CAR_Public/070723.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 23, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 143

                            Headlines


A-BOB’S GLASS: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
ABRA AUTO: Minn. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
ALPHARMA INC: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y. Court
APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Ill. Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations

AROTECH CORP: Faces Mich., N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuits
AWP LITIGATION: Court Finds Liability Against Three Drug Firms
BEVERAGE COMPANIES: Settle Suit Over Benzene Content of Drinks
CAREMASTER MEDICAL: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ga.
CASTLEBERRY’S FOOD: Recalls Chili Products Possibly Contaminated

CIB MARINE: Wis. Court Mulls Motions in Securities Fraud Suit
CNSHO INC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
CONTINENTAL PAINTING: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla.
CVS/PHARMACY: Recalls Playskool Sippy Cups Posing Choking Hazard
FIBERNET TELECOM: Three Firms Sue in W.Va. Over Service Failure

GAMING PARTNERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Nevada
HASBRO INC: Recalls Toy Ovens After Reports of Finger Burns
HONDA MOTOR: Faces Various Lawsuits Over New Motor Vehicles
LOGAN'S ROADHOUSE: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Tenn.
MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Settles “Grecian” Securities Fraud Lawsuit

MICROSOFT CORP: Calif. Residents Sue Over 360 Console Defects
NVIDIA CORP: Faces Coordinated GPU Antitrust Suits in Calif.
OPPENHEIMER & CO: Faces Labor Violations Suit in Florida
ORANGE 21: Calif. Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
PC MALL: Arbitrator Yet to Approve Settlement with Workers

PROGRESSIVE GAMING: Nev. Court Mulls Final OK for $2.8M Deal
REABLE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suits Over Blackstone Capital Deal
SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES: Faces California Labor Code Violations Suit
THIRD FEDERAL: Obtains Judgment in $27M “Greenspan” Lawsuit
VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles “Junk Fax” Lawsuit in La. for $6M


                            *********


A-BOB’S GLASS: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
A-Bob's Glass Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 13
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Named plaintiff Oswaldo Ochoa alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The suit is “Ochoa v. A-Bob's Glass Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-
60989-JIC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge James I. Cohn, with referral to Judge Lurana S. Snow.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Stacey Hope Cohen
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com


ABRA AUTO: Minn. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------
ABRA Auto Body and Glass, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Named plaintiffs Thomas Hale and Justin Schreckenstein allege violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Hale et al. v. ABRA Auto Body and Glass, Inc., Case No. 0:07-cv-
03367-PAM-JSM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, under Judge Paul A. Magnuson, with referral to Judge Janie S.
Mayeron.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Charles V. Firth
          Clayton D. Halunen
          Christopher D. Jozwiak
          Halunen & Associates
          220 S 6th St Ste 2000
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-605-4098
          Fax: 612-605-4099
          E-mail: firth@halunenlaw.com or halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  or jozwiak@halunenlaw.com


ALPHARMA INC: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Alpharma Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 10 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Named plaintiff Tito Jackson alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The suit is “Jackson v. Alpharma, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-03250-GEB-JJH,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge
Garrett E. Brown, Jr., with referral to Judge John J. Hughes.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Arthur L. Bugay
          Galfund Berger, LLP
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 665-6810
          E-mail: abugay@galgandberger.com


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
July 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Named plaintiff Alison L. Beatty alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The suit is “Beatty v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
02855-NGG-WDW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, under Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, with referral to Judge William D.
Wall.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Kathryn J. Webber
          Thompson Wigdor & Gilly LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5720
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-239-9292
          Fax: 212-239-9001
          E-mail: kwebber@twglawyers.com


APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Ill. Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apartment Investment and Management Co., Aimco Properties LP and NHP
Management Inc. are facing a class-action complaint filed July 13 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Employees allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Bishop et al. v. Vensons et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03952,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge
Ruben Castillo.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Charles Edgar Tompkins, IV
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New Ork Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: ctompkins@cmht.com


AROTECH CORP: Faces Mich., N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Arotech Corp. and certain of its officers and directors face several
purported securities fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan and in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, according to the company’s May 17, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

Although the company has yet to be served with a copy of the complaint, it
apparently seeks class status on behalf of all persons who purchased our
securities between March 31, 2005 and Nov. 14, 2005 and alleges violations by
the company and certain of its officers and directors of Sections 10(b) and 20
(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
primarily related to the company's acquisition of Armour of America in 2005
and certain public statements made by the company with respect to its
business and prospects during the period.

The complaint also alleges that the company did not have adequate systems of
internal operational or financial controls, and that the company’s financial
statements and reports were not prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and U.S. Securities and Exchange rules.  It
seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Two similar cases were apparently filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York in May 2007.

The suit is "Kuehn v. Arotech Corp. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-11249-LPZ-VMM,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under
Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff with referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
         Cafferty Faucher (Ann Arbor)
         101 N. Main Street, Suite 450
         Ann Arbor, MI 48104
         Phone: 734-769-2144
         E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyfaucher.com


AWP LITIGATION: Court Finds Liability Against Three Drug Firms
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Patti Saris in Boston ordered AstraZeneca Plc, Bristol-
Myers Squibb Co. and Schering-Plough Corp. to pay damages for overcharging on
some drugs paid for by Medicare.

The ruling comes in a class action involving the pricing of pharmaceutical
drugs reimbursed by Medicate, private insurers, and patients making
coinsurance payments based on average wholesale price between 1991 and 2001.  
For the most part, the drugs at issue are administered by doctors for the
treatment of cancer and other serious ailments.

Class plaintiffs have alleged that four pharmaceutical companies:

     * AztraZeneca,
     * Schering-Plough,
     * Bristol-Myers Squibb, and
     * Johnson & Johnson

have engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 93 A by grossly inflating the AWPs of certain specified drugs,
which are published in commercial publications, and that these inflated
prices have caused damages to Medicare, third-party payors, and patients
making percentage co-payments.

Plaintiffs’ core claim is that the published AWPs for defendants' drugs are
fictitious because they do not reflect the true average sales price to
providers, like doctors and pharmacists.  Because AWP is the predominant
benchmark for reimbursement by the government and third-party payors,
plaintiffs contend that manufacturers grossly inflate each drug's AWP to
create a "spread" between the doctor's real acquisition cost and the
fictitious published AWP, and that drug manufacturers then "market the
spread" in order to obtain market share over a competitor's drug.  

The June 21 ruling affects two of the three originally named classes:

(1) Class 2: third-party payor Medigap Supplemental Insurance
             Class

The class is composed of:

     all third-party payors who made reimbursements for drugs
     purchased in Massachusetts, or who made reimbursements for      
     drugs and have their principal place of business in
     Massachusetts, based on AWP for a Medicare Part B covered
     Subject Drug that was manufactured by:

     AstraZeneca
      * AstraZeneca PLC,
      * Zeneca Inc.,
      * AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and
      * AstraZeneca U.S.

    the BMS Group

       * Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
       * Oncology Therapeutics Network Corp., and
       * Apothecon Inc.,
       * SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline,

      the Johnson & Johnson Group
       * Johnson & Johnson,
       * Centocor, Inc.,
       * Ortho Biotech,
       * McNeil-PPC Inc., and
       * Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP), or

     the Schering Plough Group
       * Schering-Plough Corp., and
       * Warrick Pharmaceuticals Corp.

(2) Class 3: Consumer and Third-party Payor class for Medicare
             Part B Drugs Outside of the Medicare context

The class is composed of:

     all natural persons who made or who incurred an obligation
     enforceable at the time of judgment to make a payment for
     purchases in Massachusetts, all third-party payors who made
     reimbursements based on contracts expressly using AWP as a
     pricing standard for purchases in Massachusetts, and all
     third-party payors who made reimbursements based on
     contracts expressly using AWP as a pricing standard and
     have their principal place of business in Massachusetts,
     for a physician-administered Subject Drug that was
     manufactured by:

    AstraZeneca
      * AstraZeneca PLC,
      * Zeneca Inc.,
      * AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and
      * AstraZeneca U.S.

    the BMS Group

       * Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
       * Oncology Therapeutics Network Corp., and
       * Apothecon Inc.,
       * SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline,

      the Johnson & Johnson Group
       * Johnson & Johnson,
       * Centocor, Inc.,
       * Ortho Biotech,
       * McNeil-PPC Inc., and
       * Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP), or

     the Schering Plough Group
       * Schering-Plough Corp., and
       * Warrick Pharmaceuticals Corp.

Included within this class are natural persons who paid coinsurance (i.e., co-
payments proportional to the reimbursed amount) for a Subject Drug purchased
in Massachusetts, where such coinsurance was based upon use of AWP as a
pricing standard.  Excluded from this class are any payments or
reimbursements for generic drugs that are based on MAC and not AWP.

The court found that:

     -- AstraZeneca acted unfairly and deceptively by causing
        the publication of false and inflated average wholesale
        prices for Zoladex which grossly exceeded actual
        physician acquisition costs by as much as 169% and then
        marketing these mega-spreads between the physician's
        acquisition costs and the AWP reimbursement benchmark in
        order to induce doctors to buy its drug based on the
        drug's profitability.  The spread on Zoladex exceeded
        100% from 1998 forward.  The court finds damages of
        $4,451,426 to class 3.  The court needs additional
        information to calculate damages for class 2.

     -- Bristol-Myers Squibb acted unfairly and deceptively by
        causing the publication of false and inflated average
        wholesale prices for five drugs, which grossly exceeded
        actual physician acquisition costs and then marketing
        these mega-spreads between the physician's acquisition
        costs and the AWP reimbursement benchmark in order to
        induce doctors and other providers to buy its drugs
        based on the drug's profitability.  

     -- The court found liability for Bristol-Myers Squibb's
        drugs Taxol (with spreads as high as 500%), Vepesid
        injectable (with spreads as high as 1,000%), Cytoxan
        injectable (with spreads as high as 676%), Blenoxane
        (with spreads as high as 199%), and Rubex (with spreads
        as high as 438%).  The court finds damages of $183,454
        to Class 3.  The court needs additional information to
        calculate damages for class 2.

     -- Schering-Plough's subsidiary Warrick acted unfairly and
        deceptively by causing the publication of false and
        inflated average wholesale prices for its generic drug
        albuterol sulfate, which had mega-spreads between 100%
        and 800% throughout the class period.  The court needs
        additional information to calculate damages for class 2.

     -- While Johnson & Johnson's conduct was at times
        troubling, it did not rise to the level of egregious
        misconduct actionable under the Massachusetts Chapter
        93A, because its spreads never substantially exceeded
        the range of what was generally expected by the industry
        and government.

     -- The statute of limitations bars all claims by classes 2
        and 3 before December 1997.  When congress passed the
        Balanced Budget Act of 1997, it put third-party payors
        on inquiry notice that many AWPs were not true prices
        paid by physicians and pharmacies to acquire the
        pharmaceuticals.  The class period ends in 2003 when
        Congress passed the Medicate statute setting new
        reimbursement benchmarks.  Thus, classes 2 and 3 will
        include payments from December 1997 to December 2003.

     -- The court rejects plaintiffs' position with respect to
        the Medicare Class 2 that defendants acted unfairly and
        deceptively by having any spread between the published
        AWP and the true average of prices charged to providers,
        because the government and industry were well aware by
        the late 1990's that there was a 20 to 25 percent
        spread.

        This discrepancy was tolerated, in part, because of the
        need to cross-subsidize physician administration costs.  
        Thus, while the spread violated the plain meaning of the
        Medicare statute, defendants' actions cannot be said to
        be unfair or deceptive within the meaning of Chapter 93A
        so long as the spread stayed generally within that
        expected range.

     -- Damages to class 2 cannot be determined from the current
        trial record.  The court needs a breakdown of the
        damages for each drug, using the 30% threshold, for each
        of the years from 1998 until 2003 for which liability
        has been found.  Defendants may provide their market
        shares in Massachusetts so that the court can apportion
        the damage amount on that basis.  If necessary, the
        court will hold a damages phase of the bench trial.


                          Court Orders

The court orders dismissal of the Johnson & Johnson defendants.  

The court orders dismissal of Schering Plough, not including Warrick.

The court finds liability for:

     (a) AstraZeneca: Zoladex (1998-2002),

     (b) BMS: Taxol (2001-2002); Vepeside (1998-1999, 2001-
         2002); Cytoxan (1998-2002); Blenoxane (1998-2002);
         Rubex (1998-2000, 2002);

     (c) Warrick: albuterol sulfate (1998-1999)

By Aug. 1, 2007, the court orders plaintiffs to provide calculations of the
Class 2 damages consistent with these findings.

By Aug. 1, 2007, in order to apportion damages for Class 2, the court allows
BMS to provide market share data in Massachusetts for Taxol, Vepesid,
Cytoxan, and Rubex for the years 1998-2002.

By Aug. 1, 2007, in order to apportion damages for Class 2, the court allows
Warrick to provide market share data for Warrick's generic albuterol sulfate
for the years 1998-1999.


The suit is "In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price
Litigation, MDL No. 1456,  Civil Action No. 01-12257-PBS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.


BEVERAGE COMPANIES: Settle Suit Over Benzene Content of Drinks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Five beverage companies settled a class action alleging their soft drinks
contained levels of cancer-causing benzene that exceeded safe drinking water
standards, reports say.

The companies are:

     * Polar Beverages Inc.,
     * PepsiCo Inc.,
     * Sunny Delight,
     * Rockstar, and
     * Shasta

As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to release the following
statement: "Although the FDA and other food safety authorities have
reiterated that there is no known health risk to consumers from the benzene
levels found in soft drinks, the settling beverage companies agreed to
reformulate, or had already reformulated, the following products to minimize
or eliminate the possibility that these products can form benzene."

The products are Wild Cherry Pepsi; Sunny Delight Citrus Punch, Baja Orange
and Baja Berry; Diet Rockstar; Polar Diet Orange Dry; and Shasta Caffeine
Free Regular Orange.  Polar has agreed to replace Diet Orange Dry purchases
made by consumers before July 2006.

The class action against Polar was filed by Boston preschool teacher Timothy
Newell and Tallahassee, Fla., emergency-room nurse Lisbeth Gordon, in April
2006.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Andrew Rainer, Esq.
          McRoberts, Roberts & Rainer, L.L.P.
          53 State Street Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-722-822


CAREMASTER MEDICAL: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Registered Nursing Pool, d/b/a Caremaster Medical Services, is
facing a class-action complaint filed on July 2 in Newnan, Ga. federal court.

Plaintiffs Kathy Baxter and Wanda Eskew allege Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Baxter et al. v. Professional Registered Nursing Pool, Inc.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-00056-JTC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Jack T. Camp.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kevin E. Hooks, Esq.
          Kevin E. Hooks & Associates, LLC
          41 Park of Commerce Way
          Suite 107
          Savannah, GA 31405
          Phone: 912-233-8105
          Fax: 912-233-8101
          E-mail: khooks@kehlaw.com

          Benjamin H. Terry, Esq.
          Law Offices of Benjamin H. Terry, PC
          312 Crosstown Rd.
          Suite 355
          Peachtree City, GA 30269
          Phone: 770-394-1502
          E-mail: btlawyer@mindspring.com


CASTLEBERRY’S FOOD: Recalls Chili Products Possibly Contaminated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Castleberry's Food Co. is voluntarily recalling the products:

     -- Castleberry's Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC
        3030000101),

     -- Austex Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC 3030099533),

     -- Kroger Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC 1111083942),

     -- Morton House Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC
        7526665830),

     -- Cattle Drive Chili with Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        3030001515),

     -- Southern Home Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC
        0788015360),

     -- Meijer Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC 4125095229),

     -- Castleberry's Chili with Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        3030001015),

     -- Castleberry's Barbecue Pork, 10 oz can (UPC 3030000402)
        and

     -- Bunker Hill Chili No Beans, 10 oz can (UPC 7526604112)

Castleberry's is working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
to investigate possible contamination of these products with Clostridium
botulinum, a bacterium which can cause botulism, a life-threatening illness.

Botulism can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness,
double-vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek
immediate medical attention.

This recall only affects the products listed above with a "best by" date of
APR30 2009 through MAY22 2009. The "best by" date can be found either on the
top or bottom of the can. Consumers who have any of these products should
discard them. Consumers should not use these products even if they do not
look or smell spoiled. Consumers may return the label to the location where
the product was purchased for a full refund.

Castleberry's was notified by the FDA of four potential cases of botulism
involving individuals who ate these products. "We are taking this
precautionary measure to ensure the safety of our consumers," said Steve
Mavity, SVP Technical Services/Quality Assurance for Castleberry's. "We will
continue to work closely with the FDA, USDA, and CDC."

Consumers with any questions or concerns about this recall should go to
Castleberry's website: http://www.castleberrys.comor call Castleberry's  
consumer hotline at 1-888-203-8446.


CIB MARINE: Wis. Court Mulls Motions in Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has yet to rule
on motions in a securities fraud suit against CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc.

On June 3, 2005, a first consolidated complaint was filed by Dennis Lewis, a
shareholder, and other alleged shareholders of CIB Marine in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division, against
CIB Marine, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and
KPMG, LLP.   

The filing consolidated two actions that had been filed in  
January 2005:  

     -- one filed by Mr. Lewis in the U.S. District Court for  
        the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division; and  

     -- another filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central  
        District of Illinois, Peoria Division by Elaine  
        Sollberger, a purported shareholder, whose claims were  
        voluntarily dismissed in connection with the  
        consolidation, and have not been reasserted in the  
        consolidated complaint.  

Plaintiffs sought to maintain the action as a class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased common stock of CIB Marine between April 12, 1999, and
April 12, 2004, claiming violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder by CIB Marine and other defendants and liability of
certain defendants other than CIB Marine and KPMG under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act as controlling persons.  

The substance of the complaint is that the financial condition of CIB Marine
was overstated with the result that members of the purported class acquired
their CIB Marine stock at inflated prices.  Plaintiffs seek money damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  

The federal court in Urbana, Illinois granted the motion of CIB  
Marine and several other defendants to transfer the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, where the action is now pending.

All defendants moved to dismiss the action on various grounds.   
On Oct. 12, 2006 the court denied CIB Marine's motion to dismiss, granted in
part the motions to dismiss filed by the individual defendants and granted
the motion to dismiss filed by KPMG.  

CIB Marine and the individual defendants have filed answers to the pending
complaint denying any liability.  An additional person has moved to intervene
as a plaintiff in the action.  On Nov. 10, 2006, plaintiffs filed a further
amended complaint as to KPMG, which KPMG has stated it intends to move to
dismiss.  

As a result of the filing of the initial motions to dismiss, ala discovery in
this action was stayed automatically.  Plaintiffs have moved to vacate that
stay of discovery, which all defendants opposed based on KPMG's pending
motion to dismiss the further amended complaint filed by plaintiffs against
KPMG.  

The court has not set a date to rule on the motion to vacate the stay of
discovery.

On July 16, 2007, CIB Marine and the individual defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, a motion for
reconsideration of the ruling on the motion to dismiss, insofar as that
motion was denied, in light of a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court
concerning the pleading requirements applicable to this case.

The suit is "Lewis et al. v. Straka et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-01008-LA," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, under Judge
Lynn Adelman.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Kristi L. Browne, Esq.
         The Patterson Law Firm, 33 N LaSalle St.
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-223-1699  

              - and -  

         James W. Gardner, Esq.
         Douglas J. Phebus, Esq.
         Lawton & Cates
         10 E Doty St. – Ste. 400, P.O. Box 2965
         Madison, WI 53701-2965
         Phone: 608-282-6200  

Representing the company are:

         Allan Horwich, Esq.
         John C. Martin, Esq.
         Schiff Hardin LLP
         Sears Tower, 233 S Wacker Dr - Ste 6600  
         Chicago, IL 60606-6473
         Phone: 312-258-5618
         Fax: 312-258-5700
         E-mail: ahorwich@schiffhardin.com
                 jmartin@schiffhardin.com


CNSHO INC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
CNSHO Inc., dba Glencare Center, is facing a class action filed in Cincinnati
Federal Court.

Plaintiffs Brenda Philon, Gordon Hocker, James Gray, Robin Gaunt, Rodney
Noble, YoRanda McCombs, and Brenda Philon allege violation of 29:201 Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Hocker et al. v. CHSHO, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-00536-MRB,” filed
in Ohio Southern District Court under Judge Michael R. Barrett.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Deborah R Grayson, Esq.
          Meizlish & Grayson
          830 Main Street
          Suite 999
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-345-4700
          Fax: 513-345-4703
          E-mail: drgrayson@fuse.net

          Bruce H. Meizlish, Esq.
          Meizlish & Grayson
          830 Main Street
          Suite 999
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-345-4700
          E-mail: brucelaw@fuse.net


CONTINENTAL PAINTING: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Painting Corp. is facing a class action filed July 10 in Fort
Pierce, Fla., Federal Court.

Plaintiffs Josue Velasquez and Oscar Ramirez allege Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Velasquez et al. v. Continental Painting Corp. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-14206-DLG,” filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Donald L. Graham with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch,
Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs 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


CVS/PHARMACY: Recalls Playskool Sippy Cups Posing Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS/pharmacy, of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 84,000 Playskool
Toddler “NoSpill” sippy cups.

The company said young children can chew through the plastic spout of the
sippy cup, which can pose a choking hazard. The firm has received 36 reports
of toddlers chewing through the plastic spout of the sippy cup, resulting in
one choking incident and three near-choking incidents. No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves the Playskool Toddler “NoSpill” Sippy Cup. The 8-ounce
cup is clear plastic with red trim, red and yellow handles, and a yellow tip;
blue trim, blue and green handles and a green tip; or purple trim, purple and
aqua handles, and an aqua tip. The serial number of the recalled cups is
382814, which appears on the back of the packaging.

These recalled “NoSpill” sippy cups were manufactured in China and are being
sold by CVS stores nationwide from September 2006 through April 2007 for
about $5.

Pictures of the recalled “NoSpill” sippy cups:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07246a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07246b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07246c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop their children from using the cup immediately
and return it to any CVS store for a refund, or throw the product away and
bring a proof of purchase of the product to any CVS store for a refund.

For additional information, contact CVS/pharmacy toll-free at (866) 434-0098
between 8:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, visit
CVS/pharmacy’s Web site: http://www.cvs.com,or e-mail: playskoolinfo@cvs.com.


FIBERNET TELECOM: Three Firms Sue in W.Va. Over Service Failure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunications company FiberNet Telecom Group Inc. is facing a lawsuit
over the disruption of service to customers caused by a computer glitch in
the company’s downtown office on July 10, Associated Press reports.

The disruption was caused by a routing procesor, known as a DAX, that had a
system failure and then failed to switch over to another DAX router as it was
supposed to do, according to Dave Armentrout, FiberNet’s president and chief
operations officer, reports Beth Gorczyca Ryan of the State Journal.  Mr.
Armentrout said he didn't know about the lawsuit.  

About 11,000 of FiberNet's 24,000 customers in West Virginia were unable to
receive calls, make credit card transactions and send faxes for at least a
day due to the technical failure.  At least 500 limited video lottery
machines at 50 to 60 of the state's approximately 2,000 locations were also
affected.

Those who filed the suit are Complete System Support Inc.; Neurological Case
Management Associates LLC, a Charleston-based coordinator of rehabilitative
services; and H.E. Gene Sigman, a South Charleston private investigator.

The suit was filed by attorney Harry Deitzler in Wood County Circuit Court.  
The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, fraud and negligence, and seeks class-
action status and unspecified punitive and compensatory damages.

The company restored service starting early on July 11 to critical customers
such as hospitals, 911 call centers and fire and police departments.

To contact Mr. Deitzler:

          Harry G. Deitzler
          Wood County Judicial Bldg.
          Parkersburg, WV 26101
          Phone:  (304) 424-1776


GAMING PARTNERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------
Gaming Partners International Corp. faces a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada alleging violations of federal
securities laws based on alleged misstatements and omissions by the company.

The suit was filed on April 5, 2007 under the caption, “Natalie Gordon v.
Gerard P. Charlier, Paul S. Dennis, Eric P. Endy, Alain Thieffry, Elisabeth
Carrette, Robert J. Kelly, Charles R. Henry, Laura McAllister Cox and Gaming
Partners International Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00448-RCJ-RJJ.”

The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, and equitable relief against the Company, its directors and certain
executive officers.  

The complaint was served on the Company on April 6, 2007, according to the
company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is “Gordon v. Charlier et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00448-RCJ-RJJ,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge
Robert C. Jones with referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Mark Albright, Esq.
         Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright
         801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4
         Las Vegas, NV 89106
         Phone: (702) 384-7111
         Fax: (702) 384-0605 (fax)
         E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Tami D. Cowden, Esq.
         Kummer Kaempfer Bonner Renshaw & Ferrario
         3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 7th Floor
         Las Vegas, NV 89169
         Phone: 702-792-7000
         Fax: 702-796-7181
         E-mail: tcowden@kkbrf.com


HASBRO INC: Recalls Toy Ovens After Reports of Finger Burns
-----------------------------------------------------------
Easy-Bake, a division of Hasbro, Inc., of Pawtucket, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1 million Easy-
Bake Ovens.

The company said young children can insert their hands into the oven’s front
opening, and get their hands or fingers caught, posing entrapment and burn
hazards.

Since the repair program announced in February, Easy-Bake has received 249
reports of children getting their hands or fingers caught in the oven’s
opening, including 77 reports of burns, 16 of which were reported as second
and third-degree burns. Easy-Bake also received one report of a serious burn
that required a partial finger amputation to a 5-year-old girl.

The Easy-Bake Oven is a purple and pink plastic oven that resembles a kitchen
range with four burners on top and a front-loading oven. “Easy Bake” is
printed on the front of the oven. Model number 65805 and “Hasbro” are stamped
into the plastic on the back of the oven. This recall includes all units with
the retrofit kit. The Easy-Bake Oven is an electric toy and is not
recommended for children under eight years of age. Ovens sold before May 2006
are not included in this recall.

These recalled Easy-Bake Ovens were manufactured in China and are being sold
at Toys “R” Us, Wal-Mart, Target, KB Toys and other retailers nationwide from
May 2006 through July 2007 for about $25.

Picture of recalled Easy-Bake Ovens:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07096.jpg

Caregivers are advised to immediately take the recalled Easy-Bake Oven away
from children, and call Easy-Bake for instructions on how to return the toy
oven for a voucher towards the purchase of another Hasbro product.

For additional information, contact Easy-Bake at (800) 601-8418 anytime, or
visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.easybake.com


HONDA MOTOR: Faces Various Lawsuits Over New Motor Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. faces 75 purported class actions on behalf of all
purchasers of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001, according to
the company’s July 18, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2007.

Most of the suits have been filed in various state and federal courts against
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda Canada, Inc., General Motors, Ford,
Daimler Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, and Volkswagen and their Canadian
affiliates, the National Automobile Dealers Association and the Canadian
Automobile Dealers Association.

Several of the state court actions also name Honda Motor Co., Ltd. as a
defendant, as well as other Japanese and German parent companies of United
States based subsidiaries.

The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated pretrial
proceedings in federal court in Maine and 37 California cases have been
consolidated in the state court in San Francisco.

Additionally, there are pending cases in seven other states.

The nearly identical complaints allege that the manufacturer defendants,
aided by the association defendants, conspired among themselves and with
their dealers to prevent U.S. citizens from purchasing vehicles produced for
the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada.  

The complaints allege that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10 to 30% lower
than those in the U.S. and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to U.S.
citizens resulted in the payment of supracompetitive prices by U.S.
consumers.

The complaints seek treble damages under the antitrust laws, but do not
specify damages.  

The federal court has certified a class for injunctive relief and damages.

Honda Motor Co., ltd. -- http://world.honda.com-- is a Japan-based company  
primarily engaged in the development, production and sale of various motor
products.  


LOGAN'S ROADHOUSE: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Logan's Roadhouse, Inc. is facing a class action filed July 10 in Jackson,
Tenn., Federal Court.

Plaintiff Gregory Burnett alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Burnett v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc., Case No.
1:07-cv-01128-JDT-sta,” filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Mississippi under Judge James D. Todd with referral to Judge S. Thomas
Anderson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael L. Russell, Esq.
          The Gilbert Law Firm
          P.O. Box 11357
          2021 Greystone Park
          Jackson, TN 38308
          Phone: 731-664-1340
          E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com


MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Settles “Grecian” Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has yet to
give final approval to a proposed settlement in the matter, “Grecian v. Meade
Instruments Corp., et al., SA CV 06-908 AG (JTLx).”

The complaint, filed in on Sept. 27, 2006, asserts claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act in connection
with the Company's option granting practices.  

Plaintiffs' counsel has advised the company that they intend to file an
amended complaint that will also allege violations of Section 14(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

On Nov. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs in "Grecian" filed a motion to be appointed
lead plaintiffs.  No other lead plaintiff motions have been filed.

On Jan. 8, 2007, the court granted the named plaintiffs’ motion to be
appointed lead plaintiffs.  On Feb. 22, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint, which asserts claims for violations of Section 10
(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act in connection with
the Company’s option granting practices.

Under the current scheduling order, the plaintiffs can file a third amended
complaint by June 1, 2007.  The defendants do not believe that the third
amended complaint will differ materially from its predecessor.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint was due July
16, 2007.  On May 23, 2007, the parties in both this action participated in a
mediation session.

As a result of this, the parties reached a preliminary settlement
understanding, which includes corporate governance reforms and an award to
the class, from which plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and administrative costs
would be paid.

The parties are in the process of finalizing their settlement agreements.  
The settlement is conditioned upon court approval, according to the company’s
July 16, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2007.

The suit is "Bill Grecian et al. v. Meade Instruments Corp. et al., Case No.
8:06-cv-00908-AG-JTL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Andrew
J. Guilford with referral to Judge Jennifer T. Lum.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         E-mail: service@ssbla.com

              - and -

         Donald J. Enright, Esq.
         Finkelstein Thompson and Loughran
         1050 Thirtieth Street Northwest, The Duvall Foundry
         Washington, DC 20007
         Phone: 202-337-8000


MICROSOFT CORP: Calif. Residents Sue Over 360 Console Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in California over defects
in its Xbox 360, gamesindustry.biz reports.

California residents Christine Moskowitz and Dan Wood filed the complaint
alleging that the 360 console damaged their game disks, and that Microsoft
refused to replace or pay for the damaged games.  They are seeking at least
$5 million in damages for all Xbox 360 owners affected by the alleged product
defect.

According to the report, Microsoft recently acknowledged a hardware defect
with the Xbox 360 and extended the warranty period by three years. However,
the company did not acknowledge that their consoles were scratching game
disks and rendering them unusable.

Gamesindustry.biz’s attempts to reach Microsoft for comment were
unsuccessful.


NVIDIA CORP: Faces Coordinated GPU Antitrust Suits in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp. faces a coordinated antitrust litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California related to the pricing of
graphics processing units and cards, according to the company’s May 24, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 29, 2007.

As of May 14, 2007, 51 civil complaints have been filed against the company.
The majority of the cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, a number are pending in the Central District
of California, and other cases are pending in several other federal courts.

Although the complaints differ, they generally purport to assert federal and
state antitrust claims based on alleged price fixing, market allocation, and
other alleged anti-competitive agreements between the company and Advanced
Micro Devices, Inc., or as a result of its acquisition of ATI Technologies,
Inc.

Many of the cases also assert a variety of state law unfair competition or
consumer protection claims on the same allegations and some cases assert
unjust enrichment or other common law claims.

The complaints are putative class actions alleging classes of direct and/or
indirect purchasers of our graphic processing units and cards.

The plaintiffs in a few of the Northern District of California actions filed
a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that all
pending and subsequent cases be consolidated in one court for all pre-trial
discovery and motion practice.

A hearing on this motion took place on March 29, 2007.  The JPML subsequently
granted the motion and conditionally transferred all of the actions currently
pending outside of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the that court for coordination of pretrial proceedings.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the provision of  
programmable graphics processor technologies.  The Company has four product-
line operating segments: graphics processing units, media and communications
processors (MCPs), Handheld GPU Business, and Consumer Electronics Business.  


OPPENHEIMER & CO: Faces Labor Violations Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. is facing a class action filed July 9 in West Palm
Beach Federal Court.

Plaintiff Monte Resnick alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Resnick v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Case No. 9:07-cv-80609-KAM”
filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge
Kenneth A. Marra.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Hal B. Anderson, Esq.
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S. Federal Hw.
          Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 561-447-8831
          E-mail: hal.anderson@shavitzlaw.com

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


ORANGE 21: Calif. Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California approved a
proposed settlement in the securities fraud class action against Orange 21,
Inc.

Initially, two stockholder class actions were filed.  A consolidated
complaint was later filed on Oct. 11, 2005, which purported to seek
unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of persons who purchased
the company's common stock pursuant to the registration statement filed in
connection with the company's public offering of stock on Dec. 14, 2004.

The complaint alleged that the company and its officers and directors
violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the registration
statement material information about plans to make a change in its European
operations, its dealings with one of its customers and whether certain of its
products infringe on the intellectual property rights of Oakley,
Inc.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the court granted
on March 29, 2006.  The court allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint
only with respect to their claim about a European distribution change.  
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dated April 7, 2006.

On May 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss that amended
complaint.  

On Jan. 16, 2007, the company announced that it had reached an agreement to
settle this action, subject to court approval.

Under the proposed settlement, $1.4 million was paid to the class of
plaintiffs and for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees from proceeds of our
directors’ and officers’ insurance.  The company will pay no amounts.  

The settlement received court approval on May 1, 2007, according to the
company’s May 21, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The first identified complaint is "Christine Pittman, et al. v. Orange 21,
Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, (San Diego)
          402 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Phone: 619.230.0800
          Fax: 619.230.1874
          E-mail: info@barrack.com

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 610.668.7987
          Fax: 610.660.0450
          E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

          Federman & Sherwood
          120 North Robinson, Suite 2720
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: 405-235-1560
          E-mail: wfederman@aol.com

          Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 877.493.5366
          Fax: 619.238.5425

          Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
          World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410.332.0030
          E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 206.749.5544
          Fax: 206.749.9978
          E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

          Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
          330 Main Street
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Phone: 800.797.5499
          Fax: 860.493.6290
          E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com

          - and -

          Smith & Smith, LLP
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215.638.4847
          Fax: 215.638.4867


PC MALL: Arbitrator Yet to Approve Settlement with Workers
----------------------------------------------------------
An arbitrator has yet to grant final approval to a proposed settlement in the
purported class action, "Nicole Atkins, et al. v. PC Mall, Inc., et al.,"
which was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.

The suit, filed on Feb. 3, 2006, alleges that the company improperly
classified members of the putative class as "exempt" employees in violation
of California's wage and hour and unfair business practice laws and seeks
unpaid overtime, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, punitive
damages, restitution and injunctive relief.

The complaint sought unpaid overtime, statutory penalties, interest,
attorneys' fees, punitive damages, restitution and injunctive relief.

The potential class consisted of all of the current and former outbound
business account executives that worked for the company's PC Mall Sales
subsidiary in California from Feb. 3,
2002 through Jan. 31, 2007.

On March 21, 2007, the company entered into a settlement agreement to settle
the class action in accordance with a memorandum of understanding entered
into on Jan. 31, 2007.

Under the MOU and the settlement agreement, the company agreed to pay an
aggregate of $1.5 million, which includes amounts to pay class members
(shared proportionally among class members based on the number of verified
class members and the amount of weeks worked during the class period), the
plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, enhanced payments for class
representative, and all funds needed for the administration of the
settlement.

The company has the right to nullify the settlement in the event that 5% or
more of the class members have opted out of the settlement.

In exchange for the settlement payment, the plaintiff and all class members
who do not opt out of the settlement will release us and our affiliates for
all asserted and unasserted claims, known and unknown, relating to the class
action. As part of the settlement, the company continues to deny any
liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims made in the class action.

While the settlement is subject to final court and arbitrator approval, the
settlement agreement provides that it is intended to be binding and
enforceable upon each of the parties.  

If the court and arbitrator approve the settlement, there will be a resulting
judgment that dismisses the case with prejudice against all class members who
do not opt out of the settlement.

On March 28, 2007, the arbitrator granted the parties joint application for
preliminary approval of the settlement and ordered that notices and claim
forms be distributed to all class members.  

Class members had until May 29, 2007 to submit a claim form and participate
in the settlement, or in the alternative to opt out of the settlement or
object to the settlement terms.  

The arbitrator scheduled a hearing for June 12, 2007 to finally approve the
settlement agreement.

In the event the arbitrator finally approves the settlement, the parties
thereafter anticipate seeking confirmation of the arbitrator’s ruling from
the court.

PC Mall, Inc. -- http://www.pcmall.com/-- is a direct marketer of computer  
hardware, software, peripherals, electronics, and other consumer products and
services.  It offers products and services to businesses, government and
educational institutions, as well as individual consumers, through outbound
and inbound telemarketing account executives, the Internet, direct marketing
techniques, direct response catalogs, a direct sales force and three retail
showrooms.


PROGRESSIVE GAMING: Nev. Court Mulls Final OK for $2.8M Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has yet to give final
approval to a settlement of a purported class action filed against Mikohn
Gaming Corp., d/b/a Progressive Gaming International Corp.

The case, “In re Mikohn Gaming Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 2:05-cv-01410-PMP-RJJ,” has been pending since November 2005.

Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs agree to dismiss with
prejudice all claims against all defendants, including the company and its
current and former officers and directors, in exchange for a payment in the
amount of $2.8 million, virtually all of which is being provided pursuant to
the company's insurance coverage.  

Substantially all of the company's costs related to the litigation will be
reflected in the financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Also under the terms of the settlement, all defendants continue to deny any
wrongdoing, and the parties agree that the settlement is not to be deemed an
admission of the validity of any of the plaintiffs' claims.

The settlement is contingent on the satisfaction of several conditions,
including the completion by the plaintiffs of limited confirmatory discovery
and approval by the court following notice to class members.

The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on March 7, 2007.

                   Case Background

Commencing on Nov. 28, 2005, four similar purported class action complaints
were filed, naming the company and two of its officers as defendants, and
seeking unspecified money damages under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints all alleged that during a “class period” beginning in early
2005 and ending on Oct. 19, 2005, the defendants misled the Company’s
investors concerning the prospective application of SFAS No. 153 to the
Company’s financial statements for the third quarter of 2005.

The complaints were consolidated into a single action, and plaintiffs filed
their amended complaint on April 13, 2006, which also asserted claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

The suit is “In re Mikohn Gaming Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:05-
cv-01410-PMP-RJJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada under Judge Philip M. Pro with referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mark Albright, Esq.
         Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright
         801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4
         Las Vegas, NV 89106
         Phone: (702) 384-7111
         Fax: (702) 384-0605
         E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com

         Ike L. Epstein, Esq.
         Beckley Singleton, Chtd.
         530 Las Vegas Blvd. South
         Las Vegas, NV 89101
         E-mail: ecf@beckleylaw.com

         Joni S. Jacobs, Esq.
         McCracken, Stemerman, Bowen & Holsberry
         1630 S. Commerce St., Suite A-1
         Las Vegas, NV 89102
         E-mail: jjacobs@dcbwash.com

              - and -  

         Maya Saxena, Esq.
         Saxena White, P.A.
         5200 Town Center Circle, Tower One, Suite 600
         Boca Raton, FL 33486
         Phone: (954) 701-3965
         Fax: (888) 782-3081
         E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com


REABLE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suits Over Blackstone Capital Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
ReAble Therapeutics, Inc. (RTI) and its directors are facing purported class
actions in Delaware and Texas over the acquisition of all of its outstanding
shares of capital stock by Blackstone Capital Partners V L.P.

The suits are:

      -- "Louis Dudas et al. v. Encore Medical Corporation et
         al.," filed on July 7, 2006 in the District Court of
         Travis County, Texas, 345th Judicial District; and

      -- "Robert Kemp et al. v. Alastair J. Clemow et al.," was
         filed on July 18, 2006 in the Court of Chancery of the
         State of Delaware, New Castle County.  

Blackstone, Grand Slam Holdings, LLC, and Grand Slam Acquisition
Corp. are also named as defendants in the Delaware action.

The Texas Action is in preliminary stages and the company cannot presently
predict the outcome of the lawsuit, although company believes it is without
merit.  

The plaintiffs dismissed the Delaware Action in February 2007 with no
liability accruing to RTI or the other defendants.  

The Texas Action complaint alleges that RTI’s directors breached their
fiduciary duties by, inter alias, agreeing to an allegedly inadequate
acquisition price in connection with the Merger.

The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind any actions that have
already been taken to consummate the Merger, rescissory damages and the
plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees and expert fees.

ReAble Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.encoremed.com--(formerly Encore  
Medical Corp.) hopes that recovering customers will re-up for its
reconstructive products.  The company makes traction systems, electrotherapy
and iontophoresis products, continuous passive motion devices, and other
items used in orthopedic rehabilitation.


SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES: Faces California Labor Code Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Industries International, Inc. was served in 2006 with a notice of a
class alleging that certain employees at the company’s Van Nuys, California
facility were denied rest and meal periods as required under the California
Labor Code.

Van Nuys, California-based Superior Industries International, Inc., --
http://www.superiorindustries.com-- incorporated in 1969, is engaged in the  
design and manufacture of aluminum road wheels for sale to original equipment
manufacturers.  The Company is a supplier of cast and forged aluminum wheels
to the automobile and light truck manufacturers, with wheel manufacturing
operations in the U.S., Mexico and Hungary.

Customers in North America represent the principal market for its products,
with approximately 14% of its products sold to international customers by its
North American facilities, primarily delivered to their assembly operations
in the United States.


THIRD FEDERAL: Obtains Judgment in $27M “Greenspan” Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas granted a motion for judgment
filed by Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, a unit of
TFS Financial Corp., in a purported class action over “document preparation
fees.”

The suit was filed on June 13, 2006 under the caption, “Gary A. Greenspan vs.
Third Federal Savings and Loan.”

The plaintiff has alleged that Third Federal Savings and Loan impermissibly
charged customers a “document preparation fee” that included the cost of
preparing legal documents relating to mortgage loans.

It was alleged that the Association should disgorge the document preparation
fees because the document preparation constituted the practice of law and was
performed by employees who are not licensed attorneys in the State of Ohio.

The plaintiff seeks a refund of all document preparation fees from June 13,
2000 to the present (approximately $26.9 million from June 13, 2000 through
March 31, 2007), as well as prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs
of the lawsuit.

Third Federal Savings and Loan Association vigorously disputes these
allegations and answered the plaintiff’s complaint with a motion for judgment
on the pleadings.

On April 26, 2007, the Court of Common Pleas issued a final order which
granted the Association’s motion.  The plaintiff had 30 days to appeal the
final order of the Court of Common Pleas to the 8th District Court of Appeals
(Cuyahoga County), according to the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q.

TFS Financial Corp. -- http://www.thirdfederal.com/-- was established as a  
mid-tier stock holding company for Third Federal Savings and Loan Association
of Cleveland, and the ownership of Third Federal Savings and Loan Association
of Cleveland is its primary business activity.  


VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles “Junk Fax” Lawsuit in La. for $6M
------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Wireless agreed to pay $6 million to settle a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the
cellular telephone company for sending more than 10,000 junk faxes to
businesses in Louisiana, Florida and Alabama, The Associated Press reports.

In 2003, Accounting Outsourcing, LLC filed the suit alleging the company
broke federal and state bans on unsolicited faxed advertisements with ads for
everything from specials on wireless service to cheap trips to Disney World.

At issue is the decade-old Telephone Consumer Protection Act -- a federal law
that prohibits advertisers from sending junk faxes without prior permission.
It imposes fines of up to $1,500 per violation.  The lawsuit compared the
faxes to postage-due junk mail. It cites the cost of toner and paper, plus
wear and tear on fax machines.

The settlement calls for Verizon to pay $5,000 to Accounting Outsourcing and
$625 each for 10,145 faxes.

Lawyers who filed the class action will get $150,000 to cover some
administrative costs but lawyers say they should get another $2.3 million in
fees.

"Substantial skill was required to navigate a successful conclusion" to the
class-action suit, the first of its kind in Louisiana, the attorneys argue in
a 22-page memorandum to Judge Brady.

"This settlement is clearly superior to more years of expensive, uncertain
and time-consuming litigation," plaintiffs’ lawyer Christopher Jones wrote.

The Associated Press’ efforts to reach Verizon attorney Mike McKay and
Accounting Outsourcing attorney Philip Bohrer, both of Baton Rouge, were
unsuccessful.

The suit is “Accounting Outsource v. Verizon Wireless, et al., Case No. 3:03-
cv-00161-JJB-DLD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana, under Judge James J. Brady, with referral to Judge Docia L.
Dalby.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Philip Bohrer
          Bohrer Law Firm
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: 225-925-5297
          Fax: 225-231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com

          Christopher K. Jones
          John P. Wolff, III
          Keogh, Cox & Wilson
          701 Main Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Phone: 225-383-3796
          Fax: 225-343-9612
          E-mail: cjones@kcwlaw.com or jwolff@kcwlaw.com

          - and -

          Keith D. Jones
          8480 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Suite F
          Baton Rouge, LA 70810
          Phone: 225-763-6900
          Fax: 225-763-6001
          E-mail: keith@kjones-law.com

Representing defendants are:

          Michael W. McKay
          Michael D. Lutgring
          Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC - B.R.
          2431 S. Acadian Thruway, Suite 290
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Phone: 225-490-8911 or 225-490-8900
          Fax: 225-490-8960
          E-mail: mmckay@stonepigman.com or
                  Mlutgring@stonepigman.com

          - and -

          Dean D. Hunt
          Baker & Hostetler
          1000 Louisiana, Suite 2000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-646-1346
          Fax: 713-751-1717
          E-mail: dhunt@bakerlaw.com


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *