CAR_Public/070718.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 18, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 140

                          Headlines


ANDY WARHOL: Faces $20M Lawsuit for Defrauding Art Buyers
ARKANSAS: Alexander Faces Suit for Alleged Racial Profiling
AT&T MOBILITY: Rewards Card Holder Sues for Breach of Contract
BAYER CORP: Wis. High Court Allows Residents’ Suit Over Cipro
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuits in California

CHEVY CHASE: Wis. Court Suspends Suit Over TIL Act Violations
COPERNIC INC: $3M Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
DAVE & BUSTER: Faces Two Labor-Related Lawsuits in California
DENT FRESH: Recalls China-Made Toothpaste Containing DEG
ELMIRA BUSINESS: N.Y. Court Refuses to Certify Students’ Suit

EPICEPT CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Approve Merger Suit Settlement
FEDEX EXPRESS: Aug. 2007 Hearing Set for $53.5M Suit Settlement
GERBER PRODUCTS: Recalls Rice, Cereals Posing Choking Hazard
INDONESIA: Lawsuit Over February Flood Can Proceed, Court Rules
INTELLIGROUP INC: Discovery Yet to Begin in N.J. Securities Suit

INTELSAT LTD: Awaits D.C. Court’s Approval of ERISA Suit Deal
JDS UNIPHASE: Hearing on Bid to Junk Workers’ Suit Set July 26
JK HARRIS: $6M "Offer in Compromise" Suit Settlement Approved
NATIONAL EDUCATION: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Wash.
OHIO: Middletown Settles Suit Over Inmate Phone Call Recordings

PUBLISHERS BUSINESS: Accused of Scheming to Defraud Old People
SELECT MEDICAL: Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Discovery Phase
SLIPPERY ROCK: Fairness Hearing in Title IX Suit Set July 20
SOYO GROUP: Reaches Settlement for Rebates Litigation in Calif.
SPEAR & JACKSON: Court Approves Fla. Securities Suit Settlement

TAG-IT PACIFIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Cal. Suit
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
TIME WARNER: SEC Distributes $316M Fair Fund to Investors
TRAVEL AGENCIES: Cal. City Plans to File Suit Over Hotel Taxes
TV SHOWS: Suit Against "The Apprentice" Refiled in Cal. Court

TYCO INT'L: $3.2B Securities Suit Deal Gets Preliminary Approval
UNITED KINGDOM: $800M Suit Mulled Over VAT Refunds to Car Makers
WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Appeals Certification of “Cuesta v. Ford”
XETHANOL CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MIDWAY GAMES: Schiffrin Barroway Files Ill. Securities Lawsuit
MIDWAY GAMES: Vianale & Vianale Files Ill. Securities Fraud Suit

    
                            *********


ANDY WARHOL: Faces $20M Lawsuit for Defrauding Art Buyers
---------------------------------------------------------
U.S. film writer and producer Joe Simon-Whelan filed a $20 million class
action in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan against the Andy Warhol
Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc. and the Andy Warhol Art Authentication
Board, alleging 20 years of conspiracy to control the market for the artist's
work, reports say.

Mr. Simon-Whelan accused the foundation and the board of providing "a facade
of corporate credibility obscuring a deeply corrupt enterprise that enables
defendants to benefit from Warhol's art and reputation."

He filed the suit on behalf of himself and others he claims have been duped
by the foundation, which was set up after the pop artist's death 20 years
ago.  

Christine Kearney of Reuters reports that Mr. Simon-Whelan sued the artist's
foundation, estate and authentication board for refusing to validate his silk-
screen piece of an Andy Warhol self-portrait.

Mr. Simon-Whelan alleges the foundation force owners of each Warhol work to
sign contracts giving them a "perpetual veto right over its authenticity."  
He accused them of engaging in a two-decade scheme of fraud, collusion and
manipulation that caused them to twice deny the authenticity of his 1964 Andy
Warhol self-portrait even though it had been authenticated multiple times
before by the estate or its related entities.

As a result, anyone who buys a Warhol painting that has been authenticated by
the board risks having the authenticity revoked at any time, the lawsuit
states.

Mr. Simon-Whelan said they had adopted a policy of rejecting as many works as
possible to induce artificial scarcity in the market for Warhol's creations.  
He further claims the foundation controlled the Warhol art market by branding
real Warhol paintings fakes to raise the value of Warhol works the foundation
holds. The suit estimated the foundation had sold more than $150 million of
Warhol's artwork at artificially inflated prices.

"The authentication board is utilized to remove competing Warhol artwork from
the marketplace by falsely declaring it to be inauthentic, thereby raising
the value of the foundation's own holdings," the lawsuit said.

According to Ms. Kearney, K.C. Maurer -- the foundation's chief financial
officer -- said she could not comment on the lawsuit as they had not been
served, but said the foundation made grants to contemporary visual arts
organizations and had no role in authenticating works.

Calls to the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board were not returned, Ms.
Kearney said.


ARKANSAS: Alexander Faces Suit for Alleged Racial Profiling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic drivers ticketed for having rosaries on their mirrors or small flags
on their windows have sued Alexander town officials alleging racial
profiling, Jon Gambrell of The Associated Press reports.

Lawyer Reggie Koch, a former police officer, is seeking class-action status
for the case in federal court.  He filed the suit on behalf of six drivers on
June 13.  The case names police Chief Allen Spears, Officer Tommy Leath, the
towing company that confiscated cars for violations, Metro Towing & Recovery
LLC, and the city government.

Alexander Mayor Shirley Johnson thinks the suit is without merit, according
to the report.  She said of 166 tickets issued in June, only 24 were given to
Hispanics.

Named plaintiffs are Arnoldo Giron, Edvin Giron, Jose Gutierrez, Juan Carlos
Jauregui, Roberto Giron, and Ruber Duarte.

The suit is “Giron et al. v. Alexander Arkansas, City of et al., Case No.
4:07-cv-00568-GTE,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas under Judge G. Thomas Eisele.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         T. Scott Clevenger, Esq.
         Clevenger & Associates, P.L.L.C.
         One Union National Plaza
         124 West Capitol Avenue
         Suite 860
         Little Rock, AR 72201-3704
         Phone: (501) 376-9100
         E-mail: sclevenger@clevengerlawfirm.com

         Reggie Koch, Esq.
         Koch Law Firm
         2024 Arkansas Valley Drive
         Suite 707
         Little Rock, AR 72212
         Phone: 501-223-5310
         E-mail: reggie@reggiekoch.com

Representing defendants is:

         Geoffrey Thompson, Esq.
         Arkansas Municipal League
         Post Office Box 38
         North Little Rock, AR 72115-0038
         Phone: 501-374-3484
         E-mail: gthompson@arml.org


AT&T MOBILITY: Rewards Card Holder Sues for Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Mobility Corp., previously Cingular Wireless Corp., is facing a class-
action complaint filed July 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for breach of contract by giving a “Reward Card” to
Cingular customers.  The card was allegedly expired and was subject to
undisclosed restrictions.

Named plaintiff Marc Weinstein claims he entered into a contract with
defendant whereby defendant agreed to pay him a specific rebate in exchange
for his purchase of a cellular phone.

He further claims he properly performed pursuant to the parties’ agreement by
purchasing a cellular phone, completing the required forms and submitting the
required proof of purchase and other items.

He claims defendant has breached the contract in that it has tendered the
rebate in a form which made it difficult for him to receive the benefit of
the full value of the refund. Individuals receiving a Reward Card issued by
Visa as a rebate discovered that these reward cards could only be used at
limited locations, only those locations accepting Visa cards, and could not
be used for cash withdrawals, the complaint states.

More importantly, the Reward Cards contained an expiration date after which
customers would lose their rebate. Many cards (including Plaintiff’s) have
expired with balances remaining on them.

The Cardholder Terms and Conditions provided with the Reward Card states that
the Reward Card “may be canceled, repossessed or revoked at any time without
prior notice subject to applicable laws.”

The Cardholder Terms and Conditions further states that “there may be a
charge for Reward Card transactions in addition to regular service charges
that apply to your reward card.” These terms were not previously disclosed to
customers, according to the lawsuit.

Such restrictions were not disclosed to Plaintiff prior to his receipt of the
Reward Cards.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all individuals receiving Reward
Cards from Cingular from 2003 to the present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Defendant’s Reward Card has the same utility
         and value as a cash rebate; and

     (b) whether Defendants violated the Georgia Consumer
         Protection Act in their transactions with Plaintiff and
         Class.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other members of the class, demands
Judgment against Defendant as follows:

     -- requiring Defendant to disgorge all profits to Plaintiff
        and/or the Class realized by their unlawful conduct;

     -- awarding any nominal, compensatory, and/or punitive
        damages as allowed by law;

     -- awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and costs;

     -- awarding pre- and post-judgment interest;

     -- enjoining the activities described above; and

     -- granting such other and further relief that this Court
        deems equitable and proper.

The suit is “Weinstein v. AT&T Mobility Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-02880-RB,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Brian M. Felgoise
          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise PC
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Phone: 215-886-1900
          Fax: 215-886-1909
          E-mail: felgoiselaw@verizon.net


BAYER CORP: Wis. High Court Allows Residents’ Suit Over Cipro
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a suit accusing Bayer Corp. of
blocking generic versions of antibiotic Cipro, can go forward, the Pittsburgh
Post Gazette reports.

A group of Wisconsin residents filed the lawsuit in 2000 against Bayer and
Barr Laboratories after Bayer successfully preserved its exclusive rights to
the production of the antibiotic.   

The class action was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or paid for the
prescription drug Cipro(R) since January 8, 1997. It was filed in San Diego
Superior Court as Cipro(R) Cases I and II, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4154 and 4220.  Also
named as defendants are:

     -- Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
     -- Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and  
     -- The Rugby Group, Inc.

In 1991, Barr asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permission to
market a generic form of Cipro arguing that Bayer's patent was invalid and
unenforceable.  Bayer sued Barr in New York.  Eventually, in 1997, they
settled the suit with Barr agreeing not to market generic Cipro while Bayer's
patent was in effect and Bayer paying what eventually totaled $398 million.  
The patent expired in 2004.

The lawsuit filed by Wisconsin residents alleged the agreement is illegal
under Wisconsin anti-trust law because it eliminated any generic competition
for Cipro, resulting in inflated prices for consumers.  The argument was
dismissed by a Milwaukee County judge in 2003 on grounds Wisconsin's anti-
trust laws applied only to commerce within the state and not to inter-state
transactions.

On appeal, the suit was reinstated by the court basing on a state Supreme
Court case last year that allowed Wisconsin antitrust laws to apply to
interstate commerce if the alleged conduct "substantially affects" the people
of Wisconsin (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2006).

The High Court’s recent decision reaffirmed its 2005 ruling that the state's
consumers can bring antitrust lawsuits against out-of-state practices.

For more details, contact:

          Cipro Class Counsel
          P.O. Box 2820
          San Francisco, CA 9411
          Website: http://www.california-cipro-litigation.com


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuits in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. faces two purported class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

                         Blanco Litigation

On Jan. 23, 2007, a purported class action against the Company,
entitled, “Blanco v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et al., Cause No. CV-07-0559,”
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  

The Blanco Litigation was filed by an alleged customer of one of the
Company’s Chuck E. Cheese’s restaurants purporting to represent all
individuals in the U.S. who, on or after Dec. 4, 2006, were knowingly and
intentionally provided at the point of sale or transaction with an
electronically-printed receipt by the Company that was in violation of U.S.C.
Section 1681c(g) of FACTA.

The Blanco Litigation is not seeking actual damages, but is only seeking
statutory damages for each willful violation under FACTA.

                          Price Litigation

On Feb. 8, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit against the Company,
entitled, “Price v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et al., Cause No. CV-07-00923,”
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The Price Litigation was filed by an alleged customer of one of the Company’s
Chuck E. Cheese’s restaurants purporting to represent the following two
classes of individuals in the U.S.:

      -- all persons to whom, on or after Jan. 1, 2005, the
         Company provided, through use of a machine that was
         first put into use by the Company on or after Jan. 1,
         2005, an electronically printed receipt which was in
         violation of U.S.C. Section 1681c(g) of FACTA; and

      -- all persons to whom, on or after Dec. 4, 2006, the
         Company provided, through use of a machine that was
         being used by the Company before Jan. 1, 2005, an
         electronically printed receipt which was in violation
         of FACTA.

The Price Litigation is not seeking actual damages, but is only seeking
statutory damages for each willful violation under FACTA and a permanent
injunction enjoining the Company from engaging in unlawful violations of
FACTA.

The Price Litigation is still in its preliminary stages and discovery has not
yet begun, according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April
1, 2007.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com-- is engaged in the  
family restaurant/entertainment center business. The Company operated, as of
Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants.  In addition, as of Dec.
31, 2006, franchisees of the Company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's
restaurants.  Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a
salad bar, sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and comic
entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family oriented games,
rides and arcade-style activities.  The Company and its franchisees operate
in a total of 48 states and five foreign countries/territories.


CHEVY CHASE: Wis. Court Suspends Suit Over TIL Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin suspended
further proceedings in the case “Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.” which
was filed against a subsidiary of B.F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust.

On Jan. 16, 2007, in the case of “Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank” in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the court ruled that
the Bank’s disclosures relating to certain residential mortgage loans
violated the federal Truth-in-Lending (TIL) Act.

The mortgage loans in question have a feature, which permits a borrower to
elect monthly, for up to five years, to make either:

      -- a minimum payment based on a payment rate less than the
         variable interest rate;

      -- a payment equal to all accrued interest;

      -- a fully amortizing payment based on a 15-year term; or

      -- a fully amortizing payment based on the original term
         of the loan (“five year option ARMs”).

The case was brought as a class action on behalf of borrowers of five-year
option ARMs for the period April 20, 2004 to the date of class certification
who had received the same disclosure documents as the named plaintiff.  The
court granted class status to those plaintiffs.

With respect to a remedy, no actual damages were alleged and the court
concluded that the violations did not give rise to statutory damages.

However, the court said that the affected borrowers were entitled to be given
the option under the TIL Act to rescind their loans.

The rescission remedy is available only for certain loans that are secured by
a principal residence but were not used to purchase the residence,
principally refinancings.

The court further excluded borrowers who had received a different version of
the TIL disclosure document than had been received by the Andrews.  The
precise parameters and members of the class will depend upon further court
proceedings.

The Bank has appealed the availability of a class-wide rescission remedy and
filed its brief in the court of appeals on March 26, 2007.

Several major bank trade associations have filed a brief supporting the
Bank’s position.  Plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on April 30, 2007.  

The only two federal courts of appeal that have considered the question have
ruled unanimously that a class wide rescission remedy is not available.  

The question has not yet been addressed by the federal court of appeals in
the circuit in which this litigation is pending.

The district court has suspended further proceedings in the case pending a
ruling on the Bank’s appeal, according to the company’s May 14, 2007 Form 10-
K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is “Andrews et al. v. Chevy Chase Bank FSB, Case No. 2:05-cv-00454-
LA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
under Judge Lynn Adelman.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Michael J. Aprahamian, Esq.
         Foley & Lardner LLP
         777 E. Wisconsin Ave.
         Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300
         Phone: 414-297-5516
         Fax: 414-297-4900
         E-mail: maprahamian@foley.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Kevin J. Demet, Esq.
         Demet & Demet SC
         815 N. Cass St.,
         Milwaukee, WI 53202
         Phone: 414-291-0800
         Fax: 414-291-9560
         E-mail: KDemet@Sprintmail.com


COPERNIC INC: $3M Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final
approval, following a July 9 hearing, to a proposed settlement of a
consolidated securities class action filed against Copernic Inc., formerly
Mamma.com Inc.

As a result, all claims asserted in the class actions against the company and
the individual officer defendants have been resolved, with the exception of
three shareholders who have indicated they will exclude themselves from the
settlement so as to preserve rights to maintain separate actions should they
elect to do so.

The amount paid into escrow, along with any interest earned, will be
distributed as provided under the settlement to pay class members,
plaintiffs' attorney fee, and the costs of claims administration.

The securities class actions filed against Mamma.com Inc. were
on behalf of purchasers of Mamma.com Inc. publicly traded
securities between March 2, 2004 and Feb. 15, 2005.

The complaints charge Mamma.com and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaints allege that during the class period, defendants caused
Mamma.com's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the
issuance of false and misleading financial statements.

As a result of this inflation, Mamma.com was able to complete a
private offering, raising proceeds of $16.6 million on the sale
of stock and warrants in June 2004.

On November 9, 2006, Mamma.com Inc. entered into an agreement to
settle the class action (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006).

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, plaintiffs would
receive $3.15 million, $2.5 million of which would be paid by
the company's insurance carrier and $650,000 by the company.

The settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing by the company or the
officers of the company who are individual defendants.

On March 8, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of the class
action (Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2007).

The first identified complaint is "Montoya v. Mamma.Com Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv-02313-HB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Harold
Baer.

Representing defendants are:

          Jill C. Anderson
          311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000          
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-321-4200

          Barry H. Berke
          Yehudis S. Lewis
          Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-715-9100 or 212-715-7538
          Fax: 212-715-8000
          E-mail: bberke@kramerlevin.com or
                  ylewis@kramerlevin.com

          - and -

          Jason Brown
          Ropes & Gray, LLP (Rockefeller)
          45 Rockefeller Centre
          New York, NY 10111
          Phone: (212) 841-0478
          Fax: 212 841 5725
          E-mail: jabrown@ropesgray.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Matthew Keith Handley
          Daniel S. Sommers
          Steven Jeffrey Toll
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC (DC)
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Towen #500
          Washington, D.C., DC 20005
          Phone: (202)-408-4600          
          Fax: (202)-408-4699
          E-mail: mhandley@cmht.com or stoll@cmht.com


DAVE & BUSTER: Faces Two Labor-Related Lawsuits in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dave & Busters, Inc. and one of its subsidiaries in the state of California
faces two purported class action alleging violations of California
regulations concerning mandatory meal breaks and rest periods, according to
the company’s May 14, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 4, 2007.

The company is working to have these two cases consolidated and coordinated
because the potential class members are virtually identical.  Therefore,
settlement of one case would resolve both cases.  

Dave & Buster's, Inc. -- http://www.daveandbusters.com-- is an operator of  
large-format, high-volume, regional entertainment complexes.  Each
entertainment complex offers an array of entertainment attractions such as
pocket billiards, shuffleboard, interactive simulators and virtual reality
systems, as well as traditional carnival-style games of skill. The Company's
complexes offer food and beverages.  The layout of its entertainment
complexes is designed to promote easy access to, and maximize guest crossover
between, the multiple entertainment and dining areas within each Dave &
Buster's.


DENT FRESH: Recalls China-Made Toothpaste Containing DEG
--------------------------------------------------------
Dent Fresh U.S.A., Inc. of Miami, Florida, in cooperation with the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration, is initiating a nationwide recall of the toothpaste
made in China involving all DentFresh Fluoride Mint Toothpaste 9 oz. (255g).

The company said the recalled products may contain the poisonous chemical
diethylene glycol (DEG), which is used in antifreeze and as a solvent, and is
a Central Nervous System depressant and potent kidney and liver toxin.

FDA is not aware of any U.S. reports of poisonings from toothpaste containing
DEG. However, the agency is concerned about potential risks from chronic
exposure to DEG and exposure to DEG in certain populations, such as children
and individuals with kidney or liver disease.

DEG in toothpaste has a low but meaningful risk of toxicity and injury to
these populations. Toothpaste is not intended to be swallowed, but FDA is
concerned about unintentional swallowing or ingestion of toothpaste
containing DEG.

Consumers are advised to immediately return all products to the stores which
they purchased them from and to stop using the products involved in the
recall or throw it away.

Retailers are advised to immediately examine their inventory and quarantine
product subject to recall. In addition, they are urged, if they may have
further distributed the recall products, to identify their customers and
notify them at once of the product recall.

For further information, contact the company at denfresh@hotmail.com or at
305-677-9938.


ELMIRA BUSINESS: N.Y. Court Refuses to Certify Students’ Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
New York Supreme Court Justice Phillip Rumsey denied class- action status to
a lawsuit filed by a group of Elmira Business Institute (EBI) students who
claimed the privately owned business college engaged in deceptive promotion
and financial aid practices, and overcharged students for books, The Star-
Gazette reports.

On Aug. 2, 2006, a class action was filed in State Supreme Court in
Binghamton, New York, on behalf of current and former students, charging EBI
with:

          -- deceptive promotion and financial aid practices,
          -- exercising total control over grants and loans made
             to students; and
          -- placing undue pressure on students to immediately
             enroll, even before the academic or financial
             status of the prospective students was known to its
             admissions staff.

EBI allegedly told students academic credits earned at the education facility
would transfer to other creditable schools; but they do not, according to the
suit.

EBI also allegedly told students they would qualify for financial aid through
the federal Trade Readjustment Act. Students were also allegedly signed up
under false pretenses and they were sold something the institute did not have
at the time.

In his July 10 ruling, Justice Rumsey said the lawsuit did not establish
three of the five requirements necessary for a class action certification.

“Plaintiffs have not tendered any proof regarding the numersoity of the class
as a whole or the proposed subclass and there is no proof regarding the
number of students who may have actually been subjected to the alleged
wrongdoing,” Justice Rumsey’s decision reads.

The students, who were enrolled at EBI’s Elmira and Vestal campuses, can move
forward with their legal action individually, instead.  

EBI -- http://www.ebi-college.com/faq.php-- is a privately owned business  
college in upstate New York.


EPICEPT CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Approve Merger Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the state of California, County of San Diego has yet
to approve a settlement in a lawsuit filed against EpiCept Corp. over the
merger with Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the company’s May 15,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

On Oct. 7, 2004 plaintiff Jesus Putnam, purportedly on behalf of Maxim, filed
a derivative complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of San Diego, against one officer of Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., two
former officers of Maxim and Maxim’s entire Board of Directors, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of
corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of the California
Corporations Code.

The allegations arise from allowing purported violations of federal
securities laws related to declines in Maxim’s stock price in connection with
various statements and alleged omissions to the public and to the securities
markets, and seeking damages therefore.

In October 2005, plaintiff attempted to file an amended complaint to include
class action allegations that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the merger.

In addition, the plaintiff requested that the court enjoin Maxim’s directors
from completing the merger of EpiCept and Maxim.  The court, pending the
lifting of the stay, rejected the amended complaint.

The complaint was tendered to Maxim’s insurance carrier, which denied
coverage.  Maxim disputes the position taken by the insurance carrier and
fully intends to enforce its rights under the policy.

On March 7, 2006, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiff where EpiCept will pay $0.1 million in EpiCept common stock to
cover the plaintiff’s legal expenses.

The settlement is subject to customary conditions such as the execution of
settlement documents, the final court approval of the settlement and
dismissal of the Putnam claims with prejudice.

EpiCept Corp. -- http://www.epicept.com/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical  
company focused on the development of pharmaceutical products for the
treatment of cancer and pain. The Company has a portfolio of six product
candidates in various stages of development, which include an oncology
product candidate submitted for European registration, two oncology
compounds, one of which has commenced a Phase II clinical trial and the
second, of which entered clinical development during the year ended December
31, 2006, and three pain product candidates in late stage development.  Its
lead oncology product candidate is Ceplene, which is intended as remission
maintenance therapy in the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML)
specifically for patients who are in their first complete remission (CR=1).
The Company’s late stage pain product candidates include EpiCept NP-1,
LidoPAIN SP and LidoPAIN BP.


FEDEX EXPRESS: Aug. 2007 Hearing Set for $53.5M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
An August 2007 hearing is set for a proposed $53.5 million settlement of a
class action alleging pay and promotion discrimination in the Western region
of the U.S. against certain current and former minority employees of FedEx
Express, a unit of FedEx Corp.

The suit, “Satchell et al. v. FedEx Express,” was originally filed on June 6,
2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

It was brought on behalf of:

      -- Daniel Sherman;
      -- Derrick Satchell;
      -- Kalini Boykin;
      -- Ken Stevenson;
      -- Kevin Smith;
      -- Rachel Hutchins;
      -- Rick Gonzales;
      -- Sophia Shainza Hanif; and
      -- Valerie Brown.

In general, the suit alleges that the company discriminated against its
African-American and Hispanic workers by passing them over for promotion,
paying them less than white workers and treating them unfairly in evaluation
and disciplinary proceedings.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the company settled the matter.  The
settlement will require a payment of approximately $55 million, which is
covered by insurance.

The court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and a hearing
is scheduled for August 2007 for the court to consider final approval of the
settlement.

The suit is "Satchell v. FedEx Express, Case No. 03-2659," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Susan
Illston.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
         Schneider & Wallace
         180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
         San Francisco, Ca 94109
         Phone: 415-421-7100
         Fax: 415-421-7105
         E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com

         Michael S. Davis, Esq.
         The Law Offices of Michael S. Davis
         345 Hill Street
         San Francisco, CA 94114
         Phone: (415) 282-4315
         Fax: (415) 358-5576
         E-mail: msdlegal@comcast.net

         Waukeen Q. Mccoy, Esq.
         The Law Offices of Waukeen Q. McCoy
         703 Market Street, Suite 1407
         San Francisco, CA 94103
         Phone: 415-675-7705
         Fax: 415-675-2530
         E-mail: mccoylawsf@yahoo.com

              - and -

         James M. Finberg, Esq.
         Altshuler Berzon, LLP
         177 Post Street, Suite 300
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Phone: 415-421-7151
         Fax: 415-362-8064
         E-mail: jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com


GERBER PRODUCTS: Recalls Rice, Cereals Posing Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerber Products Co., a division of Novartis Consumer Health, is voluntarily
recalling all packages of Gerber ORGANIC Rice and ORGANIC Oatmeal Cereals due
to a potential choking risk.

A limited quantity of product may contain lumps of cereal, which do not
dissolve in water or milk and pose a potential choking hazard. Gerber has
received choking complaints, but no reports of injury. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration is aware of this recall.

Gerber ORGANIC Rice and ORGANIC Oatmeal Cereals are sold in 8 ounce boxes and
all codes are being recalled. Gerber ORGANIC Rice UPC Code is 15000 12504.
Gerber ORGANIC Oatmeal UPC Code is 15000 12502. These numbers can be found on
the bottom right side of the box.

The product has been distributed in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the Caribbean.

If a consumer has Gerber ORGANIC Rice or Gerber ORGANIC Oatmeal Cereal, they
should not use the product and call the Gerber Parents Resource Center 1-800-
443-7237 or 1-231-928-3000 to return the product and receive a full refund.


INDONESIA: Lawsuit Over February Flood Can Proceed, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Central Jakarta District Court ruled that a suit brought by victims of
the February flood in Jakarta can proceed, dismissing a claim by the defense
that the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case, The Jakarta
Post reports.

The court overruled claims made by Jakarta Governor Sutiyoso and the mayors
of North, South, East, West and Central Jakarta, that the suit was wrongfully
filed.

"Based on a law that allows plaintiffs to file a lawsuit against a defendant
or defendants in any court in the locality where one of the defendants
resides, the Central Jakarta District Court has the jurisdiction to try the
suit, so we overrule their objections," presiding Judge Moefri told the
court.

"We will therefore proceed with the hearings and the defendants will bear all
legal costs from now on, until a decision is made," he said.

Eleven flood victims filed the suit in April accusing Gov. Suityoso and
Jakarta's five mayors of failing to properly manage the flooding.  The suit
also alleges that the administration commercialized flood aid and failed to
quickly distribute them.

The plaintiffs demanded IDR100 million ($11,000) for each flood victim and
IDR5.16 trillion ($571.7 million) to rebuild the ruined city.  They also
sought a public apology to be printed in national newspapers and aired on
television stations (Class Action Reporter, June 22, 2007).

Lawyers for the governor and the five mayors previously argued in court they
had fulfilled their responsibility in anticipating and handling the disaster
in accordance with a 2002 gubernatorial decree on disaster management, the
report said.

The flood victims, however, claimed there was neglect and discriminatory
treatment in the assistance provided by the government.

Court proceedings will continue next week with the presentation of evidence
from the plaintiffs.

Made Suarjaya represents the governor.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Nurkholis Hidayat.


INTELLIGROUP INC: Discovery Yet to Begin in N.J. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet to set a trial
date and order discovery to proceed in a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against Intelligroup, Inc.

On or about Oct. 12, 2004, the first of six class actions was filed on behalf
of a purported class of investors who purchased the company's common stock,
against the company and former officers Arjun Valluripalli, Nicholas Visco,
Edward Carr and David Distel in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

In August 2005, the court consolidated the six class actions and appointed a
lead plaintiff.  Plaintiffs subsequently dropped Mr. Distel and Mr. Carr from
the shareholder class action, failing to name either of them as a defendant
in the amended consolidated complaint filed on or about Oct. 10, 2005.   

The shareholder class action generally alleges violations of federal
securities laws, including allegations that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the company's financial condition
and that the Defendants materially overstated financial results by engaging
in improper accounting practices.   

The class period proposed was May 1, 2001 through Sept. 24, 2004.  The
shareholder class action generally seeks relief in the form of unspecified
compensatory damages and reasonable costs, expenses and legal fees.   
On Dec. 5, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint.  On Feb. 10, 2006, prior to the hearing on defendants' motions to
dismiss, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint.   

On Feb. 10, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class
action complaint.  On March 27, 2006, defendants filed their motions to
dismiss the complaint.  

Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motions on May 11,
2006, and beginning June 9, 2006 defendants filed further briefing in support
of their motions.  

On or about Dec. 20, 2006, the District of New Jersey granted Defendants
motion and dismissed the second amended complaint without prejudice.  

On or about Jan. 25, 2007, plaintiffs filed the third consolidated amended
complaint.  On or about March 5, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the third consolidated amended complaint.  

No trial date has been scheduled and no discovery has taken place, according
to the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Lydia Garcia, et al. v. Intelligroup Inc., et al., Case No. 04-
CV-4980," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
under Judge John C. Lifland with referral to Judge Mark Falk.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
         Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
         Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07102-5003
         Phone: (973) 623-3000
         E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com

         Gary S. Graifman
         Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, Esqs.
         210 Summit Avenue
         Montvale, NJ 07645
         Phone: (201) 391-7000
         E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

         Dennis J. Drasco, Esq.
         Kevin J. O'Connor, Esq.
         Lum, Danzis, Drasco & Positan, LLC
         103 Eisenhower Parkway
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1049
         Phone: (973) 403-9000
         E-mail: ddrasco@lumlaw.com
                 koconnor@lumlaw.com


INTELSAT LTD: Awaits D.C. Court’s Approval of ERISA Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to approve the
settlement in a purported class action against Intelsat, Ltd., alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Initially, two putative class action complaints that were filed against the
company and Intelsat Global Service Corp. in 2004 were consolidated into a
single case.  

Certain named plaintiffs who are U.S. retirees, spouses of retirees or
surviving spouses of deceased retirees brought the suit.

The complaint, which was amended several times, arose out of a resolution
adopted by the governing body of the International Telecommunications
Satellite Organization, referred to as the IGO, prior to privatization
regarding medical benefits for retirees and their dependents.

The plaintiffs allege that Intelsat wrongfully modified health plan terms to
deny coverage to surviving spouses and dependents of deceased Intelsat
retirees, thereby breaching the fiduciary duty obligations of ERISA, and
the "contract" represented by the
IGO resolution.

It is the company's position that the IGO resolution does not create
obligations that are enforceable against Intelsat, Ltd. or Intelsat Global
Service Corp.

On March 13, 2007, the company and counsel for the majority of the named
plaintiffs signed a settlement agreement, which was filed on that same date
under a joint motion to certify class for settlement purposes only,
preliminarily approve the agreement of settlement of consolidated ERISA class
action, and approve the form and manner of notice, referred to as the Joint
Motion.

The settlement agreement nullifies all potential obligations under the pre-
privatization IGO resolution, including, most significantly, the obligation
to establish a trust to fund lifetime retiree medical benefits at 2001 levels
for the putative class members.

Instead, the company will provide to the retiree class certain health
benefits that are essentially the same as those currently provided to active
employees, the value of which, taken as a whole, cannot be reduced or
eliminated.

The retiree class members will have lifetime affordable health care coverage,
for which they will pay modest increases in premiums, deductibles and co-pay
amounts, such increases to be capped in accordance with certain cost of
living adjustment provisions.

The settlement extends the obligation to provide the benefits to transferees,
affiliates and successors of Intelsat under certain circumstances.  The
company also will pay an award of attorneys' fees of up to $200,000.  

At a March 14, 2007 status conference, the court granted counsel for a small
group of objecting named plaintiffs 10 days within which to file an
opposition to the joint motion.  

The court also set a tentative date of July 12, 2007 for a fairness hearing
on the proposed settlement agreement.  No update is available to date.

The suit is "Morales, et al. v. Intelsat Global Service Corp., et al., Case
No. 1:04-cv-01044-JR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under Judge James Robertson.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Marni E. Byrum, Esq.
         2009 North 14th Street, Suite 600
         Arlington, VA 22201
         Phone: (703) 525-3877
         Fax: (703) 525-2252
         E-mail: mebyrum@aol.com

              - and -

         Lawrence P. Postol, Esq.
         Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
         815 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20006-4004
         Phone: (202) 463-2400
         E-mail: lpostol@seyfarth.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Andrew Gendron, Esq.
         Venable, LLP
         Two Hopkins Plaza, Suite 1800
         Baltimore, MD 21201-2978
         Phone: (410) 244-7439
         Fax: (410) 244-7742
         E-mail: agendron@venable.com


JDS UNIPHASE: Hearing on Bid to Junk Workers’ Suit Set July 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fiber optics company JDS Uniphase Corp. and four of its former executives
asked a federal judge to dismiss securities fraud, misconduct, and
malfeasance claims against them in a class action, Don Michak of Journal
Inquirer reports.

The motion for summary judgment is set for a hearing in federal court in
Oakland, California on July 26.  

The company axed thousands of employees after reporting a $50.6 billion net
loss for fiscal 2001.  About 90% of the layoffs were in Connecticut.  The
pension fund that is lead plaintiff in the case is expected to support its
case with information gathered from former JDS Uniphase employees, according
to the report.  The plaintiffs have won an order allowing it to do so.

                        Case Background

On July 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated all the securities actions then filed in
or transferred to that court as, "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. C-02-1486
CW," and appointed the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds as lead
plaintiff.  

The complaint in "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities
Litigation" purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of those
who acquired the company's securities from
Oct. 28, 1999, through July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of subclasses
consisting of those who acquired the company's common stock pursuant to its
acquisitions of The Optical Coating
Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI), E-TEK Dynamics, Inc., and SDL Ltd.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made material misstatements and omissions
concerning demand for the company's products, improperly recognized revenue,
overstated the value of inventory, and failed to timely write down goodwill.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various violations of the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

In January 2005, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims against the
company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and Charles Abbe, and granted in
part and denied in part the motion to dismiss claims against Kevin
Kalkhoven.  

Defendants subsequently filed answers denying liability for the claims
asserted against them.  On Dec. 21, 2005, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Trial is set to begin on Oct. 1, 2007.

The suit is "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, C-02-1486,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Claudia Wilken with referral to Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.

Representing the plaintiffs is New York-based Labaton Sucharow and Rudoff LLP.

Representing the defendants are:

         Philip T. Besirof, Esq.
         Jordan David Eth, Esq.
         Morrison & Foerster, LLP
         425 Market St.
         San Francisco, CA
         Phone: 94105-2482
         Fax: (415) 268-7000 and 415-268-7522
         E-mail: PBesirof@mofo.com
                 jeth@mofo.com


JK HARRIS: $6M "Offer in Compromise" Suit Settlement Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Perry M. Buckner III of the Court of Common Pleas of Charleston
County, South Carolina approved the $6 million settlement of a class action
filed against JK Harris & Co., LLC, JK Harris Advisors, LLC, JK Harris, Inc.,
and/or Professional Fee Financing Associates, LLC, Michael Buettner of The
Post and Courier reports.

The class consists of persons who signed a contract with JK Harris & Co.,
LLC, JK Harris Advisors, LLC, JK Harris, Inc., and/or Professional Fee
Financing Associates, LLC for tax resolution services that included the
preparation and negotiation of an Offer In Compromise prior to March 31, 2005.

The defendants are accused of improperly charging for, failing to perform,
and/or negligently performing the contracted services related to negotiating,
preparing and/or filing Offers in Compromise for submission to the Internal
Revenue Service and/or state tax agencies.

JK Harris and the plaintiffs in the action have reached agreement on a
settlement of the claims in the action including claims that had been pending
in South Carolina, California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York (Class Action
Reporter, April 18, 2007).  

JK Harris has agreed to create a Settlement Fund of $6,000,000 and to pay the
costs of notice to settle this case.  JK Harris will make payments into the
Settlement Fund on this schedule:

     -- $500,000 to be paid within 30 days after final approval
        of the settlement;

     -- from April 2008 to November 2008, JK Harris will deposit
        $70,000 into the Settlement Fund on a monthly basis on
        the 5th of each month (or the next business day); and

     -- beginning December 2008, JK Harris will deposit $150,000
        on a monthly basis on the 5th of each month (or the next
        business day) until the remaining balance of the
        Settlement Fund has been fully paid.

This Fund will be used to make payments to Class Members after deductions are
made for the costs of administering the Settlement, attorneys' fees and
expenses, and service awards to the class representatives.

JK Harris has also agreed to make a number of changes to its advertising and
business practices.

But under the approved settlement, JK Harris isn't required to make the full
$6 million available immediately. Instead, the agreement calls for it to pay
$500,000 into a fund this year and make increasing monthly payments starting
in April 2008. The company's payments into the fund are expected to total $6
million in September 2011.

Judge Buckner signed the order granting approval to the settlement last week,
saying the proposed amount is as much as the business can afford to pay the
class without possibly going bankrupt.

Judge Buckner ruled that the proposed $6 million payout "is fair and
reasonable based upon defendant's financial status, including its
considerable debt," a finding that he said was supported by testimony from
Roy Strickland, a forensic accountant hired by the plaintiffs to examine JK
Harris' books.

In addition, he wrote, "the settlement is adequate in the sense that the
settlement fund is the most defendant can afford to pay without possible
bankruptcy. Should defendant enter bankruptcy, collecting on even an
individual judgment is in doubt."

In a statement issued earlier this week, Monica Linder, vice president of JK
Harris' legal affairs department, said that the company "is confident in the
condition of our finances and does not foresee any difficulties in fulfilling
the terms of the settlement."

Ms. Linder said, "it cannot be stressed enough that there will be no negative
impact on the company's revenue, as the stipulations outlined in the
settlement were implemented more than two years ago."

The Settlement on the Net: http://www.oicsettlement.com.

The Coordinating Class Counsel is:

          Mario A. Pacella
          Strom Law Firm, LLC
          2110 Beltline Boulevard, Suite A
          Columbia, SC 29204

The defendants' counsel is:

          L. Greg Horton
          Buist Moore Smythe Mcgee, PA
          P.O. Box 999
          Charleston, SC 29402

JK Harris Settlement Administrator:
P.O. Box 1877, Faribault MN
Phone: 55021-7132


NATIONAL EDUCATION: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The National Education Association (N.E.A.) is facing a class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, Gretchen Morgenson of The New York Times reports.

The case was filed on behalf of two N.E.A. members who had invested in
annuities sold by Nationwide Life Insurance Co. and the Security Benefit
Group. It contends that the N.E.A. breached its duty to members by accepting
millions of dollars in payments from two financial firms whose high-cost
investments it recommended to members in an association-sponsored retirement
plan.

It alleges that by actively endorsing these products, which carry high fees,
the N.E.A., through its N.E.A. Member Benefits subsidiary, took on the role
of a retirement plan sponsor, which must put its members’ interests ahead of
its own.  By taking fees from the two companies whose annuities N.E.A. Member
Benefits recommended to its members, the N.E.A. breached its duty to them,
the suit contends.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs said they had been unable to calculate
the total payments received by N.E.A. officials from Nationwide and Security
Benefit since 1991, when the products were first endorsed by the
organization. But a recent Security Benefit prospectus indicated that fees
paid to N.E.A. Member Benefits might exceed $2 million a year. That
prospectus said Security Benefit paid the N.E.A. subsidiary $510,000 a
quarter.

According to the suit, such payments were not disclosed to N.E.A. plan
participants. Instead, N.E.A. Member Benefits maintained that it selected
Nationwide and Security Benefit based on competitive criteria.

The type of 403(b) programs at issue in the complaint are typically exempt
from ERISA. But the lawyers bringing the case argued that because the N.E.A.
actively promoted the annuity products to its members, it essentially stepped
in as a plan sponsor. That made it subject to Erisa’s fiduciary duty
requirements, the lawsuit contended.

Lisa M. Sotir, general counsel to N.E.A. Member Benefits, declined to comment
on the lawsuit, saying that she had not yet seen it.

The N.E.A. is the nation’s largest professional organization; its Web site
says it serves 3.2 million workers in education, from preschool to university
graduate programs.

The suit is “Daniels-Hall et al. v. National Education Association et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-05339-JKA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge J. Kelley Arnold.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Derek W. Loeser
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko
           Keller Rohrback
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900
          E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
          Fax: 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com


OHIO: Middletown Settles Suit Over Inmate Phone Call Recordings
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 9 fairness hearing is set in a settlement of a suit accusing that the
Middletown city police violated the constitutional right to attorney-client
privilege by tape recording phone conversations between lawyers and
prisoners, Ed Richter of the Middletown Journal reports.

The settlement hearing is set for 9:30 a.m. Aug. 9 before Judge Michael R.
Barrett at the Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse, 100 E. Fifth St., Cincinnati.  
Deadline to file objections and exclusions is July 25.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, seeks a money
judgment of at least $200 a day for each day of violation or $10,000 (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 28, 2005).

The suit was filed on behalf of "persons who participated in wire or oral
communications to, from or within the Middletown police department and jail
facilities between Jan. 1, 2000 and Sept. 30, 2005 whose communications were
intercepted, recorded and or used by defendants in violation of the law."

The lawsuit names the city, the police department, Police Chief Mike Bruck,
Maj. Greg Schwarber, services division commander and Sgt. John Terrill, jail
services commander as defendants. The plaintiffs are known only as "Jane
Doe," a Cincinnati attorney and "John Doe," a prisoner at the city jail
involved in an ongoing criminal proceeding.  Chief Bruck retired as police
chief on June 30.

The proposed settlement provides that:

     -- the city would not audiotape conversations between
        lawyers and inmates at the city jail;

     -- the city will provide a separate unrecorded room for
        inmates to meet with their lawyers at the city jail;

     -- posting a permanent sign at the city jail advising of
        the separate unrecorded room for inmates to meet with
        their lawyers.

     -- making a $20,000 payment to the Butler County Legal Aid
        Society;

     -- making a payment to the class representatives; and

     -- paying the plaintiff's attorneys fees.

The suit is "Doe et al. v. Middletown City of et al., Case  
No. 1:05-cv-00672-MHW," filed in the United States District  
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Michael H.  
Watson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joseph J. Braun, Esq.
          John Michael, Esq.
          Levy and Richard Stuart Wayne of Strauss & Troy
          The Federal Reserve Building
          150 E. Fourth St., 4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120
          E-mail: jjbraun@strausstroy.com,
                  jmlevy@strausstroy.com
                  rswayne@strausstroy.com

          Joseph M. Hutson, Esq.
          Donald John, Esq.
          Rafferty and Michael Richard Schmidt
          Cohen Todd Kite & Stanford, LLC
          250 East Fifth St., Suite 1200
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-333-5217
                 513-421-4020
          Fax: 513-241-4495  
               513-421-4020
          E-mail: jhutson@ctks.com
                  drafferty@ctks.com
                  mschmidt@ctks.com  
  

PUBLISHERS BUSINESS: Accused of Scheming to Defraud Old People
--------------------------------------------------------------
Publishers Business Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
July 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California for
allegedly defrauding old people by billing them for unwanted magazine
subscriptions and refusing to cancel them, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiffs Art and Eva Johnson allege the Florida and Nevada-based
publisher targets old people, calls them to take a bogus “survey,” then tells
them they won a “contest” and asks them to choose magazines for free
subscriptions.

Then a “supervisor” calls them to “verify” the fraud, and tells them “that
the conversations are being recorded and the individual cannot cancel the
alleged oral contract for any reason,” the suit states.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs seek
to represent:

     -- all California persons who were contacted by defendant,
        sent magazines by defendant not actually ordered or
        requested, and then were sent bill statements and/or
        requests for payment with respect to the magazines that
        were not actually ordered or requested by the individual
        (California Class); and

     -- all California persons the age of 65 or older who were
        contacted by defendant, sent magazines by defendant not
        actually ordered or requested, and then were sent bill
        statements and/or requests for payment with respect to
        the magazines that were not actually ordered or
        requested by the individual (California Senior Class).

The plaintiffs want the court to rule:

     (a) whether defendant implemented a common plan or scheme
         to contact putative class members and solicit
         information from the putative class members;

     (b) whether defendant implemented a common plan or scheme
         to contact putative class members in order to "verify"
         an order of magazines that was not actually been
         ordered or requested;

     (c) whether defendant implemented a common plan or scheme
         to inform putative class members that they had entered
         a contract that could not be cancelled when, in fact,
         the putative class member had not entered a contract;

     (d) whether defendant mailed magazines that had not been
         ordered or requested; and

     (e) whether defendant implemented a common plan or scheme
         to mail billing notices to putative class members for
         magazines that had not been ordered or requested.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants as follows:

     -- for compensatory damages;

     -- for exemplary and punitive damages;

     -- for restitution;

     -- for injunctive relief;

     -- for cost of suit and attorney's fees; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court deems
        just and proper.

The suit is “Johnson et al. v. Publishers Business Services, Inc., Case No.
2:07-cv-01394-MCE-GGH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California under Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. with referral to
Judge Gregory G. Hollows.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Douglas Allen Wright
          Callahan McCune and Willis APLC
          111 Fashion Lane
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Phone: 714-730-5700
          Fax: 714-730-5700
          E-mail: douglas_wright@cmwlaw.net


SELECT MEDICAL: Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action pending against Select Medical Corp. in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania remains in the
discovery and class certification phase.

On Aug. 24, 2004, Clifford C. Marsden and Ming Xu filed a purported class
action complaint on behalf of the public stockholders of the company against
Martin F. Jackson, Robert A. Ortenzio, Rocco A. Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice
and the company.

In February 2005, the court appointed James Shaver, Frank C. Bagatta and
Capital Invest, die Kapitalanlagegesellschaft der Bank Austria Creditanstalt
Gruppe GmbH as lead plaintiffs.

On April 19, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, purportedly on
behalf of a class of shareholders of Select, against Martin F. Jackson,
Robert A. Ortenzio, Rocco A. Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice, and the company as
defendants.

The amended complaint continues to allege, among other things, failure to
disclose adverse information regarding a potential regulatory change
affecting reimbursement for the company's services applicable to long-term
acute care hospitals operated as hospitals within hospitals, and the issuance
of false and misleading statements about the financial outlook of the company.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified
amount, interest and attorneys' fees.  The company believes that the
allegations in the amended complaint are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against this action.

In April 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the company and
the individual officers' preliminary motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

In February 2007, the court vacated in part its previous decision on the
company's and the individual officers' motion to dismiss and dismissed
plaintiffs' claims regarding the company's alleged improper revenue practices.

The company and the individual officers have answered the amended complaint
and the case has moved to the discovery and class certification phase.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 15, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Marsden, et al. v. Select Medical Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-
cv-04020-JCJ," filed in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge J. Curtis Joyner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
         Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
         Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
         Peter E. Seidman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 212-594-5300
         E-mail: sdumain@milbergweiss.com
                 lfeldman@milbergweiss.com
                 shopkins@milbergweiss.com

              - and -

         Eric L. Young, Esq.
         Kenney Lennon & Egan
         3031 Walton Road, Building C, Suite 202
         Plymouth, PA 19462
         Phone: 215-260-5493
         E-mail: eyoung@kle-law.com

Representing the defendants are:

         David M. Howard, Esq.
         Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
         Stuart T. Steinberg, Esq.
         Dechert, LLP
         Phone: 215-994-4000, 215-994-2749 and 215-994-2521
         E-mail: david.howard@dechert.com
                 michael.kichline@dechert.com
                 stuart.steinberg@dechert.com


SLIPPERY ROCK: Fairness Hearing in Title IX Suit Set July 20
------------------------------------------------------------
Slippery Rock University reached a comprehensive settlement with 12 women
athletes in a suit alleging violation of Title IX.  

The settlement, negotiated in two stages, requires SRU to comply with Title
IX's equal participation and equal treatment requirements.  It came less than
10 months after U.S. Chief District Judge Donetta Ambrose ordered SRU to
reinstate the three women's varsity teams it had cut in violation of Title IX.

The settlement aims at achieving equity through major investments in the
SRU's women's varsity programs, establishment of gender-equitable policies,
institution of prospective budgeting of all athletic expenditures, and
provision of information to plaintiffs' counsel. Central to the settlement
are the:

     -- Adoption of policies mandating gender-equitable
        treatment regarding uniforms, travel, equipment,
        publicity, trainers, coaches' compensation, and access
        to automobiles for recruitment by coaches;

     -- Creation of a $300,000 fund to be spent over 3 years on
        women's athletics to overcome the effects of historical
        conditions that have limited women's athletic
        participation;

     -- Allocation of an additional amount of money to women's
        varsity athletics for the academic year following any
        year during which the participation of SRU female
        varsity athletes is not within two percentage points of
        the proportion of full-time female undergraduates;

     -- Provision of documentation to Class Counsel on an annual
        basis for three years to allow monitoring of compliance
        with the terms of the settlement and progress in
        achieving equity in both participation and
        treatment;

     -- Retention of women's swimming and water polo as varsity
        teams for one full academic year after SRU has achieved
        compliance with the proportionality requirement of Title
        IX within two percentage points; and

     -- Substantial improvements to women's locker rooms and to
        the softball field to bring it closer in quality to the
        baseball team's Critchfield Park, described as "one of
        the premier Division II ballparks in the nation."

Chief Judge Ambrose has preliminarily approved the settlement.  He scheduled
a hearing for final court approval of the settlement on July 20, 2007 at
10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3B, District for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Division, U.S. Post Office & Courthouse, Seventh
Avenue & Grant St., Pittsburgh, PA 15219.

He hs appointed Class Counsel, and certified the following settlement class:

     (1) All present and future female students of SRU,
         including currently enrolled female students, female
         students admitted for the 2006-07 academic year; and

     (2) prospective female students who participate, seek to
         participate, or have been deterred or prevented from
         participating in or obtaining the benefits of
         intercollegiate athletics sponsored by SRU;

Class members who wish to attend the July 20, 2007 fairness hearing in person
or through an attorney must notify the Clerk of the Court, Robert V. Barth,
Jr., U.S. Post Office & Courthouse, Seventh Avenue & Grant St., Pittsburgh,
PA 15219 and the following attorneys in writing by July 2, 2007:

  Class Counsel:                      SRU's Counsel:
  Susan Frietsche, Esq.               Scott Bradley, Esq.
  Women's Law Project                 Office of the Attorney  
  425 Sixth Avenue, #1860             General
  Pittsburgh, PA 15219                6th Floor, Manor Complex
  564 Forbes Avenue                   Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Deadline to object was July 2, 2007.

The suit is “Choike, et al. v. Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania,
Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-00622-DWA.”

For more information, visit http://www.womenslawproject.org/.


SOYO GROUP: Reaches Settlement for Rebates Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Soyo Group, Inc. has reached a settlement for a purported class action filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

On June 30, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, entitled, “Robert Lewis, Jr. v. Soyo Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. EDCV 06-699 VAP (JWJx).”

The case seeks class-action status and alleges failures to timely pay rebates
to purchasers of Soyo products allegedly in violation of unfair competition
laws, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and contracts with
purchasers.  

The plaintiff seeks disgorgement of all amounts obtained by the Company as a
result of the alleged misconduct, plus actual damages, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company has agreed to the terms of a settlement, which is currently
before the court for approval, according to the company’s May 15, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is “Robert Lewis v. Soyo Group Inc. et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-00699-
VAP-JWJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Virginia A. Phillips with referral to Judge Jeffrey W.
Johnson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Evan D. Buxner, Esq.
         Walther-Glenn Law Associates
         10 S Brentwood Blvd, Suite 102
         St Louis, MO 63105
         Phone: 314-725-9595

              - and -

         Hoyt A. Rowell, Esq.
         Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman
         1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A
         Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
         Phone: 843-727-6500

Representing the defendant is:

         Jeffrey K. Riffer, Esq.
         Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro
         1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-5010
         Phone: 310-203-8080
         E-mail: jkr@jmbm.com


SPEAR & JACKSON: Court Approves Fla. Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida gave final
approval to a proposed $775,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Spear &
Jackson Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-80375-CIV-Middlebrooks/Johnson."

                        Case Background

Defendants in the case are Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley, and Sherb &
Co. LLP.  The lead plaintiffs are Charles
J. Rozenas, First Mirage Inc., Profit Concepts Ltd., Generation
Capital Associates, American Merchant Press, Inc., and Faye
Morgenstern, Trustee of Morningstar Trust.

The settlement arises out of numerous actions that, on or after
April 20, 2004, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against Spear & Jackson and certain of its
former officers and directors and affiliates:

      -- "Lee v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., William Fletcher, and
         Dennis Crowley, Case No. 04-80375;"

      -- "Jacobus v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley,
         William Fletcher, Joseph Piscitelli, PNC Tools Holdings
         LLC, and Sherb & Co., LLP, Case No. 04-80393;"

      -- "O'Dell v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., William Fletcher, and
         Dennis Crowley, Case No. 04-80404;"

      -- "Friedman v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley,
         William Fletcher, and Sherb & Co., LLP, Case No. 04-
         80409;" and

      -- "Rodriguez v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley,
         and William Fletcher, Case No. 04-80419."

These cases were consolidated for all purposes by an order dated
May 18, 2004.  Subsequently, on Nov. 2, 2004, the court affirmed the
appointment of:

     -- the "High Capital Funding Group composed of:
        * Charles J. Rozenas,
        * First Mirage Inc.,
        * Profit Concepts Ltd.,
        * Generation Capital Associates and American Merchant
          Press, Inc.; and

     -- Faye Morgenstern, Trustee of Morningstar Trust

as lead plaintiffs pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     * Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP;
     * Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP; and
     * the Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C.

as co-lead counsel pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the
Exchange Act.

On Feb. 4, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder naming as defendants Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley,
William
Fletcher, and Sherb & Co., LLP.  

The consolidated complaint alleges defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions in press releases, public statements, and
public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission concerning
Spear & Jackson.  

The consolidated complaint further alleges that these misrepresentations and
omissions began on Jan. 30, 2002 and artificially inflated Spear & Jackson's
stock price until the truth was revealed on April 16, 2004, when the
artificial inflation was removed and Spear & Jackson's shareholders were
damaged.

On May 11, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, sitting in West Palm Beach Florida, heard the Plaintiff's motion for
Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation, to
which there were no objectors or class members that opted out of, the
settlement.

On May 14, 2007, the Court signed the Final Judgment thus forever
extinguishing all of the class claims against the Company, and barring any
claims for contribution by third parties, according to the company’s May 15,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007.

For more details, contact:

         Spear & Jackson/Celebrity Settlements
         c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC
         P.O. Box 24684
         West Palm Beach, FL 33416
         Phone: 1-877-567-4296
         E-mail: SJCelebrityInfo@CompleteClaimSolutions.com
         Web site:
         http://www.spearjacksoncelebritysettlements.com/


TAG-IT PACIFIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Cal. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported shareholder class action filed against
Tag-It Pacific, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California are appealing a summary judgment favoring the company.

On Oct. 12, 2005, a shareholder class action complaint, "Huberman v. Tag-It
Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352," was filed against the company and
certain of the company's current and former officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging claims
under Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly
traded securities during the period from Nov.
14, 2003 to Aug. 12, 2005.

On Jan. 23, 2006, the court heard competing motions for appointment of lead
plaintiff/counsel and appointed Seth Huberman as lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements about the company's financial situation and its relationship with
certain of its large customers during a purported class period between Nov.
13, 2003 and Aug. 12,
2005.  

It purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was
denied by the court on July 17, 2006.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1, 2007 and
ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification. Plaintiff has moved
the court to reconsider the ruling, and also to intervene a new plaintiff to
pursue class certification.

Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007.  In addition, the same
day the Court granted the company’s and the other defendants' motion for
summary judgment, and on or about April 5, 2007, the Court entered judgment
in favor of all defendants.

On or about April 30, 2007, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, according to
the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No.
05-CV-7352," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Manuel L. Real with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

              - and -

         Jules Brody, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl.
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230

Representing the defendants is:

         Panteha Abdollahi, Esq.
         Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
         695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714-668-6200
         E-mail: pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California of a consolidated securities fraud class
action against TIBCO Software, Inc.

In May 2005, three purported shareholder class action complaints were filed
against the company and several of its officers:

      -- "Guzzetti v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No.
         4:05-cv-02373-SBA," filed on June 10, 2006;

      -- "Bernheim v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No.
         4:05-cv-02205-SBA," filed on May 31, 2005; and

      -- "Siegall v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-    
         cv-02146-SBA," filed on May 25, 2005.

Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the company's
common stock from Sept. 21, 2004 through March 1,
2005.

The complaints generally allege that the company made false or misleading
statements concerning its operating results, its business and internal
controls, and the integration of Staffware and seek unspecified monetary
damages.  It charges the company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages.

The actions were consolidated and in September 2006, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the
litigation with prejudice.

The actions were consolidated and in September 2006, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed the litigation with
prejudice.  

Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal, according to the company’s July 12,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 3, 2007.

The first identified complaint is "Lance Siegall, et al. v. Tibco Software,
Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-02146," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

         Charles J. Piven
         World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Ste. 2525
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 410.332.0030
         E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

              - and –
  
         Dyer & Shuman, LLP
         801 East 17th Avenue
         Denver, CO 80218-1417
         Phone: 303.861.3003
         Fax: 800.711.6483
         E-mail: info@dyershuman.com


TIME WARNER: SEC Distributes $316M Fair Fund to Investors
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced on July 9 that it
commenced the distribution of the Fair Fund created as part of a settlement
with Time Warner Inc. on charges of improper financial reporting and
disclosure.  The distribution is expected to be completed in approximately 10
days.

"With this distribution, the Commission will have distributed over $2 billion
in Fair Fund monies since the 2002 passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
demonstrating our continued resolve to return money to injured investors
where appropriate," said Linda Chatman Thomsen, Director of the SEC's
Division of Enforcement.

The Commission brought a settled action against Time Warner in March 2005
alleging that Time Warner engaged in fraud and other accounting improprieties
by artificially inflating its advertising revenue and Internet subscriber
numbers, and by failing to properly consolidate the financial results of one
of its subsidiaries, AOL Europe, S.A. Time Warner paid a $300 million civil
penalty as part of the resolution of these claims. Including interest, the
Fair Fund available for distribution is approximately $316 million.

On July 11, 2006, the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia approved the Commission's proposed distribution plan. The
distribution of the Fair Fund, which is being made on the same timetable as
the class action distribution in a pending case against Time Warner and other
defendants, is in addition to the class action settlement.  

None of the Fair Fund is being used to pay class action counsel. Final court
approval for distribution was given on June 20, 2007.  More information is
available at http://www.aoltimewarnersettlement.com.

                        Case Background

As of July 31, 2006, 30 shareholder class actions have been filed naming as
defendants the company, certain current and former executives of the company
and, in several instances, AOL.

These lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Courts for the Southern District
of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Eastern District of
Texas.

The complaints purport to be made on behalf of certain shareholders of the
company and allege that the company made material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the company failed to disclose AOL's declining
advertising revenues and that the company and AOL inappropriately inflated
advertising revenues in a series of transactions.

Certain of the lawsuits also allege that certain of the individual defendants
and other insiders at the company improperly sold their personal holdings of
Time Warner stock, that the company failed to disclose that the AOL-Historic
Time Warner Merger was not generating the synergies anticipated at the time
of the announcement of the merger and, further, that the company
inappropriately delayed writing down more than $50 billion of goodwill.

All of these lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings -- along with the federal derivative lawsuits and certain
lawsuits brought under Employee Retirement Income Security Act -- under the
caption, "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and 'ERISA' Litigation."

Additional lawsuits brought by individual shareholders have also been filed,
and the federal actions have been, or are in the process of being transferred
and/or consolidated for pretrial proceedings.

The Minnesota State Board of Investment was designated lead plaintiff for the
consolidated securities actions and filed a consolidated amended complaint on
April 15, 2003, adding additional defendants, including:

      -- additional officers and directors of the company,
      -- Morgan Stanley & Co.,
      -- Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,
      -- Citigroup Inc.,
      -- Banc of America Securities LLC, and
      -- JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that the company made
material misrepresentations in its registration statements and joint proxy
statement-prospectus related to the AOL-Historic Time Warner Merger and in
its registration statements pursuant to which debt securities were issued in
April 2001 and April 2002, allegedly in violation of Section 11
and Section 12 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

In July 2005, the company reached an agreement in principle for the
settlement of the case.  The court granted initial approval to the settlement
in September 2005.  On April 6, 2006, the court entered an order granting
final approval of the settlement.

The class consists of those who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired
publicly traded common stock of AOL, and/or bought or sold options on AOL
common stock during the period Jan. 27, 1999 through Jan. 11, 2001, and/or
purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock and
bonds of Time Warner and/or bought or sold options on Time Warner common
stock during the period Jan. 11, 2001 through and including Aug. 27, 2002.

                        Settlement Terms

In exchange for the dismissal of all claims against all Defendants, Time
Warner and Ernst & Young have paid $2.4 billion and $100 million,
respectively, into the Settlement Account.  In addition, $150 million set
aside as part of the Time Warner settlement with the U.S. Department of
Justice (the DOJ Funds), has also been placed in the settlement account as
part of this settlement.

The $2.65 billion in settlement monies have been earning interest for the
securities class since Oct. 7, 2005.  Time Warner also paid $300 million to
the SEC (SEC Fair Fund).

For more details, contact AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
Gilardi & Co., Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 808061, Petaluma, CA 949475-
8061, Phone: (877) 800-7852, E-mail: aoltimewarnersettlement@gilardi.com, Web
site:  
http://www.aoltimewarnersettlement.com/.


TRAVEL AGENCIES: Cal. City Plans to File Suit Over Hotel Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Pismo Beach City Council added to its July 3 agenda the issue of a
possible lawsuit against travel companies that allegedly engaged in unfair
business practices, April Charlton of SantamariaTimes.com reports.

The 15 online travel companies, including Hotels.com and Travelocity.com,
that could face a suit by the city, is also named defendants in a class
action that Los Angeles wants to file against numerous online travel
companies.  If the class action certification is granted, Pismo will
automatically be included in the litigation.

But even if the courts don't accept the request for class action
certification, Pismo Beach will proceed with the suit, Ms. Charlton said in
the report.  The issue was added as an emergency item because city staff
didn't learn of the pending class action until after the agenda was printed,
she said.

The lawsuit filed by Los Angeles claims the online travel companies like
Travelocity.com have been failing to remit the full amount of transient
occupancy taxes paid on hotel rooms to cities that have TOT ordinances.

Kiesel, Boucher & Larson is the law firm representing Los Angeles.  The same
law firm will represent Pismo and its interests on a contingency basis if the
courts don't grant the class action certification for Los Angeles' suit, city
officials said.

Kiesel, Boucher & Larson on the Net: http://www.kbla.com.


TV SHOWS: Suit Against "The Apprentice" Refiled in Cal. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dismissed lawsuits for "Deal or No Deal" and "The Apprentice" were re-filed
along with the "One vs. 100" lawsuit, in federal court in Los Angeles, Z.
Cuneo of the RCR Wireless News reports.

The lawsuits for "Deal or No Deal" and "The Apprentice" were filed and
dismissed in Georgia.  

The lawsuits allege the shows' mobile games constitute illegal gambling.  
They claim the shows charge viewers a 99-cent premium text-messaging fee to
participate, a violation of what is known as the Standard Lottery Rule.  That
premium fee is applied on top of the basic text-message fee, allegedly
enabling the network and the cellphone carrier to profit from the scheme.

The 99-cent charge to enter, allegedly constitutes a bet, and technically
makes the games illegal lotteries.  

The plaintiffs are demanding an injunction against the games, as well as
attorneys' fees and their 99 cents back.

Companies named in the suit includes Endemol USA, NBC Universal, Verisign, M-
Qube, and Don Jagoda Associates.

The suit is before Judge Florence-Marie Cooper, with referral to Judge Victor
B. Kenton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Kiesel Boucher & Larson
          8648 Wilshire Blvd
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

          Kevin T. Moore, Esq.
          Kevin T Moore Law Offices
          Building C
          6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Northeast, Suite 201
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: 770-396-3622
          E-mail: ktmlaw@bellsouth.net

          William A. Pannell, Esq.
          William A. Pannell Law Offices
          3460 Kingsboro Road, Northeast, Townhouse Five
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: 404-353-2283
          E-mail: billpannell@mindspring.com


TYCO INT'L: $3.2B Securities Suit Deal Gets Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire has given preliminary approval to a $3.2 billion settlement of a
consolidated securities class action filed against the company, certain of
the company's former directors and officers and its former auditors, Michael
Sung of the JURIST reports.

The company and certain of its former directors and officers were named as
defendants in over 40 securities class actions.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire most of the securities class
actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

On Jan. 28, 2003, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the New Hampshire
securities actions filed, "In re Tyco International, Ltd., Securities,
Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-
PB," a consolidated securities class action complaint against the company
certain of the company's former directors and officers and its former
auditors. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire.

As to the company and certain of its former directors and officers, the
complaint asserts causes of action under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 14(a)
of that Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.

Claims against the company's former directors and officers are also asserted
under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint asserts that the Tyco defendants violated the securities laws
by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning, among others:

      -- Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting  
         therefor, as well as allegedly undisclosed  
         acquisitions;  

      -- misstatements of Tyco's financial results;  

      -- the impact of a new accounting standard (SAB 101,  
         promulgated in 1999) on the company's earnings  
         performance;  

      -- compensation of certain of the company's former  
         executives;  

      -- their improper use of the company's funds for personal  
         benefit and their improper self-dealing real estate  
         transactions;  

      -- their sales of Tyco shares;  

      -- payment of $20 million to one of the company's former  
         directors and a charity of which he is a trustee; and  

      -- the criminal investigation of the company's former  
         chief executive officer.

On June 12, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class "consisting
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tyco
securities between Dec. 13, 1999 and June 7, 2002, and who were damaged
thereby, excluding defendants, all of the officers, directors and partners
thereof, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which any of the foregoing
have or had a controlling interest."

In May, Tyco agreed to immediately fund $2.975 billion in cash to settle
securities and accounting fraud claims relating to the Kozlowski era (Class
Action Reporter, May 16, 2007).  

Earlier, Tyco’s auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, agreed to pay
$225 million to settle securities and accounting fraud claims relating to
Tyco’s securities class action (Class Action Reporter, July 9, 2007).

This settlement with PwC, combined with the recent settlement with Tyco --
the largest ever by a single corporate defendant -- will bring the total
settlement to more than $3.2 billion.

Judge Barbadoro, however, said he will scrutinize the allocation of the
settlement funds based on "simple fairness."

The case caption is: In re: Tyco International, Ltd. Multidistrict
Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No.  1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.

For more information, contact:

          Katharine Ryan, Esq.
          Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
          Darren Check
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (Toll Free) or 1-610-822-2223 or           
                 1-610-822-2203 or 1-610-822-2235
          E-mail: kryan@sbtklaw.com or myarnoff@sbtklaw.com or
                  dcheck@sbtklaw.com


UNITED KINGDOM: $800M Suit Mulled Over VAT Refunds to Car Makers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deloitte & Touche LLP is threatening to file another major class action
against the government over Value Added Tax refunds in the automotive
industry, Helen Power of Sunday Telegraph reports.

The suit is worth up to GBP400 million ($814.7 million), according to the
report.  It relates to additional VAT refunds dating back to the 1970s that
companies in the industry are seeking.  The companies believe they are
entitled more than the government has already paid considering real inflation
rates.

The government is already facing more than GBP1 billion worth of claims from
the automotive industry after a European Court of Justice ruled that from the
1990s some Italian companies were being illegally charged VAT.  The
overcharging was particularly prevalent in the U.K. car sector because of its
intensive VAT collection system.

Deloitte is signing up companies to the lawsuit after recruiting claimants
for the last four years, Ms. Power stated in the report.  Of those it signed
up are administrators of defunct bus company Henleys.  A recovery of up to
GBP40 million is expected, the report said.

Deloitte's European head of automotive, David Raistrick, is running the
cases.  Deloitte is taking on the case on a no-win-no-fee basis.  The venture
could bring in GBP100 million in fees, according to the report.


WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Appeals Certification of “Cuesta v. Ford”
------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Controls, Inc. is appealing a decision by the District
Court for Bryan, Oklahoma to certify the product liability case, “Cuesta v.
Ford, et al.”

The company was named as co-defendant in matter on Oct. 1, 2004.  The suit
sought class-action status, and an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of
the class.  

During the second quarter of fiscal 2007, the Oklahoma district court granted
the plaintiffs class-action status.  Defendants are appealing this decision,
according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.  

The suit is "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Co., CJ-04-00511," filed in
the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma.

For more details, contact:

         The Burrage Law Firm
         First United Center - Suite 100, 115 N. Washington
         Durant, OK 74702-1727
         Phone: 580-920-0700
         E-mail: dburrage@burragelaw.com
         Web site: http://www.burragelaw.com/


XETHANOL CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xethanol Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of the consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company’s May 14, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

On Oct. 23, 2006, a purported class action, "Milton Ariail v. Xethanol Corp.,
Lawrence S. Bellone, Christopher d'Arnaud- Taylor and Jeffery S. Langberg,
Civil Action No. 06-10234," was filed.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and the
individual defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's operations, management and internal controls in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The individual defendants, Lawrence S. Bellone, Christopher d'Arnaud-Taylor
and Jeffery S. Langberg, are respectively the company's chief financial
officer and a member of its board of directors; a member of its board of
directors and its former chairman, president and chief executive officer; and
a former member of its board of directors.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and
reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
during the period between Jan. 31, 2006 and April 8, 2006.  

Six nearly identical class actions complaints were thereafter filed in the
same court, all of which have been consolidated into one action, “In re
Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation, 06 Civ. 10234 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.)”

The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on March 23, 2007.  
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 23,
2007.

The suit is “In Re Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-
cv-10234-HB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Harold Baer.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Kim Elaine Miller, Esq.
         Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
         12 East 41st Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 696-3730
         Fax: (504) 455-1498
         E-mail: kimmiller225@yahoo.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Katherine Blackwood Harrison, Esq.
         Paduano & Weintraub LLP
         1251 Avenue of The Americas, 9th Floor
         New York, NY 10020
         Phone: (212) 785-9100
         Fax: (212)-785-9099 (fax)
         E-mail: kh@pwlawyers.com

        
                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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: Schiffrin Barroway Files Ill. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
all common stock purchasers of Midway Games Inc. from August 4, 2005 to May
24, 2006 inclusive.

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

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company was grossly underperforming because it
         was experiencing operational difficulties;

     (2) as such, the Company would be forced to engage in a
         restructuring program at a cost of over $17 million;

     (3) that the Company was in severe need of capital to
         continue operations, and as a result would be required
         to secure debt financing; and

     (4) as a result of the above, the Company's financial and
         operational statements were lacking in any reasonable
         basis when made.

Between December 16, 2005 and May 24, 2006, the Company made a series of
disclosures concerning the true state of its business operations. These
disclosures caused shares of the Company's stock to decline from $23.25 per
share on December 16, 2005, to $7.39 per share on May 25, 2006, a cumulative
decline of $15.86 per share, or over 67 percent of their value.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 4, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

Midway is a leading developer and publisher of interactive entertainment
software for the global video game market, including all major video game
systems.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
          Website: http://www.sbtklaw.com


MIDWAY GAMES: Vianale & Vianale Files Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale 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.

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:

          Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Ste. 112
          Boca Raton, Florida 33431
          Phone: (561) 392-4750 or (888) 657-9960 (toll
free)                     
          Fax: (561) 392-4775


                            *********


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  * * *