---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, July 19, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 141

                          Headlines


AFFINION GROUP: Still Faces Several Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Baggage Insurance Suit Deal Junked on Appeal
APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Faces Labor Laws Violation Suit in Penn.
ARCHER WESTERN: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
ATRAZINE CASES: Critics Worry Over Ill. Suit’s Implications

BC FERRIES: Suit Over 2006 Sinking Granted Partial Certification
CIGNA CORP: $93M Securities Fraud Suit Deal Granted Final OK
CONSTAR INT'L: Discovery Proceeds in Pa. Securities Fraud Suit
COURT SOUTH: Lawsuit Over Membership Rule Changes Certified
COWEN GROUP: Faces N.Y. Securities Suits Over WorldSpace IPO

DELRAY ONE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Florida
DHB INDUSTRIES: $35M Securities, Derivative Suit Settlement Ok’d
DORAL FINANCIAL: N.Y. Judge Approves $130M Securities Suit Deal
EDDIE BAUER: Settles Labor-Related Lawsuit in Calif. State Court
FORECLOSURE SOLUTIONS: Ohio Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud

GENUINE INNOVATIONS: Recalls Tire Inflator Posing Injuries
INDONESIA: Hearing of Suit Against Anti-Terror Squad Set Today
IRELAND: Belfast Judge Orders Payment to Royal Ulster Police
KAPLAN INC: Cal. Court Approves $49M Settlement of BAR/BRI Suit
KIA MOTORS: Wins Favorable Ruling in Cal. Suit Over Seat Belts

LYDIAN TRUST: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Florida
MAINE: Maine Court Okays Knox County Strip Suit Settlement
MIDTOWN MIAMI: Faces Lawsuit Filed by Condo Buyers
MIKE'S AUTO: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
NETLIST INC: Faces Federal Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.

OMNI FINANCIAL: Ga. Court Considers Motion in “Gage” Litigation
OUR WORLD: Faces Suit Over Recalled Herbal Sleep Aid “Sleepees”
PUBLIC STORAGE: Still Faces Calif. "Brinkley" Labor Lawsuit
PUBLIC STORAGE: "Serrao" Lawsuit Remanded to Calif. State Court
ROCK HILL: Checks in $2M Settlement of Investors Suit Now Ready

ROGERS INT'L: Aug. 8 Status Conference Set for Ill. Litigation
ROGERS INT'L: Court Stays Class, Derivative Litigation in N.Y.
SJC INC: CT Suit Alleges Unlawful Interception of Phone Calls
STEC INC: Still Faces Calif. Consumer Lawsuit Over Hard Drives
STEVE’S RESTAURANT: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.

UNCAS MFG: Recalls Children’s Earrings on High Lead Levels
UNITED PARCEL: Disability Bias Suit in Pa. Granted Certification
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
V STEAKHOUSE: Former Workers File Suit Over Wage Violations
YAHOO INC: Suit Mulled Over Plan to Withdraw Musicmatch Jukebox
YOU KI: Three Firms Face Labor Code Violations Suit in Florida


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIOENVISION INC: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Lawsuit

    
                            *********


AFFINION GROUP: Still Faces Several Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. remains a party to a number of lawsuits purporting to be
a class action against it or its affiliates over allegations of federal or
state consumer protection statutes violations.

                      August 2005 Litigation

On Aug. 9, 2005, a class action was filed against Trilegiant Corp. in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The claim asserts violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and various
California consumer protection statutes.  The suit seeks unspecified actual
damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.

                       January 2005 Litigation

On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The Bon, Inc.,
FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant in the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane
County.  

The claim asserts violations of various consumer protection statutes.  The
company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied by the court.  

The company appealed the court's decision, and the case has been stayed until
the appellate court has ruled on the motion to compel arbitration.

                       November 2002 Litigation

On Nov. 12, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against Sears, Roebuck &
Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership Services, Inc., and Allstate
Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County alleging,
among other things, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of
good faith and fair dealing and violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and
deceptive practices act.  

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama but was remanded to the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County.

                      January 2002 Litigation

On Jan. 24, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against Trilegiant in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, alleging that
Trilegiant violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act in connection with
its Creditline product.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the terms of a class-wide
settlement of this case.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Trilegiant
has provided notice to the class members via first class mail advising them
of the terms of the settlement.

All class members have released their claims against Trilegiant under the
settlement.  All class members wanting to receive benefits under the
settlement were required to return a claim form post-marked by Feb. 16, 2006
and had the option of choosing a no-cost annual membership in one of three
membership programs offered by Trilegiant.

In lieu of a membership program, class members could elect to receive a cash
payment.  The total cash payments that Trilegiant has offered to make to the
class are capped at $0.5 million.

On March 13, 2006 the Alabama Court signed the final order approving the
terms of the settlement.  The judgment became final on April 12, 2006.

                      November 2001 Litigation

On Nov. 15, 2001, a class action complaint was filed in Madison County,
Illinois against Trilegiant alleging violations of state consumer protection
statutes in connection with the sale of certain membership programs.

Motions to dismiss were denied and certification of a class of consumers has
been granted; the exact size of the certified class is not known at this time.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 14, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period March 31, 2007.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com-- is a global  
provider of integrated marketing and loyalty solutions to companies around
the world.  Affinion partners with other companies to develop customized
marketing programs that provide products and services to their end
customers.  


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Baggage Insurance Suit Deal Junked on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District refused to approve a
settlement in the purported class action, “Aviation Data, Inc., et al. v.
American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., et al.,” citing that AMEX’s
attorney misled class members about the terms of a settlement.

Amex offers flight and baggage insurance programs, under which cardholders
are automatically charged a premium from $4 to $14 for each flight they
charge.

In September 2001, William Hoffman sued AMEX on behalf of the general public
of California under the California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code,
Sections 17200, 17500.)

The complaint, as ultimately amended, alleged that AMEX represented to card
members enrolled in its flight and baggage insurance programs that it would
bill them for travel insurance only when they actually flew and that it would
refund or credit premiums assessed for cancelled flights and unused tickets.

Instead, the complaint alleged, Amex engaged in a scheme to:

      -- cheat and defraud its cardholders by assessing premiums
         for trips it knew were never taken;

      -- intentionally designed its billing practices,
         procedures and computer programs to bill customers for
         services they did not receive or use and to double-bill
         for the same service; and

      -- intentionally failed to issue refunds or credits on
         cancelled flights or unused tickets.

Plaintiffs further alleged AMEX deliberately exploits the fact that many
cardholders do not notice that promised refunds never materialize, and
improperly places the burden on millions of cardholders to apply for
individual refunds, knowing that most will not apply.

In a settlement proposed in 2004, AMEX agreed to develop a new computer
program that would filter out inappropriate insurance charges.

However, an attorney for AMEX failed to disclose that this computer system
was implemented as early as November 2002.

Thus, the trial court refused to approve a class action settlement concluding
that counsel for AMEX misled plaintiffs in the course of negotiations by
offering to make significant modifications to its travel insurance program
that, unbeknownst to the plaintiffs, it had already made for reasons
unrelated to the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs then withdrew from the settlement when they learned about the
existing computer system.

AMEX then sought to compel arbitration, which was denied by the trial court.  
The company then went to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate
District.

The appellate court, though, affirmed the trial court’s decision holding that
Amex lost its right to compel arbitration due to its misleading conduct.

A copy of the court’s opinion is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?218a

For more details, contact:

         David M. Fried, Esq.
         The Law Office of David M. Fried
         1975 Adams Ave.
         San Leandro, CA  94577
         Phone: (510) 562-8906
         E-mail: dmfried@sbcglobal.net

              - and -

         Max Folkenflik, Esq.                 
         Folkenflik & McGerity        
         1500 Broadway, 21st Floor
         New York, NY 10036                 
         Phone: (212) 757-0400
         E-mail: mfolkenflik@fmlaw.net


APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Faces Labor Laws Violation Suit in Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apartment Investment and Management Co., AIMCO Properties and NHP Management
are facing a class-action complaint filed July 16 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over alleged labor laws violations,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges the companies stiffed 74 workers for overtime since
1999 at 33 properties in Pennsylvania. This claim accuses the defendants of
refusing to pay overtime, making at least 521 named employees take comp time
instead of overtime pay, but systematically understaffing so as to make comp
time impossible.

The defendants face similar complaints in:

          -- Marshall, Texas (121 named plaintiffs),
          -- Detroit (53 named plaintiffs),
          -- Cincinnati (50),
          -- San Francisco (48),
          -- Atlanta (47),
          -- Chicago (43),
          -- Kansas City, Mo. (25),
          -- Nashville (24),
          -- Birmingham, Ala. (21), and
          -- Indianapolis (15).

The suit is “Mitchell et al. v. Apartment Investment and Management Co. et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02915-JS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Juan R. Sanchez.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Andrew B. Bullion
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600


ARCHER WESTERN: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Archer Western Contractors Ltd. Inc. is facing a class action filed July 9 in
West Palm Beach Federal Court.

Plaintiff Christopher Velez alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Velez v. Archer Western Contractors, Ltd., Inc., Case No. 9:07-
cv-80607-KAM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Kenneth A. Marra.

Representing the plaintiff is:

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


ATRAZINE CASES: Critics Worry Over Ill. Suit’s Implications
-----------------------------------------------------------
Several critics have expressed concerns over a lawsuit pending in Madison
County Circuit Court that was filed against the makers of atrazine, an
economical pesticide that is used on most corn and grain sorghum grown in the
U.S., Steve Horrell of The Edwardsville Intelligencer reports.

These critics are pointing to atrazine’s safe use for nearly 50 years and to
the fact that it is the most popular corn herbicide in the U.S. and is used
in about 80 countries.

Jay Lehr in an essay on behalf of the Heartland Institute, a market-oriented
think tank based in Chicago, Illinois, said, “If the lawsuit succeeds, all of
the crop protection chemicals essential to agriculture in the U.S will be in
danger of litigation.”

“If atrazine were removed from the market out of fear of baseless litigation,
our nation would have to return to the farming practices of yesteryear, when
yields were less than a third of today's production and diseased crops were
the order of the day. Nearly every type of food would be in shorter supply
and their prices would increase.”  The hardest hit, according to Mr. Lehrer
would be people on fixed incomes and farmers.

Alex Avery, a scientist for the Center for Global Food Issues, at the
conservative Hudson Institute, maintains that the data cited in the lawsuit
is flawed.

Mr. Avery criticized the experiments obtained by University of California-
Berkely scientist Tyrone Hayes, whose results were cited in the lawsuit.

"If the cause-and-effect relationship with atrazine is as straightforward as
Dr. Hayes claims it is, it is curious that other researchers have been unable
to replicate Hayes's experimental findings," he said.

                        Case Background

The Holiday Shores Sanitary District filed a suit back in 2004, alleging that
atrazine runoff from nearby farms has contaminated Holiday Lake, which
provides water for the district.  The suit also alleges that atrazine causes
cancer.

Attorneys Steve Tillery and Courtney Buxner, representing the district,
argued that atrazine is broken down into “degradent chemicals that are
believed to be hazardous if consumed by humans.”

The suit cites a study published in 2001 in "Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences" showing that atrazine caused gonadal abnormalities in
male African clawed frogs and another the next year that showed similar
abnormalities when North American leopard frogs were exposed to low levels of
atrazine.

The suit wants the district to be compensated for, among other things, costs
associated with a new charcoal filtration system that would filter out
atrazine "into the future until atrazine no longer proves a risk."

The class action was filed against the six makers of atrazine in the U.S.:

      -- Dow Agrosciences,
      -- Sygenta,
      -- Drexel,
      -- United Agri Products,
      -- Supcan Agro, and
      -- Makhteshinm Agan.

The case was transferred to Circuit Judge Dan Stack in August 2005.  Since
then, Judge Stack has spent much of his time hearing motions to dismiss the
case.

For more details, contact:

         Korein Tillery LLC
         Gateway on the Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 300
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Phone: (314) 241-4844
         Fax: (314) 588-7036


BC FERRIES: Suit Over 2006 Sinking Granted Partial Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
B.C. Supreme Court Justice David Tysoe granted partial certification to a
class action launched by passengers of Canada's BC Ferry ship Queen of the
North, which sank in northern British Columbia in March 2006, CKNW reports.  

The Queen of the North sank on March 22, 2006 after plowing into
Gil Island.   

Nanaimo Alexander and Maria Kotai filed the case, early in 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, March 30, 2006).  The Kotais accuse BC Ferries of failing to train
crew adequately, supervise the crew on the bridge, keep a proper lookout,
operate at safe speed, and conduct an evacuation of the ferry in a way that
prevented or minimized injuries.  

In September, Justice Tysoe approved the addition of the ship's captain Colin
Henthorne, Fourth Officer Carl Lilgert and deckhand Karen Bricker as
defendants (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006).

After hearing arguments to certify the suit on June 12, Judge Tysoe ruled the
suit must be changed to include several classes of claimants before it can
proceed. Those classes would include out-of-province passengers and some 23
dependants of passengers.

Lawyer for the passengers, David Varty, says he's happy passengers will have
an avenue to deal with the trauma of the ferry sinking, "In one case, there's
a marriage that had broken up. In another case another relationship has been
broken up. People have had difficulty carrying on with their work, a lot of
stress. These passengers have suffered quite a bit."


CIGNA CORP: $93M Securities Fraud Suit Deal Granted Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania granted final approval to a $93 million settlement of the
consolidated class action, "In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation," and its
related cases, The Legal Intelligencer reports.

Judge Baylson awarded more than $21.3 million in attorney fees to the
plaintiffs' team, led by attorney Sherrie R. Savett of Berger & Montague, who
represented the lead plaintiff, the Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement
System (SERS).

In his 12-page opinion, Judge Baylson also approved a $6 million settlement
in a related derivative suit and awarded more than $23.5 million in attorney
fees and costs to the plaintiffs’ lawyers.  He awarded $720,000 in attorney
fees to the plaintiffs lawyers in the derivative suit:

     -- Robert I. Harwood and Daniella Quitt of Harwood Feffer  
        in New York; and

     -- Jacob A. Goldberg of Faruqi & Faruqi in Elkins Park, Pa.

The fees were justified, Judge Baylson found, because "the amount of the
settlement in this case is significant and represents one of the largest
securities settlements in this district."

The lawyers had also "accomplished this result without any prior
investigation or involvement by an agency of the United States, such as the
U.S. Attorney's Office or the Securities & Exchange Commission, and had to
perform all the work, including detailed investigation and review of
documents."

In late 2002, individuals seeking to represent a class of purchasers of CIGNA
securities from May 2, 2001 to Oct. 24, 2002 filed several purported class
actions against CIGNA and certain of its officers.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of, and Rule 10b-5 under, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by misleading CIGNA shareholders with respect to the company's performance
during the class period.

In 2003, these suits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania as "In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation."

On Nov. 7, 2002, a purported shareholder derivative complaint nominally on
behalf of CIGNA was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania by Evelyn Hobbs.

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by CIGNA's directors,
including, among other things, their "failure to
monitor, investigate and oversee Cigna's management information system" and
seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

A similar complaint, filed on Nov. 19, 2002 in the New Castle County
(Delaware) Chancery Court by Jack Scott was dismissed by
the plaintiff and refiled in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

The Hobbs and Scott cases were coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the same judge handling, "In re CIGNA
Corp. Securities Litigation."

In December 2006, the parties agreed to separately settle, "In re CIGNA Corp.
Securities Litigation" along with the Hobbs and Scott cases.

The settlements were preliminarily approved on Jan. 25 (Class Action
Reporter, March 16, 2007).

In approving the $93 million settlement, Judge Baylson said there was "no
question that this case was complex, would be expensive to bring to trial,
would be followed by extensive appeals, and that the settlement was a cost-
efficient method for both plaintiffs and defendants to recognize the benefits
of settlement and terminate the risk of proceeding to trial."

The class, the judge noted, "has been exceptionally supportive" of the
settlement, and no objections were filed.  And while the plaintiffs
had "substantial evidence supporting their theory of liability," Judge
Baylson said, there were also "serious risks in taking the case to trial."

Among those risks, the judge said, was the possibility that conflicts could
have developed among the class members "depending on the dates on which they
bought and sold CIGNA stock, and losses they may or may not have incurred as
a result of price movements."

All of those factors led him to conclude that the settlement was "fair and
reasonable."

The suit is "In Re: Cigna Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-08088-
MMB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Michael M. Baylson.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Sherrie R. Savett
          Carole A. Broderick
          Barbara A. Podell
          Berger & Montague, PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-875-3000 or 215-875-4690
          Fax: 215-875-5715 or 215-875-5804 or 215-875-4673
          E-mail: ssavett@bm.net or bpodell@bm.net

          Stephanie M. Beige
          Michael S. Bigin
          Brian S. Cohen
          Jeffrey M. Haber
          Timothy J. Macfall
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414
          E-mail: beige@bernlieb.com or bigin@bernlieb.com or
                  haber@bernlieb.com

          - and -

          Keith M. Fleischman
          Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119

Representing defendants are:

          John G. Harkins, Jr.
          Eleanor Morris Illoway
          Harkins Cunningham
          2800 One Commerce Square
          2005 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7042
          Phone: 215-851-6700
          Fax: 215-851-6710
          E-mail: jharkins@harkinscunningham.com or
                  emi@harkinscunningham.com

          - and -

          David M. Morris
          Alexander R. Sussman
          Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
          One New York Plaza
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-859-8204 or 212-859-8005
          Fax: 212-859-4000
          E-mail: sussmal@ffhsj.com


CONSTAR INT'L: Discovery Proceeds in Pa. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Constar International, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The company and certain of its present and former directors, along with Crown
Holdings, Inc., as well as various underwriters were named defendants in a
consolidated putative securities class action, "In re Constar International
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020."

This action is a consolidation of the lawsuits:

      -- "Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et
          al., Case No. 03-5020," filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and

      -- "Walter Frejek v. Constar International Inc. et al.,
          Case No. 03-5166," filed on Sept. 15, 2003.

The consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004, generally
alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the company's
initial public offering of its common stock on Nov. 14, 2002 contained
material misrepresentations and/or omissions.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants in these lawsuits violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiffs seek class-action certification
and an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses.

Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown and an
underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters, the company has
incurred certain indemnification and contribution obligations to the other
defendants with respect to this lawsuit.

The court denied the company's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted on June 7, 2005 and the company's answer was
filed on Aug. 8, 2005.

The Special Master issued a Report and Order denying the company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings on Feb. 22, 2006.  

The company filed objections to the Report and Order on March 6, 2006.  The
court heard the objections on May 1, 2006 and issued an order overruling the
objections on May 24, 2006.  The case is now proceeding with class
certification and discovery.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 14, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period March 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge Edmund V. Ludwig.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephanie M. Beige, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
         10 East 40th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414
         E-mail: beige@bernlieb.com

         Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Berghad Hynes & Lerach, LLP
         401 B. Street, STE. 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         E-mail: andrewb@lcsr.com

              - and -

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         E-mail: dcheck@sbclasslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven B. Feirson, Esq.
         Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
         Scott A. Thompson, Esq.
         Dechert, Price & Rhoads
         1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
         Phone: 215-994-2749 and 215-994-2390
         Fax: 215-994-2222
         E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com
                 michael.kichline@dechert.com
                 scott.thompson@dechert.com


COURT SOUTH: Lawsuit Over Membership Rule Changes Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
Knox County (Tenn.) Chancellor Daryl R. Fansler has agreed to grant class
certification to a lawsuit filed against the new owners of Court South
Fitness for failing to honor "lifetime" memberships, the Knoxville News
Sentinel reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

    -- Steven Bowling with Court South Centres LLC and Court  
       South Total Conditioning Clubs LLC; and  

    -- John Captain with Court South Fitness Holdings Inc.  

Joe and Marsha Hollingsworth, originally named defendants in the suit, bought
the bankrupt Court South 13 years ago, and honored previously sold lifetime
memberships.

On November 2005, the Hollingsworths sold three Court South locations to
National Fitness Center owners John and Helen Captain.

In 2006, lawyers Chris Cain and Tom Scott sought class-action status for the
lawsuit filed on behalf of club members over the handling of so-called
lifetime renewal memberships granted to an estimated 2,579 people in the late
1980s and early 1990s by then-owner Long Health.

The Hollingsworths are asking to be dismissed from the suit and are expected
to join with the plaintiffs.  According to the Knowxville News, Judge Fansler
has not yet issued a ruling on Howard’s motion to dismiss the case entirely.  

The Hollingsworths are also suing to enforce the purchase agreement requiring
all memberships be honored in their entirety.  According to Mr.
Hollingsworth, as a condition of the November 2005 sale, Mr. Captain was to
honor all memberships as written.  

The Hollingsworths are calling on Mr. Captain to honor in "total" all
lifetime, month-to-month, one-year and three-year memberships "both in
ongoing length of time and with no limit to any of the promised activities,"
according to the report.

At issue are about 600 lifetime memberships and an estimated 3,000 contracts
with low renewal rates that are currently being phased out, Mr. Hollingsworth
said.

Court South has members who paid from zero to a few thousand dollars in the
1980s and early 1990s for what they considered lifetime memberships.

After signing, members thought all they would have to pay were small yearly
renewal fees of $10 or so for the duration of their membership.  

Plaintiffs are seeking class-action status, compensatory damages, treble
damages, restitution and injunctive relief.  

The Captains’ attorney, Lewis Howard, said the couple has agreed to
honor “true” lifetime memberships, where members paid hefty upfront fees to
secure contracts that never had to be renewed.

They are balking, however, at honoring what Hollingsworth and others have
termed lifetime renewal memberships. Under those contracts, members paid a
slightly higher upfront price for membership for the right to renew each year
at a much lower fixed rate. Those rates ranged from $10 to $100 per year.

Court South fitness clubs are on Alcoa Highway, Merchants Center  
Boulevard off Merchants Drive and Walbrook Drive in West  
Knoxville.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Christopher T. Cain
          Ball & Scott, A Professional Association  
          550 W. Main St., Suite 601
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Phone: (865) 525-7028
          Fax: (865) 525-4679
          Web site:  http://www.thomasscottattorney.comor  
                     http://www.ballandscott.com

Representing defendants is:

          Lewis S. Howard, Jr.
          4823 Old Kingston Pike
          Knoxville, TN 37919-6473
          Phone: (423) 588-4091
          Fax: (423) 588-4206


COWEN GROUP: Faces N.Y. Securities Suits Over WorldSpace IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
Cowen Group, Inc. is named as an underwriter defendant in several putative
securities class actions brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period March 31, 2007.

In all of the cases brought to date, plaintiffs seek to recover for losses
allegedly caused by misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the
August 4, 2005 initial public offering of WorldSpace, Inc., a satellite-radio
provider.  

The complaints allege that the subscriber count in the WorldSpace prospectus
improperly included subscribers who had purchased a three-month, pre-paid
subscription pursuant to a promotional offer but who declined to continue to
pay for a subscription following the end of the promotional period.

Cowen Group, Inc. -- http://www.cowen.com/-- is an investment bank that  
provides research, sales and trading, and investment banking services to
companies and institutional investor clients in the healthcare, technology,
media and telecommunications, alternative energy and consumer sectors.  


DELRAY ONE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
Delray One Inc. is facing a class action filed July 9 in West Palm Beach
Federal Court.

Plaintiff Daniel Saldibar alleges Labor Code violations against the company.

The suit is “Saldibar v. Delray One, Inc., Case No. 9:07-cv-80608-DTKH,”
filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge
Daniel T. K. Hurley with referral to Judge James M. Hopkins.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Kelly Allyssha Amritt, Esq.
         Morgan & Morgan
         7450 Griffin Road
         Suite 230
         Davie, FL 33314
         U.S.
         Phone: 954-318-0268
         Fax: 954-333-3515
         E-mail: kamritt@forthepeople.com


DHB INDUSTRIES: $35M Securities, Derivative Suit Settlement Ok’d
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, had granted the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlements entered into
in connection with the securities class action against the company and
certain individual defendants, as well as the related shareholder derivative
action.

Under the settlement documents, the plaintiff class consists of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired DHB shares during the period from Nov.
18, 2003 through November 30, 2006.

After notices of the settlement are mailed and published, the Court will hold
a hearing to consider and determine whether to grant final approval of the
settlement. The court has scheduled the hearing for October 5, 2007.

                         The Settlement

The company announced in July 2006 that it signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle the Class Action and Derivative lawsuits for a total
of $35.2 million, plus an issuance of 3,184,713 shares of its common stock,
in addition to adopting certain corporate governance measures.

In August 2006, the Company disclosed that of the $35.2 million, $22.3
million would be funded through a series of transactions with Mr. David
Brooks, the Company's former chairman and chief executive, and that $12.9
million would be paid for through a buyout of its directors' and officers'
liability policy.

As previously reported, these settlements are subject to review and approval
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On December 15, 2006, a stipulation of settlement was filed with the court
(U.S. District Court, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York, 11722-
4438).  This stipulation, which was signed on behalf of the Company, the
plaintiffs' representatives and individual defendants, represents the
definitive documentation of the settlement. Under the settlement documents,
the class consists of all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired DHB
shares on or after November 18, 2003 until and including November 30, 2006.

DHB Industries Inc.'s highly recognized subsidiaries, Point Blank Body Armor,
Inc. -- http://www.pointblankarmor.comand Protective Apparel Corporation of  
America – http://www.pacabodyarmor.com-- are in the protective body armor  
industry and are focused on the design, manufacture, and distribution of
bullet resistant and protective body armor for military, law enforcement, and
corrections in the U.S. and worldwide.

DHB Industries on the Net: http://www.dhbindustries.com


DORAL FINANCIAL: N.Y. Judge Approves $130M Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Owen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York gave final approval to a $129 million settlement of class action and
derivative claims in the matter, "In Re: Doral Financial Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01706-RO," The Associated Press reports.

At a July 16 fairness hearing, Judge Owen signed off on the deal, in which
the Puerto Rico financial-services company's insurers are expected to pay
about $34 million and individual defendants in the case are expected to pay a
combined $1 million.

"I find that the overall circumstances of this settlement agreement and the
agreement itself is appropriate," the judge said.

Final approval of the settlement allows Doral to proceed with a plan to sell
a controlling stake in the company to a group of investors lead by Bear
Stearns & Co.

                          Case Background

The company and certain of its officers and directors and former officers and
directors, were named as defendants in 18 purported class actions filed
between April 20, 2005 and June 14, 2005 over allegations of federal
securities laws violations.  

Sixteen of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and two were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico.   

These lawsuits were brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased Doral
Financial securities as early as May 15, 2000 and as late as Aug. 15, 2006.

They allege primarily that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements during the class
period, failing to disclose material information concerning the valuation of
the company's IO Strip portfolios, and misleading investors as to Doral's
vulnerability to interest rate increases.

The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has transferred the two
actions that were not initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to that court for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions previously
filed there before Judge Richard Owen.

On Feb. 8, 2006, Judge Owen entered an order appointing the West Virginia
Investment Management Board as lead plaintiff and approving the selection of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel.

On June 22, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
alleging securities fraud during the period between March 15, 2000 and Oct.
25, 2005, based on allegations similar to those noted above, as well as based
on the reversal of certain transactions entered into by Doral Financial with
other Puerto Rico financial institutions and on weaknesses in Doral
Financial's control environment as described in the company's amended annual
report on Form 10-K/ A for 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages
including interest, costs and expenses, and injunctive relief.

                        Settlement Terms

As part of the settlement, the company and insurers will pay an aggregate of
$129 million, of which insurers will pay approximately $34 million.

In addition, one or more individual defendants will pay an aggregate of $1
million (in cash or Doral Financial stock).  The company also agreed to
certain corporate governance enhancements.

The company's payment obligations under the settlement agreement are subject
to the closing and funding of one or more transactions through which the
company obtains outside financing during 2007 to meet its liquidity and
capital needs, including the repayment of the company's $625 million senior
notes due on July 20, 2007, payment of the amounts due under the settlement
agreement and certain other working capital and contractual needs.

Either side may terminate the settlement agreement if the company has not
raised the necessary funding by Sept. 30, 2007 or if the settlement has not
been fully funded within 30 days from the receipt of such funding.

The suit is "In Re: Doral Financial Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-md-01706-RO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Richard Owen.

Representing defendants are:

          Beatriz Annexy-Guevara
          Rafael Escalera-Rodriguez
          Reichard & Escalera
          Post Office Box 364148
          San Juan, PR 364148
          Phone: (787)777-8815 or (787)-777-8877
          Fax: (787)765-4225
          E-mail: annexy@reichardescalera.com or
                  escalera@reichardescalera.com

          Jesus E. Cuza
          Greenberg Traurig, LLP (NYC)
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: (212) 801-9200
          Fax: (212) 801-6400
          E-mail: cuzaj@gtlaw.com

          Cory W. Eichhorn
          Greenberg Trauig P.A( Ft. Lauderdale)
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954)-768-8263
          Fax: (954)-765-1477
          E-mail: eichhornc@gtlaw.com

          - and -

          Lynn Ann Dummett
          Sidley Austin LLP(NY)
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 839-5938
          Fax: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: ldummett@sidley.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Eric James Belfi
          Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212)907-0790
          Fax: (212)883-7579
          E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com

          Ken H. Chang
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 451-9667
          Fax: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: kchang@wolfpopper.com

          - and -

          William Bernard Federman
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 N. Pennsylvania
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Fax: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wfederman@aol.com


EDDIE BAUER: Settles Labor-Related Lawsuit in Calif. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Bauer, Inc. settled a purported class action that was filed against it
on or about June 15, 2006, in Los Angeles Superior Court in the State of
California.

The action, "Tara Hill v. Eddie Bauer, Inc.," is alleging, among other
things, that Eddie Bauer, Inc.:

      -- did not provide plaintiffs with adequate wage
         statements;

      -- did not reimburse plaintiffs for business-related
         expenses;

      -- forced plaintiffs to buy Eddie Bauer clothing;

      -- did not timely pay plaintiffs at the cessation of
         employment; and

      -- improperly required the plaintiffs to work during rest
         and meal periods without compensation.

Based on these allegations, plaintiffs assert various causes of action,
including those under the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code.

On April 23, 2007, the Company reached a settlement related to the class
action suit, which has not yet received court 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 March 31, 2007.

Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.eddiebauer.com/-- is a specialty  
retailer that sells casual sportswear and accessories for the modern outdoor
lifestyle.  The Company’s primary target customers are women and men who are
30-54 years old.  


FORECLOSURE SOLUTIONS: Ohio Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Foreclosure Solutions, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed July 16
in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio accusing it of defrauding
customers, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs -- Rick Dorn, Chenille Kenney, Teddy Nelms and Gloria Byrd --
claim Foreclosure Solutions and Tom Bien, both of Cincinnati, and John
Brooking of Fort Wright, Ky., charged them $1,150 apiece to “save” their
homes, using a so-called “Program 10” which would be “the answer to their
foreclosure problem.”

But plaintiffs say all the defendants did was file an answer to the
foreclosure and then abandon the case. Plaintiffs say they lost their houses.

Plaintiffs demand punitive damages and an injunction.

The suit is "Rick Dorn et al. v. Foreclosure Solutions, LLC et al., Case No.
A0706250," filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Carla L. Leader
          Carrie Dettmer
          Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio, LLC
          215 East Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: (513) 241-9400
          Fax:  (513) 241-0047
          E-mail: cleader@lascinti.org or cdettment@lascinti.org

          - and -

          Matthew Brownfield
          414 Walnut St., Suite 707
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: (513) 361-0300
          Fax: (513) 301-9779
          E-mail: mjb@brownfieldlaw.net


GENUINE INNOVATIONS: Recalls Tire Inflator Posing Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------
Innovations In Cycling Inc. -- doing business as Genuine Innovations, of
Tucson, Arizona -- in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 55,000 units of combination tire inflator and
hand pumps.

The company said the combination tire inflator and hand pump can shatter
under pressure when inflating tires if there is a blockage in the tire valve,
posing the risk of bruises, lacerations, and ringing in the ears to consumers.

The firm has received 12 reports of combination tire inflator and hand pumps
exploding. Six injuries were reported, including lacerations, temporary
ringing in ear and bruising.

This recall involves the Genuine Innovations Second Wind MTB model with part
numbers 2525, 2525-O or 3519 and the Wrench Force Two Shot model with part
numbers 84995 or 80383 combination tire inflator and hand pumps. These
devices consist of a hand pump and CO2 cartridge inflator. The part number
can only be found on the packaging.

These recalled combination tire inflator and hand pumps were manufactured in
the United States and Taiwan and are being sold at specialty retail stores
nationwide and bicycle or motorcycle/ATV catalogues and online stores. The
Genuine Innovations Second Wind MTB and the Wrench Force Two Shot were sold
from January 2004 through May 2007 for about $30. The Second Wind MTB was
sold as part of the Genuine Innovations ATV Deluxe Tire Repair & Inflation
Kit from July 2005 to January 2007 for about $50.

Pictures of the combination tire inflator and hand pumps:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07238a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07238b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the combination tire inflator and hand
pumps and contact the firm for a free replacement pump head.

For additional information, contact Innovations In Cycling at (800) 340-1050
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. MT Monday through Thursday, or visit the firm’s Web
site: http://www.genuineinnovations.com


INDONESIA: Hearing of Suit Against Anti-Terror Squad Set Today
--------------------------------------------------------------
The South Jakarta District Court will hold today the first court hearing of a
lawsuit asking the Indonesian government to dissolve a special anti-terror
team that has taken into custody hundreds of terrorist suspects, Antara News
reports.

"We have received notice from the South Jakarta District that the court
sessions to hear our lawsuit will begin on Thursday, July 19," Munarman, a
member of the Special Detachment 88 Prisoners Advocacy Team, said.

He said the legal action was a class action to seek the restoration of the
rights of people arrested by the police's anti terror unit. It was also
supported by the chairman of the Indonesian Mujahedeen Council Abu Bakar
Ba'asyir.

In June, a team for the Defense of Muslims attorneys and militant cleric Abu
Bakar Ba'asyir filed the suit in the South Jakarta District Court alleging
that the U.S.-funded counter-terrorism squad Detachment 88, made arbitrary
arrests and demands the court to “declare the actions of the antiterrorism
squad ... against the law and as gross human rights violations” (Class Action
Reporter, June 29, 2007).

One of the attorneys who filed the suit said many of the arrested terrorist
suspects claimed to have been tortured in order for them to confess and
gather information.

"We are demanding that the National Police Chief disband the Special
Detachment 88," Mr. Munarman said.

The detachment had allegedly broken Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution which
guaranteed every citizen's right to be free of torture in physical or mental
sense and classified it as an inalienable right.

Detachment 88 had breached the law because it had resorted to physical and
mental violence in its actions to arrest terror suspects and, in fact,
committed gross human right violations, Mr. Munarman said.


IRELAND: Belfast Judge Orders Payment to Royal Ulster Police
------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Patrick Coughlin in Belfast awarded financial damages to certain
retired and current Northern Ireland police officers for ill-treated stress
and trauma they suffered in fighting the Irish Republican Army, Associated
Press reports.

The payment is estimated to total in excess of $200 million.  The
compensation is for officers who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary from
1986 onwards.  The force was abolished in 2001.

The class action was originally brought by more than 5,000 current and former
officers.   It was filed in the city of Derry in Northern Ireland against the
chief constable and the Policing Board for injuries caused by "a failure to
diagnose or treat" post-traumatic stress disorder.

Justice Coughlin ruled that most, but not all, claimants should be awarded
damages because of what he called "systematic failures" by police managers in
with employees' cases of post-traumatic stress disorder and other
psychological problems.

Justice Coughlin said each claimant must pursue a potentially lengthy new
legal process of having the extent of his or her suffering documented by
doctors.


KAPLAN INC: Cal. Court Approves $49M Settlement of BAR/BRI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Manuel Real approved a $49 million settlement of the
BAR/BRI class action on July 9, Matthew Hirsch of Law.com reports.

Judge Real, however, refused to grant a request for incentive payments of
$75,000 and $25,000 each to three and two class representatives,
respectively, because they had a conflict of interest.  He awarded
plaintiffs’ law firm, McGuireWoods, LLP, an extra 75 percent above its normal
hourly rate, instead of the extra 125 percent requested by three of the
attorneys who attended the hearing.

It's unclear how much that will reduce McGuireWoods fees -- a number
previously estimated by class representative Loredana Nesci at $12 million,
according to Mr. Hirsch’s report.

The proposed settlement called for the class of about 300,000 current and
former law students to collect about $125 each.

Former McGuireWoods partner Eliot Disner who challenged the settlement wasn’t
allowed to speak during the hearing and got no indication of whether the
judge had considered his arguments, according to the report.

                        Case Background

The case was filed by former law students in California, Michigan and
Louisiana, who had brought it on behalf of all persons who purchased a bar
review course from BAR/BRI Bar
Review from August 1997 (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006).

Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/a BAR/BRI of
violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiring with Kaplan, Inc. to
prevent competition in the market for full-service bar review courses.  
Kaplan is an international provider of educational and career services.

BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. to assist would-be
attorneys in their preparation for taking one or more bar examinations
required by each state and the District of Columbia prior to the issuance of
a license to practice law.

Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct, consumers had to
pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than they should have (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 19, 2007).

In early December 2006, the parties agreed to a settlement of the
litigation.  On Feb. 2, 2007, the parties filed a settlement agreement with
the court together with documents setting forth a procedure for class notice
(Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29,
2007).

Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-service bar review
course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. where BAR/BRI directly operated a
course anytime from August 1997 up to the present time.  Class members have
until Sept. 17, 2007 to make a claim.  Objections are due May 21, 2007.

As a part of the settlement, defendants have agreed to establish a $49
million fund. The settlement also provides for other non-monetary relief.  
Class Members are eligible to obtain up to 30% of the total amount they paid
for a bar review course from the fund.

BAR/BRI Class Action Litigation on the net:

                http://www.barbri-classaction.com

The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al. v. West Publishing Corp. et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Eliot G. Disner, Esq.
          Noah E Jussim, Esq.
          McGuireWoods, LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-315-8299
          Fax: 310-315-8298
          E-mail: edisner@mcguirewoods.com

          Sidney K. Kanazawa, Esq.
          Tracy Evans Moyer, Esq.          
          Colleen M. Regan, Esq.
          Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-315-8200
          E-mail: skanazawa@vsblaw.com or cregan@vsblaw.com

          - and -

          Joanna Shally, Esq.
          Shearman and Sterling
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-848-4700

Representing the defendants are:

          Edward A. Klein, Esq.
          Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif
          1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
          Phone: 310-500-3500

          Stuart N. Senator, Esq.
          Lee Scott Taylor, Esq.
          Munger Tolles & Olson
          355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl.,
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100
          E-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com

          - and -

          Jeffrey A. LeVee, Esq.
          Courtney M. Schaberg, Esq.
          Brian A. Sun, Esq.
          Jones Day
          555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-489-3939
          E-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com or
                  cmschaberg@jonesday.com or basun@jonesday.com

For more details, contact:

          BAR/BRI Class Action Administrator
          P.O. Box 24639
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 1-888-285-7850
          E-mail: BARBRI@completeclaimsolutions.com


KIA MOTORS: Wins Favorable Ruling in Cal. Suit Over Seat Belts
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Orange County Superior Court jury ruled in favor of Irvine, Calif.-based
Kia Motors America Inc. in a suit over the length of seatbelts in its 2001
and 2002 Sephia and Spectra cars, Jessica C. Lee of Orange County Business
Journal reports.

The seatbelt case could have cost Kia about $2.5 million in damages, Mark
Goldzweig, Kia’s in-house lawyer, told the Journal.

The suit was filed in 2004 by Johnette Alexander and San Diego’s Rosner &
Mansfield LLP purportedly on behalf of some 12,000 people.  It claims the
seatbelts in the cars were defective because they didn’t fit large people.  
It sought damages and lawyers’ fees and an order for Kia to make longer
seatbelts or provide seatbelt extenders.  None of the Kia owners in the
lawsuit were injured by the seatbelts, according to the report.

The jury ruled that Kia’s seatbelts are regulated by the federal government’s
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and meet or exceed government
standards.

Rosner & Mansfield on the Net: http://www.rosnerandmansfield.com/


LYDIAN TRUST: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Lydian Trust Co. is facing a class action filed July 9 in West Palm Beach
Federal Court.

Plaintiff Tara Locastro alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Locastro v. Lydian Trust Co., Case No. 9:07-cv-80603-DTKH,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under
Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley with referral to Judge James M. Hopkins.

Representing the plaintiff is:

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


MAINE: Maine Court Okays Knox County Strip Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge approved in April a settlement of a class action against Knox
County and Sheriff Dan Davey over strip-searching, it emerged in a report by
Holly S. Anderson of VillageSoup/Knox County Times.  The settlement
established a $3 million fund for distribution to class members and a court-
issued injunction to prevent unconstitutional strip searches in Knox County
in the future.

The settlement calls for payouts of about $5,000 each for more than 350
people who were strip-searched illegally at the Knox County Jail over an
eight-year period (Class Action Reporter, April 26, 2007).

An estimated 7,500 to 8,000 people who were charged with nonviolent
misdemeanors and strip-searched at the Rockland jail between Nov. 19, 1996,
and Dec. 31, 2004, were eligible to join the Knox County lawsuit.

                      The Rockland Lawsuit

In the original suit, Laurie Tardiff, represented by attorneys
Dale F. Thistle, Robert J. Stolt and Sumner Lipman, alleges that the
plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights were violated when she was strip-
searched by a female officer at the Rockland jail after being arrested on a
felony charge of tampering with a witness.  That charge and a charge of
violating conditions of release, a misdemeanor, later were dismissed (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2006).

Judge Carter certified the lawsuit in 2003 as a class action.  
People charged with nonviolent misdemeanors who were strip-searched at the
Rockland jail between Nov. 19, 1996, and Dec.
31, 2004 were made eligible to join the suit.

The class was decertified in September, allowing Ms. Tardiff to proceed to
trial as an individual to determine liability, but the court also requested
that the parties attempt to reach an out of court settlement.

In early Oct. 2, the parties reached a $3 million settlement under which Ms.
Tardiff was supposed to receive a $50,000 bonus payment.  The settlement was
to be presented for approval to the court on the same month.  

But before it could happen, Ms. Tardiff sent a letter to Judges Carter and
George Singal, the mediator in the settlement stating that she was backing
off, asking for $500,000 instead.  Ms. Tardiff then hired attorney William D.
Robitzek at Lewiston law firm Berman & Simmons and opted out of the class.  

Parties agreed to substitute Ms. Tardiff with a new class representative,
Dale Dare, and filed an amended settlement on
Oct. 24, 2006.

Judge Carter, however, refused to approve the amended settlement because it
did not provide two opportunities for all potential class members to opt out,
and because the language of the injunction left out a stipulation regarding
parties' rights to appeal.  

Judge Carter has found that the third final settlement agreement has met
federal law requirements, and the injunction language satisfactory.

The suit is "Dare v. Knox County, et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-00251-GC," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine under Judge Gene Carter
with referral to Judge David M.
Cohen.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Sumner H. Lipman, Esq.
          Lipman, Katz & Mckee
          P.O. Box 1051, Augusta
          ME 04332-1051
          Phone: 207-622-3711
          E-mail: slipman@lipmankatzmckee.com

and -

          Dale F. Thistle, Esq.
          Law Office of Dale F. Thistle
          103 Main Street, P.O. Box 160
          Newport, ME 04953
          Phone: (207) 368-7755
          E-mail: dthistle@verizon.net

Representing the defendants are:

          Peter t. Marchesi, Esq.
          Wheeler & Arey, P.A.
          27 Temple Street, P.O. BOX 376
          Waterville, ME 04901
          Phone: 873-7771
          E-mail: pbear@wheelerlegal.com

          - and -

         John J. Wall, III, Esq.
         Monaghan Leahy, LLP
         P.O. BOX 7046 DTS
         Portland, ME 04112-7046
         Phone: 774-3906
         E-mail: jwall@monaghanleahy.com


MIDTOWN MIAMI: Faces Lawsuit Filed by Condo Buyers
--------------------------------------------------
Miami attorney Michael J. Schlesinger has filed a complaint on behalf of 17
Two Midtown Miami condo buyers who want to end their contracts.

Mr. Schlesinger expects more will join the class action surrounding the 337-
unit project in the Wynwood neighborhood just north of downtown Miami,
according to Susan Stabley of South Florida Business Journal.

Ms. Stabley said in the report Mr. Schlesinger is also planning a class
action over Four Midtown Miami, a 32-story building with 398 units.


MIKE'S AUTO: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mike's Auto Parts Inc. Corp. is facing a class action filed in Miami Federal
Court on July 6, 2007.  

Plaintiff Francisco Jimeno alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Jimeno v. Mike's Auto Parts Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21732-
JAL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
under Judge Joan A. Lenard.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          300 71st Street
          Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Phone: 305-865-6766
          Fax: 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


NETLIST INC: Faces Federal Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------Netlist, Inc.
faces a purported securities fraud class action in a New York federal court,
according to the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period March 31, 2007.

The suit, “Tran v. Netlist, et al., No. 07 CV 3754,” was filed on May 2007
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as
defendants

It is filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock in or
traceable to the Company’s initial public offering and assets claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The Company has not been
served with the complaint.

Netlist, Inc. -- http://www.netlistinc.com/-- designs and manufactures high-
performance memory subsystems.  The Company sells its subsystems to original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in the server, high-performance computing and
communications markets.


OMNI FINANCIAL: Ga. Court Considers Motion in “Gage” Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Fulton County, state of Georgia, has yet to rule on a
motion that seeks to add more defendants in a class action against Omni
Financial Services, Inc.

The company was named as a defendant in litigation involving Georgia
Community Bank, which it acquired in 2005.  While the plaintiffs had
initially dismissed the company from the litigation in May of 2006, they have
since filed a motion seeking leave to add one of its subsidiaries as a party-
defendant.

On Oct. 24, 2005, two shareholders of Georgia Community Bancshares, Inc., the
former parent of Georgia Community Bank, filed a proposed class action
against, among others, Georgia Community Bancshares, Georgia Community Bank
and the company for fraud under the Georgia Securities Act of 1973, as
amended and the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
common law fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The action is "Gage, et al. v. Georgia Community Bank, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 2005CV107863, Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia."

The complaint alleged that, prior to the company's acquisition of Georgia
Community Bank, defendants committed fraud in the sale of Georgia Community.

It alleged that the company merged with Georgia Community Bank and assumed
all of its liabilities, including liability for the claims alleged in the
complaint.

The company said it purchased all of Georgia Community Bank's stock from
Georgia Community Bancshares, caused Georgia Community Bank to be converted
into a national bank and merged it into the company's subsidiary bank, Omni
National Bank.  

After the action was filed, the company was not initially served with
process.  In discussions with plaintiffs' counsel, the company asserted that
neither it nor Omni National Bank has any liability for the claims alleged in
the complaint, that Omni
National Bank owns any claims against Georgia Community Bank's officers and
directors for any breach of their fiduciary duties to Georgia Community Bank
and that the company will assert ownership of those claims, if the plaintiffs
proceed with the litigation against the company.

The company's counsel accepted service of the complaint on April 3, 2006.  On
April 18, 2006, the company's counsel served the plaintiffs and their counsel
with written notice of its intent to file claims for abusive litigation
pursuant to Official Code of Georgia (O.C.G.A.) Section 51-7-80 et seq. and
for frivolous litigation pursuant to O.C. G.A. Section 9-15-14 against the
plaintiffs, their counsel and each counsel's firm if they failed to withdraw,
abandon, discontinue or dismiss the complaint against the company within 30
days of notice.

Subsequently, on May 3, 2006, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action and
all claims therein as to the company without prejudice.  The action is still
pending against the remaining defendants.

On Dec. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave of court to amend
the complaint to add the Bank as a party- defendant, alleging in their
proposed amended complaint that the Bank, as the successor in interest to
Georgia Community Bank assumed liability in the merger for the plaintiffs'
claims against Georgia Community Bank.  The court has not yet ruled on the
motion.

The company provided 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.

Omni Financial Services, Inc. -- http://www.omnifinserv.com/-- is a bank  
holding company that operates through its wholly owned subsidiary, Omni
National Bank.  Omni National Bank is a national bank, and provides a range
of banking services to commercial and consumer customers.


OUR WORLD: Faces Suit Over Recalled Herbal Sleep Aid “Sleepees”
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vancouver resident, Leslie Ellis, filed a class action in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia on behalf of Canadians injured by the herbal sleep aid,
Sleepees.  The suit was filed against Our World Inc., the Vancouver-based
manufacturer of the drug.

Ms. Ellis said she began taking Sleepees in September 2006 and has since
suffered adverse affects from the drug, including addiction, depression and
allergic reaction. Her lawyer, David Klein, says "Sleepees was advertised as
an all-natural product. Ms. Ellis would never have taken it if she knew it
contained an addictive drug. Our World Inc. had an obligation to tell
consumers, and Health Canada, what was actually in their product."

The product was recalled following a Feb. 23, 2007 Health Canada advisory
that Sleepees contained an undeclared drug, estazolam. Estazolam belongs to
the class of drugs known as enzodiazepines, a category of drugs that should
only be prescribed by a healthcare practitioner.

Estazolam can be highly addictive and can cause serious adverse reactions,
including depression, loss of memory, allergic reactions, and withdrawal
symptoms.

Our World Inc. allegedly sold Sleepees to consumers without advising them, or
Health Canada, that the product contained an addictive and potentially
harmful drug.

Ms. Ellis’ lawyer is:

          David Klein, Esq.
          Klein Lyons, Barristers and Solicitors
          Suite 1100, 1333 West Broadway
          Vancouver, B.C.
          Tel: (604) 874-7171
          Fax: (604) 874-7180
          Website: http://www.kleinlyons.com

     
PUBLIC STORAGE: Still Faces Calif. "Brinkley" Labor Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Public Storage Inc. continues to face a purported class action, "Brinkley v.
Public Storage, Inc. filed April 2005 in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County.

The plaintiff sued the company on behalf of a purported class of California
non-exempt employees based on various California wage and hour laws and
seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.   

In May 2006, a motion for class certification was filed seeking to certify
five subclasses.  Plaintiff sought certification for alleged meal period
violations, rest period violations, failure to pay for travel time, failure
to pay for mileage reimbursement, and for wage statement violations.  

In October 2006, the court declined to certify three out of the five
subclasses.  The court did, however, certify subclasses based on alleged meal
period and wage statement violations.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 14, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period March 31, 2007.

Public Storage -- http://www.publicstorage.com-- formerly Public Storage,  
Inc., is an equity real estate investment trust (REIT).  It is a fully
integrated, self-administered and self-managed REIT that acquires, develops,
owns and operates self-storage facilities.  


PUBLIC STORAGE: "Serrao" Lawsuit Remanded to Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal lawsuit alleging violations of consumer fraud laws, which is
pending against Public Storage, Inc., was remanded to the California Superior
Court for Orange County.

The plaintiff filed the suit, "Serrao v. Public Storage, Inc.," in April 2003
against the company on behalf of a putative class of renters who rented self-
storage units from the company.

Plaintiff alleges that the company misrepresented the size of its storage
units, has brought claims under California statutory and common law relating
to consumer protection, fraud, unfair competition, and negligent
misrepresentation.

The suit seeks monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive
relief.  

On Nov. 3, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to strike the
plaintiff's nationwide class allegations and to limit any putative class to
California residents only.

In August 2005, the company filed a motion to remove the case to federal
court, but the case has been remanded to the Superior Court.

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 March 31, 2007.

Public Storage -- http://www.publicstorage.com-- formerly Public Storage,  
Inc., is an equity real estate investment trust (REIT).  It is a fully
integrated, self-administered and self-managed REIT that acquires, develops,
owns and operates self-storage facilities.


ROCK HILL: Checks in $2M Settlement of Investors Suit Now Ready
---------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement checks for two class actions brought by shareholders of the now-
defunct Rock Hill Bank and Trust are due to be mailed Friday, Sula Pettibon
of The Herald Online reports.

Shareholders will receive $1.02 per share, or almost $8 less per share than
they asked for in two class actions settled in February.

Lawsuits were filed against Rock Hill Bank after irregularities were found in
the commercial loan department of the company.  Named in the suits are two
bank officers and eight directors, former president Rob Herron, and the
accounting firm of Tourville Simpson and Caskey, which was dissolved and sold.

The class action states that the bank had losses two straight years because
of employee misconduct.  It also claims officers and directors failed to
monitor employees and loan activity.

Rock Hill was subsequently sold to the South Financial Group, which held 22%
of RHB&T's stock at the time, for $8.8 million as part of a recovery plan.

A $2.1 million preliminary settlement was reached later (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 22, 2006).

Court documents revealed that the agreement essentially gives members of one
of the suits about $2,095,000, or $1.02 per share after expenses and fees.

Another $100,000 is proposed for settling the second lawsuit, which was
thrown out of court in January and is currently being appealed (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 20, 2007).

At a Feb. 23, 2007 final hearing at the York County Courthouse in South
Carolina, 5th Circuit Judge Ernest Kinard Jr. of Camden approved the
settlement of the two class actions Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2007).  
Under the settlement, 1,100 shareholders will split $1.3 million or $1.02 per
share.  

Plaintiffs are represented by:

          T. English McCutchen
          1414 Lady Street
          Columbia, South Carolina 29201
          Phone: (803) 799-9791
          Fax: (803) 253-6084
          E-mail: emccutchen@mbjb.com
          Web site: http://www.mbjb.com


ROGERS INT'L: Aug. 8 Status Conference Set for Ill. Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 8, 2007 status conference is set for a purported class action pending
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Rogers International
Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (Partnership).

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III, Allen D. Goodman
and James Beeland Rogers, Jr. have been named as defendants, and the
Partnership as a nominal defendant, in a class action and derivative action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by
Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust dated
April 10, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the Partnership in the management of the Partnership and were negligent in
connection with the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets
and seeks judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys’
fees and class certification of the Partnership’s limited partners.

Following defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew
their complaint from federal court and filed a similar complaint in the Law
Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  

Walter Thomas Price was not named as a defendant in this state court
complaint.

Defendants successfully moved to have the case reassigned to the Chancery
Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Defendants also filed a motion to stay this matter in light of a related case
pending in the Southern District of New York.  

On March 1, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs certain discovery related to
personal jurisdiction over defendant James Rogers in this matter.

On May 4, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint.  A status hearing is scheduled for Aug. 8, 2007.


ROGERS INT'L: Court Stays Class, Derivative Litigation in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class and derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Rogers International Raw Materials
Fund, L.P. (Partnership) has been stayed, according to the company’s May 15,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period March 31, 2007.

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III, James Beeland
Rogers, Jr., Robert Mercorella and Allen Goodman have been named as
defendants, and the Partnership as a nominal defendant in a lawsuit filed by
Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to the Partnership in causing or allowing the transfer of
Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets and seeks judgment and other
relief declaring defendants responsible for the loss of any Partnership
assets, or, alternatively, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees and other relief.

Following several status hearings, the Court set a date of April 2, 2007 for
plaintiffs to file any further amendments to their complaint, and May 15,
2007 for defendants to respond to the amended complaint.

On April 9, 2007, this case was stayed at plaintiffs’ request pending the
resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in the Lane case filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County.

                         The Lane Case

Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust filed
a class action and derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the Partnership in the management of the Partnership and were negligent in
connection with the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets
and seeks judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys’
fees and class certification of the Partnership’s limited partners.

Following defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew
their complaint from federal court and filed a similar complaint in the Law
Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  

Defendants also filed a motion to stay this matter in light of a related case
pending in the Southern District of New York.  

On March 1, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs certain discovery related to
personal jurisdiction over defendant James Rogers in this matter.

On May 4, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint.  A status hearing is scheduled for Aug. 8, 2007.

                   
SJC INC: CT Suit Alleges Unlawful Interception of Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCJ Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 13 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, claiming the car dealer
secretly tapped all its phone calls.

Named plaintiff Jorge Calvo brings this action for money damages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees and injunctive and other relief as a result
of defendant's unlawful interception and recording of telephone calls in
violation of:

     -- Title III the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
        of 1968;
     -- 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2520, as amended (Title III); and
     -- Connecticut General Statutes Sections 52-570d (the
        Recording Act) and 54-41r (the Wiretapping Act); and
     -- the common law tort of invasion of privacy.

In addition, Plaintiff brings this as an individual action under Title III,
the Recording Act, the Wiretapping Act and the common law of the State of
Connecticut.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose incoming and/or
outgoing telephone calls were intercepted and/or recorded by Defendant at any
time after July 9, 2005.

Plaintiff claims:

     -- Damages under Title III, the Wiretapping Act and the
        Recording Act;

     -- Punitive Damages under Title III and the Wiretapping
        Act;

     -- Injunctive Relief under Title III, the Wiretapping Act
        and the Recording;

     -- Interest and costs;

     -- Attorneys’ fees under Title III, the Wiretapping Act and
        the Recording Act; and

     -- Such other and further relief as the Court deems just
         and equitable.

The suit is “Calvo v. SCJ Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-01071-AHN,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, under Judge Alan H.
Nevas.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Anthony J. Pantuso, III
          Pantuso Law Firm LLC
          204 Broad St., 2nd Fl.
          Milford, CT 06460
          Phone: 203-876-0000
          Fax: 203-877-1839
          E-mail: apantuso@pantusolaw.com


STEC INC: Still Faces Calif. Consumer Lawsuit Over Hard Drives
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEC, Inc. is a defendant in a purported nationwide class action filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles over its
hard drive products.

The suit is alleging that the company's description of the capacity of its
hard drives constitutes fraudulent, unfair, deceptive and false advertising
under California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 and
violates the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Filed by Boris Brand on Oct. 6, 2006, suit alleges that the company's
description of the storage capacity on its hard drives uses a decimal basis
for measuring gigabytes which results in a lower storage capacity when the
hard drives are incorporated into an operating system that uses a binary
gigabyte basis for measurement.

Plaintiff seeks restitution, disgorgement, compensatory damages and
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The company provided 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.

STEC, Inc., -- http://www.stec-inc.com/-- formerly SimpleTech, Inc. designs,  
develops, manufactures and markets custom memory solutions based on Flash
memory and dynamic random access memory (DRAM) technologies.  


STEVE’S RESTAURANT: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve’s Restaurant Corp. is facing a class action filed in Miami Federal
Court on July 6, 2007.  

Plaintiff Luis Rodriguez alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Rodriguez v. Steve's Restaurant Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
21730-AJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Adalberto Jordan.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          300 71st Street
          Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Phone: 305-865-6766
          Fax: 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


UNCAS MFG: Recalls Children’s Earrings on High Lead Levels
----------------------------------------------------------
Uncas Manufacturing Co., of Providence, Rhode Island, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 220 units of
Sleeping Beauty Crown and Cinderella Star Earring Sets.

The company said the recalled metal earring sets contain high levels of lead.
Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health
effects.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Sleeping Beauty Crown and the Cinderella Star
Earring sets. The Sleeping Beauty Crown set contains two pairs of earrings;
one pair is shaped as pink crowns and the other pair is shaped as the
Sleeping Beauty character. The Cinderella Star Earring set contains two pairs
of earrings; one pair is shaped as blue stars and the other one is shaped as
the Cinderella character. The packaging is shaped as a pink heart and “The
Wonderful World of Disney” is printed in the front.

These recalled earring sets were manufactured in China and are being sold at
Wal-Mart Stores in Florida from February 2007 to June 2007 for about $5.

Picture of the recalled earring sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07241.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take this recalled jewelry away from
children and return it to Uncas Manufacturing Co. for a full refund.

For additional information, contact the firm at (800) 776-0980 between 8 a.m.
and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or E-mail: skenney@uncas.com


UNITED PARCEL: Disability Bias Suit in Pa. Granted Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania approved the certification of a nationwide class of
individuals who were employees of United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS) between
March 2000 and the present.

Judge Conti certified the class who were precluded from returning to work due
to medical reasons because of alleged across-the-board policies and practices
of UPS that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The decision will
affect thousands of capable employees.

Filed in 2004, the lawsuit charges UPS with systematic violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the federal law that protects persons
with disabilities from employment discrimination (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 13, 2004).

According to one of the allegations in the lawsuit, UPS maintains a policy,
pattern and practice of requiring employees to provide a "full" or "100
percent" medical release, without restrictions, before permitting employees
to return to work following a medical leave of absence.

The lawsuit also charges that UPS refuses to meet in good faith with its
disabled employees to determine the extent of their disabilities and what
work the employees can perform at UPS within the limits of their work
restrictions, instead conducting a sham investigation of the workers' medical
condition, which invariably results in a decision by UPS that the individual
is either too disabled to work at any job UPS has or not disabled enough to
warrant the protection of federal laws that require UPS to assist the worker
to return to work.  Either way UPS puts the employee out of a job at the
company.

Employees also contend that UPS refuses to reinstate permanently disabled
employees in a position that will accommodate their medical restrictions in
situations where reinstating them would not impose an undue hardship on the
company. Finally, the lawsuit charges UPS retaliates against workers who have
filed workers compensation or discrimination claims by refusing to let them
return to work even if a 100% release is eventually submitted, and in
violation of the workers' seniority rights under UPS' collective bargaining
agreement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin UPS from engaging in
discriminatory employment practices in violation of the ADA, as well as the
implementation of policies that provide equal employment opportunities for
persons with present, past or perceived disabilities.

"Judge Conti's decision resolves the magnitude of this important litigation,"
said lead attorney David R. Scott of Scott+Scott LLP. "Only a class action
can equalize the playing field between industry giants like UPS and hard-
working employees."

The decision affects UPS workers at locations all over the country who were
told they could not return to work anywhere at UPS unless they could present
a doctor's note saying they were "100% healed" or had no work restrictions,
or who otherwise tried to return to work at UPS after a medical leave of
absence.

According to attorney Christian Bagin, "Many UPS employees -- like a lot of
workers across the country -- don't know about the ADA and its protections --
though the effects of the statute's violation on their lives is severe."

The suit is “Hohider v. United Parcel Service, et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00363-
JFC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Christian Bagin
          Wienand & Bagin
          312 Boulevard of the Allies, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1916
          Phone: (412) 281-1110
          Fax: 412-281-8481
          E-mail: christian@wienandandbagin.com

          Donald A. Broggi
          Arthur L. Shingler, III
          Scott + Scott
          600 B Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-4565
          E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com or
                  ashingler@scott-scott.com

          Erin G. Comite
          Anita M. Laing
          David R. Scott
          Scott & Scott
          108 Norwich Avenue
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: (860) 537-5537 or (860) 537-3818
          E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com or
                  alaing@scott-scott.com or
                  drscott@scott-scott.com

          - and -

          Judith B. Goldstein
          Kimberly M. Skaggs
          Equal Justice Foundation
          88 East Broad Street, Suite 1590
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 221-9800
          Fax: (614) 221-9810
          E-mail: jgoldstein@equaljusticefoundation.com

Representing defendant are:

          Joseph E. Culleiton
          David J. McAllister
          Joseph P. McHugh
          Perry A. Napolitano
          Reed Smith
          435 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886
          Phone: (412) 288-7216 or 288-3058 or (412) 288-3131 or
                  288-7230
          E-mail: jculleiton@reedsmith.com or
                  dmcallister@reedsmith.com or
                  jmchugh@reedsmith.com or
                  pnapolitano@reedsmith.com


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Universal American Mortgage Co., LLC is facing a class action filed July 9 in
West Palm Beach Federal Court.

Plaintiff Tara Locastro alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Locastro v. Universal American Mortgage Co., LLC, Case No. 9:07-
cv-80602-DTKH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley with referral to Judge James M.
Hopkins.

Representing the plaintiff is:

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


V STEAKHOUSE: Former Workers File Suit Over Wage Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
French restaurateur Jean-Georges Vongerichten is facing a class action filed
by former V Steakhouse workers complaining of subminimum wages, Thomas
Zambito of Daily News reports.

The suit was filed by six employees in Manhattan Federal Court.  One of the
plaintiffs is Katherine Tuminelli.  Her lawyer, Maimon Kirschenbaum, said
managers at the V Steakhouse violated federal labor laws by taking a portion
of tips earned by waiters, busboys and captains.

Mr. Vongerichten shut down the V Steakhouse in New York in Time Warner Center
in December due to financial problems.  


YAHOO INC: Suit Mulled Over Plan to Withdraw Musicmatch Jukebox
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action is being mulled over a plan by Yahoo Inc. to withdraw its
Musicmatch Jukebox software and associated services on Aug. 31, according to
Stephen Withers of ITWire.  

Users are being encouraged to switch to Yahoo Music Jukebox and Yahoo Music
Unlimited, which complaints say lack some functions of the Musicmatch.  
According to Mr. Withers, a common objection is the removal of Musicmatch
Jukebox's super tagging feature, which added cover art to tracks as they were
ripped from CDs.

The suits are being threatened to be filed based on the removal of Musicmatch
functionality after payment had been made, according to Mr. Withers.

Yahoo has devised an automated transfer of Musicmatch Jukebox Plus key, time
credit on a Musicmatch music subscription, on demand playlists, account
information, local Library settings, and any remaining Musicmatch Store
credit.  Musicmatch On Demand accounts are automatically closed on migration
to Yahoo Music Unlimited.  Users who choose to cancel accounts, won’t receive
a refund for the subscription term, Yahoo informs clients in a letter.


YOU KI: Three Firms Face Labor Code Violations Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three companies are facing a class action filed July 9 in Miami Federal Court.

Plaintiff Ramon Frontado alleges P&R Smith Corp., and Buzz LLC and You Ki
Inc. have violated the Labor Code.

The suit is “Frontado v. You Ki, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21750-MGC,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under
Judge Marcia G. Cooke.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          782 NW LeJeune Road
          Miami, FL 33126
          Phone: 305-448-9292
          Fax: 448-2788
          E-mail: marban@bellsouth.net


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BIOENVISION INC: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven announces that a class action has been commenced in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who
sold shares of Bioenvision, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIVN) between May 1, 2007 and May
28, 2007, inclusive.

This class period may be expanded to extend for some period of time before
May 1, 2007 such that it is possible that those who sold Company shares some
indefinite period of time before May 1, 2007 may be included in the class
ultimately before the Court.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market about the Company and by failing to
disclose material information about the Company's plan to merge with Genzyme
and that when the market learned the truth, the price of Bioenvision
securities increased substantially.

The claims brought seek to recover the difference between the price for which
members of the prospective class sold shares and the price for which they
would have been able to sell shares had the Company timely disclosed its
merger intentions.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 11, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410-986-0036
          E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Website: http://www.browerpiven.com


                            *********


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  * * *