.  That motion remains pending.  

A Status conference is set for Dec. 6, 2007 at 11:00 a.m., according to the
Heritage Worldwide’s May 14, 2007 Form 10QSB with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period March 31, 2007.


PROSPERITY RESOURCES: Recalls Dried Sweet Potato with Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prosperity Resources Int'l Inc. of Irvington, N.J., is recalling Sun Kee
Brand Dried Sweet Potato because it may contain undeclared sulfites.  People
who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Sun Kee Brand Dried Sweet Potato is packed in uncoded 12oz
plastic packages sold in the U.S. East Coast areas.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department
of Agriculture and Markets Food inspectors and subsequent analysis of the
product by food laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared
sulfites in Sun Kee Brand Dried Sweet Potato in packages which did not
declare sulfites on the label.  The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites
per serving has been reported to elicit severe reaction in some asthmatics.  
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon
ingesting 10 milligrams or more sulfites.

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

Consumers who have purchased Sun Kee Brand Dried Potato should return it to
the place of purchase.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at
973-371-9688.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Upholds $15M Lawyers’ Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that lead lawyers for US West
retirees and shareholders were entitled to the $15 million they were paid
from a $50 million legal settlement with Qwest Communications International
Inc. in 2005, Denver Business Journal’s Greg Avery reports.

The appeals court maintained the Denver District Court’s initial decision,
saying the attorney’s fees were fair because they were working on
contingency.  Had they lost the case, they would not get any compensation.  
Plus, the court added, they must be duly compensated for work that benefited
nearly 763,000 other eligible claimants.

The class composed of retirees and shareholders filed the appeal over their
attorney’s fees, saying it was excessive by at least $5 million.

The class action suit stemmed from Qwest’s merger with US West in 2000.  The
merger voided $270 million in dividends that US West promised it would pay
investors before June 30, 2000. But the payout never took place.

Five years later, Qwest decided to settle with the investors and agreed to
put up a $50 million settlement fund.  From that amount, the lead lawyers for
the plaintiffs sought for and got court’s consent to take $15 million and an
addition $1.3 million in costs.

The legal team was headed by attorney Adele Brody.


REGAL 150: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regal 150 Cleaners is facing a class-action complaint filed July 11 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

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

The suit is “Yarnall v. Regal 150 Cleaners et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-01211-RAL-
TGW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
under Judge Richard A. Lazzara with referral to Judge Thomas G. Wilson.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Carlos V. Leach
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Phone: 407/420-1414
          Fax: 407/423-7928
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


REPSOL YPF: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Repsol YPF, S.A. faces a consolidated securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Following the announcement on Jan. 26, 2006 of the downward revision of
Repsol YPF’s proved oil and gas reserves by 1,254 million barrels of oil
equivalent, representing a 25% negative adjustment to proved reserves at Dec.
31, 2004, two putative class actions asserting claims under federal
securities laws were filed against Repsol YPF and certain executive officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 13, 2006, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to appoint
Jack Reynolds, Charles A. Kubo and John L. Brooks, III as Lead Plaintiffs.

The actions 06cv733 and 06cv1014 were consolidated on May 25, 2006 by oral
order.  The law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
and Schiffrin & Barroway LLP have been appointed lead counsel. On September
1, 2006, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed.

The original complaint charges Repsol and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
specifically by issuing misrepresentations concerning Repsol's proven
reserves.

Reserves are estimates of oil and natural gas a company has and expects to
pump, a crucial metric in gauging a company's growth prospect.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants allegedly failed to disclose the
following:

      -- that Repsol was materially overstating its proven
         reserves. Repsol has now admitted that it will
         downgrade its proven reserves by 25% and take an asset
         impairment charge of approximately EUR 50 million;

      -- that Repsol was experiencing increasing political
         pressure in Bolivia which will have an adverse effect
         on the Company's operations;

      -- that the Company was experiencing difficulties in its
         production of gas in Bolivia; and

      -- that contracts with Repsol's existing customers would
         likely not be extended due to complications in
         extracting gas from certain fields in Argentina.

The complaint further alleges that on or around Jan. 26, 2006, the Company
filed its Form 6-K with the SEC in which it announced that it was cutting its
oil and gas reserves estimate by 25% due mostly to problems that it had
experienced in Bolivia and Argentina.

The two actions have been consolidated, and the process is ongoing, according
to the company’s June 28, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Repsol YPF, S.A. (Repsol YPF) -- http://www.repsolypf.com-- is an integrated  
oil and gas company engaged in all aspects of the petroleum business,
including exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural
gas, transportation of petroleum products, liquefied petroleum gas and
natural gas, petroleum refining, petrochemical production and marketing of
petroleum products, petroleum derivatives, petrochemicals and natural gas.
Repsol YPF operates in over 30 countries.  In June 2006, the Company acquired
10% of West Siberian Resources Ltd., a Russian company engaging in gas supply
and logistics.  In March 2006, it acquired through Gas Natural SDG, S.A. (in
which the Company has 30.85% interest) 30.8% of Petroleum Oil & Gas Espana,
S.A., a company engaging in oil and gas exploration.


SIRVA INC: Oct. 2 Hearing Set for $53.5M Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois will hold on
Oct. 2, 2007 at 2:00 p.m., a fairness hearing for the $53.3 million
settlement of a securities class action filed against SIRVA, Inc. and certain
of its current and former officers and directors.

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of SIRVA through any public offering or on the open market
between Nov. 25, 2003 and Jan. 31, 2005, inclusive.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on Sept. 7, 2007.  Deadline
to file claims is on Dec. 3, 2007.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in the courtroom of the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman.

                          Case Background

Initially, two securities suits were filed in November 2004 against SIRVA,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors.  They are:

      -- "Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. SIRVA Inc., et al.,
         No.04-CV-7644," and

      -- "Hiatt v. SIRVA,Inc., et al., No.04-CV-7532."

Both complaints purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who acquired
the company's common stock between Nov. 25, 2003 and Nov. 9, 2004.  On Jan.
25, 2005, the plaintiff in "Hiatt" voluntarily dismissed his suit.  On March
29, 2005, the court appointed Central Laborers' Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff in the remaining case, and approved its choice of counsel, Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, as lead plaintiff's counsel.

On May 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a "corrected" complaint, retaining the same
class period, and alleging, among other things, that defendants had made
false and misleading statements in certain SEC filings, including the
prospectuses to the company's initial and secondary public offerings, and
press releases.

The statements subject to the complaint generally relate to the Company's
insurance claims reserves, European operations, and restatement accounts and
are said to constitute violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.

On Oct. 11, 2005, plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action
complaint, a corrected version of which was filed on Oct. 19, 2005.

The amended complaint adds ten new defendants, including an additional
director, the seven underwriters which participated in the initial and
secondary public offerings, the company's independent auditor and its
controlling shareholder.

It also extends the class period, purporting to be brought on behalf of all
those who acquired the Company's common stock between Nov. 25, 2003 and Jan.
31, 2005.

The amended complaint also contained allegations relating to the following
areas: the company's restatement of financial statements and accounting
errors for years 2000 through 2003 and the first nine months of 2004,
problems in the company's European operations, insurance reserves, financial
forecasting, and internal controls.

The statements subject to the amended complaint are alleged to violate
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
as well as Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.

On Jan. 3, 2006, the company and all other defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

On Sept. 22, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part that motion.  
It dismissed in full, without prejudice, the claim under Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act, as well as various allegations underlying the other
claims, and granted plaintiff 30 days to amend its complaint.

On Oct. 23, 2006, plaintiff filed its consolidated second amended class
action complaint in order to replead claims that the court dismissed without
prejudice.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the company and all other defendants filed their answer to
the second amended complaint.  On Nov. 15, 2006, the company and certain of
the other defendants moved in part to dismiss the second amended complaint.

The company reported at its May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing that it entered into
settlement discussions to settle the suit (Class Action Reporter, May 25,
2007).

Under the terms of the settlement, SIRVA's contribution to the settlement
will be its agreement to waive its right to reimbursement from its insurers
of approximately $5.6 million of legal fees and costs incurred by SIRVA in
connection with the litigation, almost all of which has been previously paid
by SIRVA (Class Action Reporter, June 25, 2007).

The suit is "Central Lab PenFd v. Sirva Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
07644," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Steven G. Schulman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: (212) 594-5300

Representing the company are:

         Tara Kocheran Charnes, Esq.
         Richard Bradshaw Kapnick, Esq.
         Matthew Brian Kilby, Esq.
         Catherine Rosen, Esq.
         Sidley Austin LLP
         One South Dearborn Street
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 853-7000
         E-mail: rkapnick@sidley.com
                 mkilby@sidley.com
                 crosen@sidley.com


SOLECTRON CORP: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Flextronics Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Solectron Corp. faces a purported class action in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara, seeking to enjoin the proposed
merger between the company and Flextronics International Ltd.

The suit was filed on June 4, 2007, alleging breach of fiduciary duty of the
directors of Solectron, according to the company’s July 11, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 1, 2007.

Solectron Corp. -- http://www.solectron.com-- provides electronics  
manufacturing and supply chain services to original equipment manufacturers
worldwide.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: July 2008 Trial Set for Suit Over Disposal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A July 2008 trial is scheduled for a purported class action against SS&C
Technologies, Inc. in connection with the definitive merger agreement that it
signed on July 28, 2005 to be acquired by a corporation affiliated with The
Carlyle Group.

Initially, two purported class actions were filed against the company, each
of its directors and, with respect to the first matter described below,
Sunshine Acquisition Corp., in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, in and for New Castle County.

The first lawsuit is “Paulena Partners, LLC v. SS&C Technologies, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 1525-N,” which was filed on July 28, 2005.

The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
all of our directors at the time of filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that:

      -- the merger will benefit company’s management at the
         expense of company’s public stockholders,

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         inadequate and does not represent the best price
         available in the marketplace for the company and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
         company’s stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
an injunction preventing the consummation of the merger (or rescinding the
merger if it is completed prior to the receipt of such relief), compensatory
and/or rescissory damages to the class and attorneys’ fees and expenses,
along with such other relief as the court might find just and proper.

The second lawsuit is “Stephen Landen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 1541-N,” which was filed Aug. 3, 2005. The complaint purports to
state claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all of our directors at the
time of filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that:

      -- the merger will benefit Mr. Stone and Carlyle at the
         expense of the company’s public stockholders;

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         unfair and that the process by which the merger was
         approved was unfair; and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the        
         company’s stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
an injunction preventing the consummation of the merger (or rescinding the
merger if it is completed prior to the receipt of such relief), compensatory
and/or rescissory damages to the class and costs and disbursements of the
lawsuit, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees, along with such other relief
as the court might find just and proper.

The two lawsuits were consolidated by order dated Aug. 31, 2005.  On Oct. 18,
2005, the parties to the consolidated lawsuit entered into a memorandum of
understanding, pursuant to which we agreed to make certain additional
disclosures to our stockholders in connection with their approval of the
merger.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties would
enter into a settlement agreement, which the parties executed on July 6,
2006.

The settlement agreement was subject to customary conditions, including court
approval following notice to the stockholders of SS&C.

The court held a hearing on Sept. 13, 2006, after which the court requested
supplemental briefing as to the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement.  Parties submitted such supplemental briefing on Sept. 27, 2006.

On Nov. 29, 2006, the court disapproved the proposed settlement. The parties
are currently in discovery, and the court has set a trial date for July 2008,
according to the company’s May 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

SS&C Technologies Holdings -- http://www.ssctech.com-- helps its clients buy  
low and sell high.  The company (which operates through its SS&C Technologies
subsidiary) designs software for managing financial portfolios, loans, real
estate equity, back-office processing, and securities trading, and it
provides consulting and outsourcing services.  SS&C's software handles
investment portfolio management, asset and liability management for
actuaries, property and casualty insurance company risk management, and trade
ordering and modeling.  Customers include asset managers, insurance
companies, banks, corporate treasuries, hedge funds, home offices, and
government agencies.


TOYS ‘R’ US: Faces $400M Suit in N.Y. Over “Biased” Inspections
---------------------------------------------------------------
A toy store chain based in Wayne, N.J. is facing a multimillion-dollar
discrimination lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Associated Press
reports.

The lawsuit seeking class-action status against Toys ‘R’ Us alleges the
company discriminates against black customers in a series of race-based
stops, searches and wrongful detentions.

It also alleges that black customers are required to have their sales
receipts inspected after purchasing their merchandise and even after leaving
the store while the whites are not subjected to the same biased inspection.

In addition, the suit claims the company has policies that subject blacks to
unjustified and unreasonable scrutiny, causing several black customers to be
assaulted, battered, seized and searched.  According to the suit, these
unlawful practices degrade, humiliate and cause grave harm to blacks.

Lead plaintiff Patricia Drayton purchased a birthday gift on July 10, 2006.  
She said a security guard stopped her while leaving a Toys 'R' Us store in
Bronx.  When she declined to show her receipt, the security guard called a
supervisor and made her wait for nearly 20 minutes.

When she was outside the store, a white man approached her saying he was not
asked to show his receipt while leaving the store and that he was angry at
how Ms. Drayton was treated.

The action, which seeks relief of 400 million and an injunction order,
intends to include all those who believe they were illegally or unnecessarily
searched or detained just because they’re black.

The company said in a statement that they do not tolerate discrimination of
any kind, calling the case nonsense and ridiculous.

Named plaintiffs are Patricia Drayton and Valerie Kirk.

The suit is “Drayton et al. v. Toy Us, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06315-
RMB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Richard M. Berman.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Emmanuel Roy, Esq.
          Law Office of Emmanuel Roy
          26 Court St., Suite 2302
          Brooklyn, NY 11242
          Phone: (718) 797-2553
          Fax: (718)-797-3994 (fax)
          E-mail: nylaw1@gmail.com


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: 1st Circuit Hears Arguments in RICO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal
against the dismissal of the class action, "Sanchez, et al. v. Triple-S
Management, et al."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 4, 2006, the Court issued an Opinion and Order awarding summary
judgment in favor of all the defendants, thereby dismissing the case.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.  The parties argued the case before the First Circuit on Feb.
6, 2007, which took the case under advisement and is expected to issue a
judgment within approximately 90 days of such date, according to Triple-S
Management Corp.’s May 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.  

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and –

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

Representing the company are:  

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


UMPC ST. MARGARET: Disabled Workers Sue for “Wrongful” Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center St.
Margaret accuses the school of firing and refusing to rehire employees
because of their disabilities, CoutHouse News Service reports.

The suit is “Walsh v. UMPC St. Margaret et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00804-TFM,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
under Judge Terrence F. McVerry.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Gregory G. Paul, Esq.
         Peirce Law Offices
         707 Grant Street
         2500 Gulf Tower
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219
         Phone: (412) 281-7229
         Fax: (412)281-4229
         E-mail: gregorygpaul@gmail.com


UNITED STATES: San Diego Doctors’ Suit Alleges $2.B Underpayment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is facing a suit claiming
that under its Medicare system, San Diego County doctors were underpaid,
Jessica Long of San Diego Business Journal reports.

The suit was filed June 4 in Northern District of California.  It is similar
to one filed June 15 against the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.  

According to the report, both suits seek to change the way Medicare decides
how much services provided under its 65 and older program should cost in a
particular geographic area.  The suit by doctors seeks additional pay for
doctors in higher-cost counties who say the value of their services has been
underestimated.

The suit was filed on behalf of doctors in seven counties.  It is seeking
nearly $2.5 billion for underpayments since 2001.


UNITED STATES: Women CIA Spies Complain of Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
A group of women who were former spies for the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency has filed a complaint alleging discrimination.

In June, a group of women who were former CIA officers until their clearances
were revoked, met at the office of Janine Brookner, a Washington lawyer and
former spy for 24 years, The Standard reported.  Ms. Brookner is now taking
on the U.S. government as the attorney for a sexual discrimination class
action against the CIA.

One of the complainants is Lora Griffith, the only former spy of the several
dozen involved in the class action, who is prepared to reveal her name.  She
spent 19 years in the CIA's Directorate of Operations serving in the Middle
East, South Asia and Europe.  She was terminated from service after admitting
a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer while on a mission at the
immediate aftermath of 9/11, according to the report.

The women complain that the CIA brings down harsher penalties to them than to
their men counterparts who entered into similar intimate relationships while
on missions.

Their complaint is pending at the federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.  Twenty-five have now joined the complaint, and attorneys expect
at least 50 to eventually sign on, according to David E. Kaplan of U.S. News
(April 22, 2007).


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Disabled Workers Sue Over Dismissals
--------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is accused of firing and refusing
to rehire employees because of their disabilities, CoutHouse News Service
reports.

The suit is “Chedwick v. UPMC, Case No. 2:07-cv-00806-TFM,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge Terrence
F. McVerry.

Representing the plaintiff Gary Chedwick is:

         Gregory G. Paul, Esq.
         Peirce Law Offices
         707 Grant Street
         2500 Gulf Tower
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219
         Phone: (412) 281-7229
         Fax: (412)281-4229
         E-mail: gregorygpaul@gmail.com


UPMC SHADYSIDE: Disabled Workers Sue for “Wrongful” Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against UPMC Shadyside accuses the school of firing and
refusing to rehire employees because of their disabilities, CoutHouse News
Service reports.

The suit is “Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00807-AJS,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
under Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

Representing the plaintiff Barbara Fowler is:

         Gregory G. Paul, Esq.
         Peirce Law Offices
         707 Grant Street
         2500 Gulf Tower
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219
         Phone: (412) 281-7229
         Fax: (412)281-4229
         E-mail: gregorygpaul@gmail.com


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Lawsuit Still Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Exit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., remains stayed pending the
conclusion of the company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.

In February 2004, several putative class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Company and
certain present and former executive officers alleging claims under the
federal securities laws.

In March and April 2004, three other putative class actions were filed in the
District Court against the Company and certain present and former executive
officers and employees of the Company alleging claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended related to the Company’s
Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan.

By separate court orders, both the securities laws claims and the ERISA
claims were consolidated and were to proceed as separate, single actions.  
The consolidated complaint has not yet been filed in either action.

As a result of the Company’s Chapter 11 filing, the automatic stay prevented
the plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits from proceeding against the
Company.

Any such claims against the Company were subordinated under the Plan pursuant
to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 510(b) and were treated in the same
manner as the Company’s existing shares, which were cancelled without any
distribution, and such claims were discharged as against the Company.  The
discharge injunction imposed by the Plan will protect the Company from the
assertion of these claims in the future.

As to the individual co-defendants, on May 10, 2005, the District Court
entered an order staying both lawsuits as to all parties and all issues in
light of the Company’s Chapter 11 filing.

Both lawsuits and the claims asserted against the individual co-defendants
remain pending, according to the company’s May 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period May
April 4, 2007.

The ERISA suit is "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No.
3:04-cv-00194-HES-MCR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge
Harvey E. Schlesinger.

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Ave., Suite 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212/682-1818

              - and -

         Emerson Poynter LLP
         2228 Cottondale Ln., Suite 100
         Little Rock, AR 72202-2037
         Phone: 501/907-2555

Representing the defendants in both litigation are:

         King & Spalding LLP
         191 Peachtree St., Suite 4900
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763
         Phone: 404/572-4600
       
              - and -

         Liles, Gavin, Costantino & Murphy
         225 Water St., Suite 1500
         Jacksonville, FL 32202
         Phone: 904/634-1100
         Fax: 904/634-1234

            
                  New Securities Fraud Cases


MIDWAY GAMES: Shalov Stone Bonner Files Ill. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP filed a securities fraud
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Midway Games Inc. during the period between August 4, 2005, and May 24,
2006, inclusive. The lawsuit is pending

According to the complaint, Midway and certain of its top executive officers
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants made a series of
misrepresentations and omissions about Midway's financial condition and
business prospects, including their failure to disclose that they were
disposing of their own Midway shares based on inside information that Sumner
Redstone -- a prominent investor whose large purchases of Midway stock were
driving the market price for shares in the company upward -- intended to
cease all further investment in Midway.

The complaint also alleges, among other things, that the defendants falsely
represented that Midway would perform in line with previously issued
guidance, despite their knowledge of planned layoffs and massive
restructuring charges, and that David F. Zucker, the company's President and
Chief Executive Officer, engaged in a pattern of illegal insider trading in
violation of the federal securities laws.

When this and other information about the true state of Midway's finances and
operations became public, the price of Midway securities declined
dramatically, causing Midway investors to collectively suffer millions of
dollars in losses.

For more information, contact:

          Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, New York 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          E-mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *