CAR_Public/070724.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 24, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 144

                            Headlines

ARKANSAS: Neurosurgeon Faces Lawsuit Over Unnecessary Surgery
BERTUCCI’S CORP: Faces FACTA Violations Litigation in E.D. Pa.
BLACK & DECKER: Recalls Trimmers, Edgers with Detachable Parts
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Sued in N.J. for Supporting Terrorist Groups
CONNECTICUT: Former Gov. Denied Immunity in Suit Over Layoffs

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Judge Okays Deposition in Flaky Paint Suit
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Reaches Settlement in Wash. Labor Litigation
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Units Face Suits Over Server Banking Policy
ECOLLEGE.COM: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit Over Pearson Takeover
EL APPLE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Texas

FLORIDA: Landowners Group Wants to Lead Citrus Springs MSBU Suit
GILMAN & CIOCIA: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Pinnacle Deal
GLOBAL WEALTH: $46M Settlement in D.C. Gender Bias Suit Approved
IMAX CORP: Still Faces Canadian Securities Fraud Litigation
IMAX CORP: Parties Agree to Extend Time for Filing of Complaint

KFC CORP: Faces Litigation in N.J. Alleging FACTA Violations
LA ESPERANZA: Reaches $600T Settlement in Suit by Workers
LONG JOHN: Seeks Transfer of Cal. Disability Discrimination Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: Research Reports Suit Settlement Hearing Set Nov.
NISSIN FOODS: Recalls Shrimp-Flavored Noodles on Allergy Risk

OSEM: Faces $1.18M Suit Over Petah Tikva Warehouse Mismanagement
PALM INC: Seeks to Settle Cal. Consumer Suits Over Treo Products
SCHERING-PLOUGH: N.J. Securities Lawsuit Granted Certification
STATE FARM: AG Hood Files New Suit After Settlement Breakdown
TACO BELL: No Ruling Yet in ADA Suit Summary Judgment Request

TACO BELL: Faces FACTA Violations Complaint in Ill. Court
TACO BELL: Still Faces Consolidated RGM’s Litigation in Calif.
WACHOVIA CORP: Faces $5M Labor Code Violations Suit in Cal.
XTO ENERGY: Still Faces Suit Over Natural Gas Royalty Payments
YOTRIO INTL: Recalls Reclining Lounge Chairs with Weak Support


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CV TECHNOLOGIES: Faces $110M Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Canada
SOUTHWESTERN RESOURCES: Faces $220M Suit Over China Gold Project


                            *********


ARKANSAS: Neurosurgeon Faces Lawsuit Over Unnecessary Surgery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Patrick Chan, a Searcy neurosurgeon, is facing a class action filed by
attorney John Ogles of Little Rock on behalf of Scotty and Linda Foster of
Searcy, reports say.

The suit was filed in White County Circuit Court.  It claims Dr. Chan
performed multi-level fusion surgeries on Mr. Foster's upper spine that were
medically unnecessary leaving him totally disabled.  

The lawsuit is one of many civil complaints against Dr. Chan.

For more information, contact:

     John Ogles, Esq.
     Ogles Law Firm
     200 S. Jeff Davis Drive Jacksonville
     AR 72076
     Phone: (501) 982-8339

- and –

     Robert McHenry, Esq.
     McHenry, McHenry & Taylor
     8210 Henderson Road
     Little Rock, Arkansas 72210
     (Pulaski Co.)
     Phone: 501-372-3425
     Fax: 501-372-3428


BERTUCCI’S CORP: Faces FACTA Violations Litigation in E.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bertucci’s Corp. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations of the federal
Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

On or about April 11, 2007, a purported class action, captioned, “Gerald D.
Wells, Jr. v. Bertucci’s Corp., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01458,” was filed
against the company.

The complaint alleges willful violation of FACTA based upon certain of our
retail stores’ alleged electronic printing of receipts that were not in
compliance with the applicable information truncation provisions of FACTA.

The complaint seeks statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than
$1,000 for each violation, as well as unspecified punitive damages,
attorneys’ fees and equitable relief preventing us from further engaging in
violations of FACTA.

The complaint does not allege that any class member has suffered actual
damages, according to the company’s May 21, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period April 4,
2007.

The suit is “Gerald D. Wells, Jr. v. Bertucci’s Corp., et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-01458,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Judge Mary A. McLaughlin.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, L.L.P.
         280 King Of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: jmeltzer@sbtklaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Gregory T. Arnold
         Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP
         One Financial Center
         Boston, MA 02111
         Phone: 617-856-8539
         Fax: 617-289-0453
         E-mail: garnold@brownrudnick.com

              - and -

         Alexandra C. Gaugler, Esq.
         Miller Alfano & Raspanti PC
         1818 Market St.
         Suite 3402
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-972-6400
         E-mail: agaugler@mar-law.com


BLACK & DECKER: Recalls Trimmers, Edgers with Detachable Parts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., of Towson, Maryland, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 202,000 units of Black
& Decker GH1000 Grasshog XP String Trimmer/Edgers.

The company said the trimmer/edger’s spool, spool cap and pieces of trimmer
string can come loose during use and become airborne projectiles, posing a
laceration hazard to the user as well as bystanders. The trimmer/edgers can
also overheat posing a burn hazard to consumers.

Black & Decker has received 707 reports of incidents, including 58 reports of
injuries. Serious injuries included cuts to two consumers’ legs that required
medical attention. Minor injuries included bruises, lacerations, and facial
injuries such as a welt and broken skin over a consumer’s eye. There were
also reports of property damage, including two broken windows.

The Black & Decker GH1000 Grasshog XP String Trimmers/Edgers are electric-
powered. Trimmer/edgers with date codes 200546 through 200645 (representing
manufacture dates of November 14, 2005 through November 6, 2006) are included
in this recall. The date code is located on the underside of the
trimmer/edger’s handle. Only trimmers with black spools caps are included in
the recall. Those with orange spool caps are not included in the recall.

These recalled trimmer/edgers were manufactured in China and are being sold
at major home center and hardware stores nationwide from November 2005
through January 2007 for about $70.

Picture of the recalled trimmer/edgers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07248.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the string trimmers/edgers immediately
and contact Black & Decker for a free repair kit.

For additional information, contact Black & Decker at (888) 742-9158 between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.blackanddecker.com.


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Sued in N.J. for Supporting Terrorist Groups
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. is facing a class action in the U.S.
District Court District of New Jersey for funding, arming, and otherwise
supporting terrorist organizations in Colombia, in order to maintain its
profitable control of Colombia’s banana growing regions.

Plaintiffs are family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political
organizers, social activists, and others targeted and killed by terrorists,
notably the paramilitary organization United Self-Defense Committees of
Colombia (Autodefensorias Unidas de Colombia, or AUC), during the 1990s
through 2004.

In order to operate its banana production in an environment free of labor
opposition and social disturbances, Chiquita funded, armed, and otherwise
supported the AUC and other terrorist groups during this period, the suit
states.

The deaths of plaintiffs’ relatives were allegedly a direct, foreseeable, and
intended result of Chiquita’s illegal and tortious actions. Chiquita’s
actions violated not only Colombian law and U.S. law, but also international
law prohibiting crimes against humanity, extrajudicial killing, torture, war
crimes, and other abuses, according to the complaint.

               General Allegations in the Lawsuit

“At all times, defendants knew or should have known that the AUC was a
violent paramilitary organization continually engaging in vicious crimes and
human rights violations against civilians in Colombia, including
extrajudicial killing, torture, and forced disappearances.

“The acts described herein were inflicted under color of law and under color
of official authority, and/or in conspiracy with, and/or in a joint criminal
enterprise with, and/or in concert with, and/or on behalf of those acting
under color of official authority.  The AUC has carried out its activities
with both the tacit approval and active cooperation of official government
security forces.

“Moreover, high-ranking officials from across the Colombian government have
been implicated in paramilitary collaboration, including fourteen current
members of Congress, seven former lawmakers, the head of the secret police,
mayors, and former governors. Furthermore, Chiquita’s payments to the AUC
were facilitated by CONVIVIRs, which are licensed by and operate with the
express authority of the government.

“The acts described herein were conducted in the course of an internal armed
conflict, in which the AUC and other paramilitaries were engaged in combat
with guerrilla armies, and committed the abuses against Plaintiffs and
decedents as part of their prosecution of this conflict. The AUC and other
paramilitaries were also engaged in this conflict in partnership with the
Colombian military.

“The acts described herein were part of a widespread and systematic attack by
the paramilitaries against the civilian population of the banana-growing
region, as well as against several discrete sub-populations, including
leftist politicians, labor organizers, community activists, persons
considered socially undesirable, and perceived guerrilla sympathizers.  

“This attack spanned a large swath of land in Colombia, resulted in the
deaths of thousands of individuals, and was directed by a centrally commanded
paramilitary organization. On information and belief, at all relevant times
Chiquita had knowledge of this attack.

“The acts and injuries to Plaintiffs and decedents described herein were part
of a pattern and practice of systematic human rights violations requested,
paid for, ordered, confirmed, aided and abetted, and/or ratified by Chiquita
and/or committed in conspiracy with the AUC.

“As a direct and proximate result of Chiquita’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs
have suffered and will continue to suffer harm including pain and suffering,
personal injuries, property damages, harm to their livelihoods, and extreme
and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiffs are thereby
entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at
trial.”

Plaintiffs say Chiquita’s actions violated these laws, agreements,
conventions, resolutions and treaties:

     (a) Alien Tort Claims Act;

     (b) Torture Victims Protection Act;
  
     (c) Customary international law;

     (d) United Nations Charter;

     (e) Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

     (f) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

     (g) Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
         Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

     (h) Declaration on the Protection of All Persons From Being       
         Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or  
         Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

     (i) Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions;
    
     (j) Common law of the United States of America;
   
     (k) Statutes and common law of the State of New Jersey,
         including but not limited to wrongful death, assault
         and battery, intentional infliction of emotional
         distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
         negligence, negligent hiring; civil conspiracy, and
         loss of consortium; and the

     (l) Laws of Colombia.

They said a legal action by Plaintiffs in Colombia would be futile. In June
2004, Chiquita sold its Colombian subsidiary Banadex. On information and
belief, Chiquita no longer owns any production operations in Colombia and is
not subject to service there.

Furthermore, the political and legal system in Colombia is characterized by
virtual impunity for the crimes of paramilitaries and those who assist them.

The vast majority of arrest warrants for paramilitary leaders are never
carried out, and when such figures are arrested they are frequently released
or allowed to escape from security facilities. Military officers accused of
collaboration with paramilitaries are routinely exonerated or given token
sentences by military courts. Prosecutors, investigators, and judicial
officials who pursue cases of human rights abuses implicating paramilitaries
are subject to death threats and assassinations, and many have had to resign
or flee the country as a result.

Legal action by Plaintiffs in Colombia would also result in serious
reprisals. Individuals who seek redress for paramilitary crimes committed
against them or their family members are regularly targeted for further
retributive violence.

Plaintiffs were unable to bring suit in Colombia or the U.S. until the past
year due to the poor security situation and the danger of reprisals, which
Chiquita’s support of the AUC contributed to.

                    Class Action Allegations

Plaintiffs seek certification of this action as a class action under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs allege that Chiquita supported a campaign of military and social
control by the ACCU, and AUC, and/or other paramilitary groups from at least
1994 through 2004, whose goal, supported by Chiquita, was to exert total
control over the land and inhabitants of the banana-growing region of
Colombia.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all persons
(including relatives and/or legal representatives of decedents) subjected to
abuses by this campaign in the banana-growing region from 1994 through 2004.

Victims include, but are not limited to, individuals who were the objects of
acts constituting extrajudicial killing; forced disappearance; torture;
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; kidnapping; rape; forced
displacement; crimes against humanity; or crimes against civilians
constituting war crimes.

The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impractical. The exact number and identities of all Class members is not
currently known. According to reliable statistics, however, the AUC was
responsible for many thousands of killings and many hundreds of massacres in
Colombia between 1997 and 2004. In 2001 alone, the AUC is believed to have
committed at least 1,015 killings and over one hundred massacres; in 2003,
the organization was allegedly responsible for the killing or disappearance
of at least 1,300 people.

In the banana-growing region of Uraba alone, human rights organizations have
documented over 3,700 murders by the AUC during 1996–2004 and 60,000 forced
displacements during the same period. These figures suggest that the Class at
minimum numbers in the thousands and may exceed ten thousand.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Defendants provided financial assistance to the
         AUC;

     (b) whether financial assistance provided to the AUC by
         Defendants substantially assisted it
         in perpetrating violations of Plaintiffs’ fundamental
         human rights;

     (c) whether Defendants knew, or recklessly ignored, that
         the payments they made to the AUC were used to finance
         a campaign of terror directed at the civilian
         population in Colombia’s banana growing region;

     (d) whether Defendants provided support to the AUC for the
         purpose of suppressing labor and community opposition;

     (e) whether Defendants knew, or recklessly ignored, that
         their business activities in Colombia, which earned
         them millions of dollars, resulted in the extrajudicial
         killing, forced disappearance, kidnapping, rape, forced
         displacement, property destruction, torture, or cruel,
         inhuman, or degrading treatment of civilians who lived
         in Colombia;

     (f) whether the AUC acted as an agent of Defendants in
         carrying out a campaign of murder and intimidation
         directed at union leaders, community activists, and
         political operatives in the areas of Colombia where
         Defendants had their banana-producing operations,
         including whether Defendants ratified such acts;

     (g) whether Defendants conspired with or aided and abetted
         the AUC in illegally importing weapons and ammunition
         from Nicaragua into Colombia for use by the AUC in its
         paramilitary campaigns;

     (h) whether the AUC, in committing the injuries inflicted
         on Plaintiffs, acted under the color of state law and
         in a joint venture with official Colombian security
         forces;

     (i) whether the actions of the AUC constitute war crimes;

     (j) whether the actions of the AUC constitute crimes
         against humanity;

     (k) whether Defendants’ actions as set forth herein
         constitute violations of international, New Jersey,
         and/or Colombia law;

     (l) whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched by the
         violations set forth herein;

     (m) whether Defendants’ behavior was negligent;

     (n) whether this Court has jurisdiction over the claims of
         the Class against Defendants;

     (o) whether this Court should order restitution or
         disgorgement of revenues and profits relating to the
         violations described herein; and

     (p) whether Defendants should be subject to awards of
         compensatory and/or punitive damages and the proper
         measure thereof.

The plaintiff raises claims for relief on: extrajudicial killing; crimes
against humanity; torture war crimes; terrorism; material support to
terrorist; organizations; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; violation
of the rights to life; liberty and security of person and peaceful assembly
and association; consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights;
wrongful death; assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional
distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; negligence/negligent
hiring/ negligence per se; and loss of consortium.

They demand jury trial.  Every plaintiff prays for judgment against each
defendant in excess of $75,000, as compensatory damages, including general
and special damages; and punitive damages, among others.  They also ask for
injunctive and declaratory relief.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Judith Brown Chomsky, Esq.
          Law Offices Of Judith Brown Chomsky
          Post Office Box 29726
          Elkins Park, PA 19027
          Phone: (215) 782-8367
          Fax: (215) 782-8368

          -- and –

          Richard Herz, Esq.
          Marco Simons, Esq.
          Earthrights International
          1612 K Street N.W., Suite 401
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 466-5188
          Fax: (202) 466-5189


CONNECTICUT: Former Gov. Denied Immunity in Suit Over Layoffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York denied former Gov.
John G. Rowland's request for immunity from charges he abused the power of
his office to silence the voices of his critics when he fired approximately
3,000 state employees in
November 2002.

The decision in “SEBAC v. John G. Rowland and Marc S. Ryan (docket no. 060616-
cv),” clears the way to hold the former governor accountable for illegally
retaliating against public workers for their union activity and political
views.

"This decision is a victory for everyone who supports open, honest, and
transparent government" Dan Livingston, General Counsel for the State
Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition observed after reviewing the decision.

"[Mr.] Rowland has been hiding behind a claim of immunity to avoid answering
questions under oath.  The court's decision allows us to vindicate the rights
of the public service employees who were the victims of [Mr.] Rowland's
political vendetta and restore the public services the people of Connecticut
need," he added.

The case, first filed in January 2003, alleges constitutional violations of
the free-speech rights of the terminated state employees.  State employee
unions contend that Gov. Rowland illegally targeted unionized state workers
for termination for refusing to give up their vested contract rights, for
opposing his Administration's policies, and for supporting his opponent in
the 2002 gubernatorial elections.

The case was brought by the SEBAC on behalf of all unionized state employees.

Gov. Rowland, and his former OPM Secretary Marc Ryan, had claimed that, as
state officials, they had "immunity" and could not be held liable for
violating the union workers' rights.

Federal Judge Alfred V. Covello, of the Connecticut federal district,
rejected that contention in January 2006, and the Court of Appeals issued a
unanimous ruling affirming Judge
Covello's decision.

David S. Golub, the Stamford lawyer representing the unions and the
terminated employees, stated, "This decision puts an end to Rowland's claim
that he can't be held liable for violating workers' First Amendment rights."  
Mr. Golub explained that Messrs. Rowland and Ryan will now be required to
answer questions under oath in pretrial questioning, and that the unions
would press for a speedy trial date.

"From the very beginning, this was about standing up to the Rowland
administration for harming the services our union members deliver to the
people of Connecticut," Mr. Livingston concluded.

The full text of the Court of Appeals ruling in the case is available online
at:
http://www.council4.org/new/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/06-0616-cv.pdf

Public employees working for the State of Connecticut who are members of
these 13 unions are represented by SEBAC:

     (1) Administrative & Residual Employees Union/AFT,
     (2) American Association of University Professors –
         Connecticut State University;
     (3) American Association of University Professors – UCONN
     (4) American Federation of State, County, & Municipal
         Employees - Council 4;
     (5) American Federation of School Administrators;
     (6) Congress of Connecticut Community Colleges/SEIU Local
         1973;
     (7) Connecticut Employees Union Independent/SEIU Local 511
     (8) Connecticut Federation of Education and Professional
         Employees/AFT;
     (9) Connecticut State Employees Association/SEIU Local 2001
    (10) Connecticut State Police Union;
    (11) International Brotherhood of Police Officers/NAGE
    (12) New England Health Care Employees Union/SEIU District
         1199NE;
    (13) Protective Services Employees Coalition/IAFF-IUPA

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

For more information, contact Dan Livingston, General Counsel of SEBAC,
Phone: (860) 712-4668.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Judge Okays Deposition in Flaky Paint Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sangamon County (Ill.) Circuit Judge Patrick Kelley denied a motion by the
Lakin Law firm to strike out a request to depose the representative of a
class action against DaimlerChrysler over flaky paints, Steve Korris of the
Madison County Record reports.

DaimlerChrysler served a deposition notice on Alan Zuckerman, but Tim
Londrigan, local counsel for the Lakins, had moved to strike it.

At a hearing April on 27, Judge Kelley denied the Lakin motion, according to
Mr. Korris.  The docket does not show whether the deposition happened, Mr.
Korris stated in the report.




In another development, Mr. Zuckerman admitted in responses that the 1995
Dodge Caravan that he claimed had flaky paints, was totaled after a crash.  
Mr. Zuckerman remained on the plaintiff roster as of July 12, according to
Mr. Korris.

The Lakin Law firm has three remaining plaintiffs in the lawsuit after losing
two in December.  The remaining plaintiffs are Thomas Boxdorfer and Joanna
Lane of Madison County and Deborah Franke of St. Clair County.

The Lakins originally sued DaimlerChrysler in Madison County, in 2000.  In
2004, Circuit Judge Philip Kardis sent the case to Sangamon County.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Reaches Settlement in Wash. Labor Litigation  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. settled a purported class action alleging purported
class-wide wage and hour violations that was filed in Washington State
Superior Court in Spokane Count.

In August 2003, three former employees in Washington filed a class action
alleging violations of Washington labor laws with respect to providing rest
breaks.  

The Court stayed the action and ordered the plaintiffs into the company’s
mandatory arbitration program.  

Although the company believes it provided the required rest breaks to its
employees, it resolved the case through mediation, and the settlement
agreement received preliminary court approval in June 2007, according to the
company’s July 19, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 27, 2007.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a casual dining  
restaurant company.  The Company owns and operates the Red Lobster, Olive
Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52
restaurant concepts located in the U.S. and Canada.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Units Face Suits Over Server Banking Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two restaurant concepts of Darden Restaurants, Inc. face purported class
actions over its server banking policy, according to the company’s July 19,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended May 27, 2007.

In January 2004, a former food server filed a purported class action in
California state court alleging that Red Lobster’s “server banking” policies
and practices (under which servers settle guest checks directly with
customers throughout their shifts, and turn in collected monies at the
shift’s end) improperly required her and other food servers and bartenders to
make up cash shortages and walkouts in violation of California law.  

The case was ordered to arbitration.  As a procedural matter, the arbitrator
ruled that class-wide arbitration is permissible under our dispute resolution
program.

The company has filed a petition opposing the arbitrator’s decision; no
decision on the petition has yet been rendered and no class has been
certified.

In January 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel filed in California state court a second
purported class action on behalf of servers and bartenders alleging that
Olive Garden’s server banking policy and its alleged failure to pay split
shift premiums violated California law.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a casual dining  
restaurant company.  The Company owns and operates the Red Lobster, Olive
Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52
restaurant concepts located in the U.S. and Canada.


ECOLLEGE.COM: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit Over Pearson Takeover
---------------------------------------------------------------
eCollege.com, a for-profit education company, has entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding to settle a purported class action in relation to a takeover
deal with Pearson Education Inc.

The suit was filed on May 30, 2007 in the Circuit Court of Cook County
(Chancery Division) in the State of Illinois by shareholder Martin Gaynor
against Oakleigh Blakeman Thorne III, eCollege.com’s chairman and chief
executive, and the company’s five directors (Class Action Reporter, June 6,
2007).  Pearson is not named in the suit.

Pearson offered $22.45 for each eCollege share.  The acquisition agreement
included a $15.1-million termination fee and its terms “expressly forbid” the
company from seeking higher offers, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Gaynor claims the $271,786 to $573,560 bonuses that certain executives
will receive in the offer shows that the officials put “their personal
interests ahead of the interests of eCollege.com’s shareholders.”

Mr. Gaynor wants a judge to declare the termination fee in the transaction
unfair.  He wants to prevent the sale from going through until eCollege.com
executives have considered all options.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached, or
aided and abetted the breach of, fiduciary duties owed to eCollege
shareholders by eCollege's directors in connection with eCollege's entry into
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated May 14, 2007, by and among eCollege,
Pearson Education, Inc. and Epsilon Acquisition Corp. and the value received
in the merger.

The settlement, which also involves other defendants, will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval following notice to members of
the proposed settlement class. If finally approved by the court, the
settlement will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been
brought on behalf of the proposed settlement class in the action being
settled, including all claims relating to the merger, the merger agreement,
the value received in the merger and any disclosure made in connection
therewith.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties have agreed that
plaintiffs' counsel will petition the court for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid by eCollege in an amount not to exceed $300,000,
subject to court approval. The merger may be consummated prior to final court
approval of the settlement.

Each of eCollege and the other defendants denies all of the allegations in
the lawsuit, including any allegation that its current disclosures with
regard to the pending merger are misleading or incomplete in any way.
Nevertheless, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, eCollege and the
other defendants in this case have agreed in principle to settle the case in
order to avoid the potential cost and distraction of continued litigation and
to eliminate any risk of any delay to the closing of the merger posed by this
lawsuit.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to
shareholders of eCollege in connection with the merger or the timing of the
special meeting of its shareholders scheduled for July 30, 2007 to approve
the merger agreement.
Pursuant to the proposed settlement, eCollege agreed to make certain amended
and supplemental disclosures which will be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission later today.

For more information, contact:

          Kristi Emerson
          eCollege
          Phone: +1-303-873-3788
          E-mail: kristie@eCollege.com
          Website: http://www.ecollege.com


EL APPLE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
El Apple Inc., dba Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill, is facing a class action
filed July 12 in San Angelo, Texas, Federal Court.

Plaintiff Sean Enloe alleges violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Enloe v. El Apple, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-00032,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Sam
R. Cummings.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert J. Wiley, Esq.
         Law Office of Rob Wiley
         Turtle Creek Tower
         3131 Turtle Creek Blvd
         Suite 310
         Dallas, TX 75219-5426
         Phone: 214/528-6500
         Fax: 214/528-6511
         E-mail: rwiley@robwiley.com


FLORIDA: Landowners Group Wants to Lead Citrus Springs MSBU Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Citrus Springs Landowners Association is asking Circuit Judge Patricia
Thomas to rule on whether it could represent a class of people damaged by the
county’s Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU), Terry Witt of (Citrus County)
Chronicle Online.

An MSBU is a flat annual fee that appears on the property tax bill, but is
not a property tax.  The fee is $20 for vacant land and $25 for improved
land.  It was created when the original developer of Citrus Springs abandoned
the project before it was completed.

The landowners want the tax scrapped because they said it provides no direct
benefit to the land in Citrus Springs.  They also want to recoup millions of
dollars that have already been paid.

Their lawsuit alleges the Citrus County Commission improperly used revenue
from the MSBU to build a $2.3 million community center, pave roads, build
entrance signs, install fire hydrants and equip a community park.

Citrus County stopped using MSBU revenue to fund operation of the community
center two years ago, “in an abundance of caution,” according to County
Attorney Robert Battista.

According to the report, Citrus Springs still uses its MSBU to resurface
streets, add signage to its entrances, equip its community park and install
fire hydrants.


GILMAN & CIOCIA: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Pinnacle Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported stockholders' class action against Gilman
& Ciocia, Inc., which is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County.

On Feb. 4, 2004, the company was served with a summons and a shareholder's
class action and derivative complaint filed by Gary Kosseff against James
Ciocia, Thomas Povinelli, Michael P. Ryan, Kathryn Travis, Seth A. Akabas,
Louis P. Karol, Edward H. Cohen, Steven Gilbert and Doreen Biebusch, and
Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. (Civil Action No. 188-N).

The action accuses the company, its board of directors and its management of
breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty in connection with the sale of
offices to Pinnacle Taxx Advisors, LLC in 2002.

The action alleges that the sale to Pinnacle was for inadequate consideration
and without a fairness opinion by independent financial advisors, without
independent legal advice and without a thorough evaluation and vote by an
independent committee of the board of directors.

The action seeks:

     -- a declaration that the company, its board of directors
        and management breached their fiduciary duty and other
        duties to the plaintiff and to the other members of the
        purported class;

     -- a rescission of the Asset Purchase Agreement;

     -- unspecified monetary damages; and

     -- an award to the plaintiff of costs and disbursements,

        including reasonable legal, expert and accountants
        fees.

On March 15, 2004, counsel for the company and for all defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  On June 19, 2004, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

On July 12, 2004, counsel for the company and for all defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On March 8, 2005, oral argument was heard on the motion to dismiss, and on
July 29, 2005 the case Master delivered his draft report denying the motion.

The parties filed exceptions to the report and on Aug. 3, 2006, the Master
delivered his final report denying the motion to dismiss.  

The parties are proceeding with discovery and a June 4, 2007 trial was
scheduled for the case.

Gilman + Ciocia, Inc. -- http://www.gilcio.com/-- provides federal, state  
and local tax preparation services to individuals, predominantly in the
middle and upper income tax brackets, and financial planning services,
including securities brokerage, insurance and mortgage agency services.


GLOBAL WEALTH: $46M Settlement in D.C. Gender Bias Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia granted preliminary approval to a $46 million class action
settlement of gender discrimination asserted against Morgan Stanley & Co.
Inc.'s Global Wealth Management Group.

The settlement also would require the company to make changes in various
policies affecting compensation and branch management promotion.

The settlement covers female Financial Advisors and Registered Financial
Advisor Trainees employed by Morgan Stanley at any time between August 5,
2003 through June 30, 2007.

The lawsuit was filed on June 22, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under the caption, "Joanne August-Johnson et al. v.
Morgan Stanley DW Inc.," (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2006)

Plaintiffs, who seek damages in law and in equity, are:

      -- Cheryl Guistiniano,
      -- Debra Shaw,
      -- Joanne August-Johnson,
      -- Laurie Blackburn, and
      -- Nancy Reeves

According to the complaint, the case arises out of the company's alleged
systematic discriminatory treatment of its female financial advisors in
violation of federal and applicable state civil rights laws.

The suit was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 on behalf of all
female financial advisors at Morgan Stanley who were employed at any time
from Aug. 5, 2003 to the present.

Its filing was designed to protect the rights of the named plaintiffs, who
reside in four states, and the prospective class members nationwide.

Early this year, Global Wealth Management Group, one of the four main
business units of Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., settled for $46,000,000 (Class
Action Reporter, May 2, 2007).

                        Settlement Terms

Under terms of the settlement, Global Wealth will adopt new programs in such
areas as account redistribution, training and management development designed
to enhance the success of women financial advisors.

In addition, it establishes a process through which women financial advisors
who believe they were historically disadvantaged because of their gender may
submit monetary claims to a Special Master jointly appointed by the parties.  
A $46 million pool has been established to pay such claims and related costs.

Judge Roberts is scheduled to hold a hearing to consider final approval of
the settlement on October 11, 2007.

"We are delighted to advance to the final approval stage of the settlement
process," said Co-Lead Counsel Cyrus Mehri. "Our courageous clients are
bringing about real change at Morgan Stanley, including fair distribution of
business opportunities."

Co-Lead Counsel Steven Sprenger agreed, stating, "We are pleased that Judge
Roberts has agreed to allow the settlement to be submitted to the class
members for their consideration. We believe that the class members will
overwhelmingly favor final approval of the settlement."

A fact sheet on the settlement is available upon request to
bwittschen@findjustice.com.

The suit is "August-Johnson et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., Case No. 1:06-
cv-01142-RWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
under Judge Richard W. Roberts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
         Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
         1300 19th Street NW
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: (202) 822-5100
         E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com
  
              - and -

         Steven M. Sprenger, Esq.
         Sprenger & Lang, PLLC
         1400 I Street, NW, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 265-8010
         Fax: (202) 332-6652
         E-mail: ssprenger@sprengerlang.com


IMAX CORP: Still Faces Canadian Securities Fraud Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corp. remains a defendant in a class action that was filed on Sept. 20,
2006 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian securities
laws.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company’s
securities between Feb. 17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006.

The lawsuit is in a very early stage and seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, as well as costs and expenses, according to the company’s
July 20, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

MAX Corp. -- http://www.imax.com-- is an entertainment technology company  
specializing in large-format and three-dimensional (3D) film presentations.  
The Company's principal business is the design, manufacture, sale and lease
of projection systems based on technology for large-format, 15-perforation
film frame, 70-mm format (15/70-format) theaters, including commercial
theaters, museums and science centers, and destination entertainment sites.


IMAX CORP: Parties Agree to Extend Time for Filing of Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated securities fraud class action against IMAX Corp.
and certain of its officers and directors agree to extend time to file an
amended complaint in the case.

Initially, the company was named as defendants in eight purported class
actions filed between Aug. 11, 2006 and Sept. 18, 2006.

These eight actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  They were brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006.

The suits allege primarily that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements during the class
period regarding their revenue recognition of theater system installations,
and failing to disclose material information concerning the company's revenue
recognition practices.  

Currently there are motions for consolidation, assignment of lead plaintiff,
and appointment of lead plaintiff counsel pending before the court.

These lawsuits are in very early stages and seek unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, and expenses.

On Jan. 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight class action lawsuits and
appointed:

     * Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the lead
       Plaintiff, and

     *  Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis LLP as lead
        plaintiff’s counsel.

On April 26, 2007, the lead plaintiff and the Company entered into a
stipulation extending the time in which the lead plaintiff must file a
consolidated amended complaint, according to the company’s July 20, 2007 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

The suit is “In re IMAX Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-06128-
NRB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 889-3700
         Fax: (212) 684-5191
         E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com


KFC CORP: Faces Litigation in N.J. Alleging FACTA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
KFC Corp., an operating segment of YUM! Brands, Inc., faces a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging
violations under the new federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

The suit, “Peraria v. KFC Corp., et al.,” was filed on July 11, 2007.  It is
a proposed class action and alleges that KFC failed to protect the private
information of its customers under FACTA.

The complaint alleges a violation of FACTA based on a transaction involving a
franchised restaurant, according to the YUM! Brands’ July 20, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 16, 2007.

The suit is “Peraria v. KFC Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03190-RMB-AMD,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Renee Marie Bumb with referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio.

         Evan J. Smith, Esq.
         Brodsky & Smith, LLC
         1040 Kings Highway, North Suite 601
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
         Phone: (856) 795-7250
         E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


LA ESPERANZA: Reaches $600T Settlement in Suit by Workers
---------------------------------------------------------
La Esperanza Markets in California has reached a $610,000 settlement in a
class action filed by workers alleging they were not paid for overtime work
at the store, it emerged in a report by Claudia Melendez Salinas in Herald
Salinas Bureau.

San Francisco lawyer Mark Telamantes was contacted by  
The Watsonville Law Center after Guillermo Melendez and Jose Contreras
Moreno, who worked at the Watsonville stores on Main Street, raised their
complaint against their employer late in 2005 (Class Action Reporter, March
29, 2006).   

The suit was filed in January 2006 in Santa Cruz County Superior  
Court.  The suit also alleged that owners of the chain of stores, Javier and
Emilia Vazquez, rarely granted workers their 10-minute and 30-minute lunch
breaks in violation of California
labor laws.

Mr. Telamantes said Mr. Melendez worked as a janitor, a butcher and a stocker
at La Esperanza Markets from May 2000 to October 2003.  Mr. Contreras worked
in the same capacity from June 2003 to August 2004.  Both claim they worked
10-hour days for six days a week, but were never paid for the overtime.

Under the settlement, $396,000 will be divided among former workers according
to a formula that considers weekly salaries and months worked between Jan. 9,
2002, and March 15, 2007.  Mr. Melendez is getting $14,000 and Mr. Contreras
$10,000.

Judge Robert B. Atack approved a preliminary settlement in May.

La Esperanza stores serve mostly Latino consumers in San Jose, Salinas, Santa
Cruz and Watsonville.

For more information, contact Watsonville Law Center at 722-2845.


LONG JOHN: Seeks Transfer of Cal. Disability Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed in Superior Court, Kings County,
California against Long John Silver’s, Inc., an operating segment of YUM!
Brands, Inc., is seeking for the removal of the matter to a federal court.

On May 11, 2007, plaintiff John Whited filed the putative class action,
styled, “John Whited, For Himself and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Long John Silver’s, Inc. and Does 1 – 10.”

The complaint alleges, among other things, that LJS has discriminated against
the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing
to make its 23 company-owned restaurants in California (LJS California
Restaurants) accessible to the class.

Plaintiff’s complaint is based upon the Plaintiff’s inspection of one of the
LJS California Restaurants and contends that the restroom paper towel
dispenser, customer service, sales, order and condiment counters do not
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and certain provisions of the
Copyright Designs and Patents Act.

Plaintiff has requested unspecified injunctive relief and damages.

On June 7, 2007, LJS filed to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, according to the YUM! Brands’ July 20,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 16, 2007.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant  
(QSR) with over 34,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories.  YUM
consists of six operating segments: KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John
Silver's (LJS) and A&W All-American Food Restaurants (A&W), YUM Restaurants
International (YRI or International Division) and YUM Restaurants China
(China Division).


MERRILL LYNCH: Research Reports Suit Settlement Hearing Set Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a
fairness hearing on November 5, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed
$15,000,000 settlement of the matter "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
Research Reports Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 MDL 1484 (JFK)."

The settlement covers all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. common stock during the period July 3,
1999 through and including April 8, 2002.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on October 1, 2007.  Deadline
to file claims is on October 30, 2007.

The hearing will be at the courtroom of the Honorable John F. Keenan.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., was named in dozens of class actions since 2001
that challenged the objectivity of the Company's research recommendations
related to securities of Internet companies (Class Action Reporter, March 8,
2006).

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA  19103

Representing defendants are:

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY  10036

          - and -

          Marc B. Dorfman, Esq.
          Foley & Lardner LLP
          3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20007


NISSIN FOODS: Recalls Shrimp-Flavored Noodles on Allergy Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nissin Foods (USA) Co., Inc. is voluntarily recalling selected shrimp-
flavored noodle products as a safety precaution after it was discovered that
the seafood-flavored powder used in these Nissin products also contains cod
and lobster.

Individuals who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to cod or lobster may
run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these specific shrimp-flavored products.

The recalled products were distributed throughout the United States through
grocery stores and other food stores, under the names Nissin Original Chow
Mein Shrimp and Nissin Cup Noodles Shrimp. Nissin Cup Noodles Shrimp was also
sold through Wal-Mart stores under the label "Great Value Instant Shrimp" at
Winn Dixie stores under the label "Thrifty Maid with Shrimp Oriental Noodles
with Vegetables" and at Aldi grocery stores under the label "Jehling Ramen
Noodle Soup Cup with Shrimp and Vegetables."

"We have not received any report that any person has suffered any allergic
reaction as a result of consuming these products," said Nissin Foods
President, Tak Naruto. "We have taken this quick action, however, because
Nissin’s top priority is now and has always been the safety and health of its
customers."

Customers who have purchased any of these recalled products and who have any
concern about an allergic reaction should discard the product immediately.
Customers will receive a refund and a supplemental coupon if they then send
the UPC Code only directly to Nissin at 2001 W Rosecrans Ave, Gardena, CA
90249.

For more information, customers are urged to call Nissin Foods at 1-866-548-
2945 or visit http://www.nissinfoods.com.


OSEM: Faces $1.18M Suit Over Petah Tikva Warehouse Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Osem, one of the largest food corporations in Israel, is facing a $1.18
million class-action complaint in the Tel Aviv District Court, Carmel Ben-Zur
of the Haaretz Daily reports.

The suit was filed by attorney Daniel Mor on behalf of Li Or, who spent $19
on Off Tov and Sabra Salads products, but had to throw them on fear she would
endanger her family’s health.  The suit claims that Osem's mismanagement of
its Petah Tikva warehouse exposed its chilled and frozen products to
dangerous bacteria, which multiply rapidly in heat and could affect the
digestive system.

The suit seeks full compensation for payments made by consumers to buy
Tivall, Sabra Salads and Off Tov food products sold by the company.
Ms. Or claims Osem failed to immediately inform the public that as a
precautionary and hygienic measure, they should not use the products and
should return them immediately to distribution centers to receive refunds.  

Ms. Ben-Zur was not able to reach Osem for comments.


PALM INC: Seeks to Settle Cal. Consumer Suits Over Treo Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Palm, Inc. is working to settle several purported consumer class actions
filed in either the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California or the Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County on
behalf of all purchasers of Palm Treo 600 and Treo 650 products.

In September and October 2005, these purported consumer class actions were
filed against the company:

      -- "Moya v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03926-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Berliner v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03854-RMW," filed
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Loew v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03980-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Geisen v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-04120-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California; and

      -- "Palza v. Palm," filed in the Superior Court of
         California for Santa Clara County.

All four complaints allege in substance that the company made false or
misleading statements regarding the reliability of its Treo 600 and 650
products in violation of various California laws and breached its warranty of
these products.  The complaints seek unspecified damages, restitution,
disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief.

In September 2005, a purported consumer class action entitled
"Gans v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03774-RMW" was filed against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
all purchasers of the Treo 650 product.  

The complaint alleges that, in violation of various California laws, the
company made false or misleading statements regarding automatic E-mail
delivery to the Treo 650 product.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
restitution, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief.

The company removed the "Palza" case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  Subsequently, all six cases were related
before a single judge in that court.  

Subsequently, all six cases were consolidated before a single judge in that
Court and the plaintiffs provided a consolidated, amended complaint.

The parties have agreed to a tentative settlement and are in the process of
negotiating a full settlement agreement, according to the company’s July 19,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 1, 2007.

Palm, Inc. -- http://www.palm.com/-- formerly palmOne, Inc. is a provider of  
mobile computing solutions.  The Company offers Treo smartphones, as well as
handheld computers, add-ons and accessories.  It distributes these products
through a network of wireless carriers and retail and business distributors
worldwide.  


SCHERING-PLOUGH: N.J. Securities Lawsuit Granted Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted certification
to a consolidated securities class action filed against Schering-Plough Corp.

Following the company's announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration had been conducting inspections of the company's manufacturing
facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had issued reports citing
deficiencies concerning compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices,
several lawsuits were filed against the company and certain named officers.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal securities law
by allegedly failing to disclose material information and making material
misstatements.

Specifically, they allege that the company failed to disclose an alleged
serious risk that a new drug application for CLARINEX would be delayed as a
result of these manufacturing issues, and they allege that the company failed
to disclose the alleged depth and severity of its manufacturing issues (Class
Action Reporter, March 22, 2007).

These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, and a consolidated amended complaint was
filed on Oct. 11, 2001, purporting to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased shares of company stock from May 9, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class. The court
certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003.

Deadline to file for class exclusion is on October 15, 2007.

The suit is "In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:01cv829," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with referral under Judge Mark Falk.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert J. Berg
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Phone: (201) 592-3201
          E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com

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

          Andrew Robert Jacobs
          Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia Jacobs & Sprouls
          245 Green Village Road
          P.O. Box 901
          Chatham Township, NJ 07928-0901
          Phone: (973) 593-4900
          E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com

          - and -

          Justin F. Johnson
          Lunga, Evers & Johnson, Esqs.
          710 Route 46E, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Phone: (973) 227-4200
          E-mail: jfj.lejlaw@attglobal.net

Representing the defendant is:

          Douglas Scott Eakeley
          Lowenstein Sandler, PC
          65 Livingston Avenue
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
          Phone: (973) 597-2500
          E-mail: deakeley@lowenstein.com


STATE FARM: AG Hood Files New Suit After Settlement Breakdown
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood announced in June a lawsuit filed
against State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. to recover damages for the victims
of Hurricane Katrina.

The lawsuit alleges “a bad faith breach of contract on [State Farm] part for
refusing to reconstruct a rejected January settlement between it and [Mr.]
Hood's office,” according to John O'Brien of LegalNewsline.com.

Mr. Hood was referring to a settlement of a suit he filed after Hurricane
Katrina in 2005.  He accuses the company of wrongfully representing the
amount of water damage to some homes because flood damage, covered by the
National Flood Insurance Program, is excluded from their policies.

The parties reached an agreement in January that would have cost State Farm
at least $500 million according to Mr. Hood’s estimate.  But U.S. District
Judge L.T. Senter rejected parts of the settlement because it will give State
Farm control during an arbitration process.

The part of the settlement that was accepted resulted to the settlement of
640 claims and $26 million to the group of trial lawyer Richard Scruggs.

According to the report, State Farm has revisited claims as part of a deal
reached with Insurance Commissioner George Dale.  That deal, State Farm says,
mirrors the one originally reached with Hood.

The new suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Hinds County.  A statement
from the office of Mr. Hood about the suit states:

“We filed this lawsuit in an effort to help the more than 30,000 Gulf Coast
policyholders who have suffered for nearly two years because of State Farm’s
inaction.”

“The State Farm reevaluation procedure through the Department of Insurance
has only resulted in a little more than 300 new offers. That does not comply
with the terms we have with them in black and white. We have a state court
order that they signed and then backed out on. If they will breach a clear
agreement with a State, then this is further evidence that they have breached
their own policy provisions with their insured on the Coast.”

Attorney General Hood charges that State Farm has violated several specific
terms of the settlement agreement, including their failure to make “an offer
of settlement to the policyholder based upon criteria and guidelines approved
by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.”

“We are at this point [] because State Farm has intentionally and in bad
faith acted with disregard toward the rights of its policyholders,” Mr. Hood
said.  The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages from State Farm.


TACO BELL: No Ruling Yet in ADA Suit Summary Judgment Request
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to
rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the
matter, “Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.”

On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant in a class
action, "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On Aug. 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that alleges, among
other things, that the company discriminated against the class of people who
use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately
220 company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.  

Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and structural
elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of travel and use
of the facilities by persons with mobility-related disabilities -- including
parking spaces, ramps, counters, restroom facilities and seating -- do not
comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights
Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act.  
Plaintiffs have requested:

      -- an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco
         Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing
         regulations;

      -- that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation
         of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

      -- monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.
        
Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages
per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for
each aggrieved member of the class.  They contend that there may be in excess
of 100,000 individuals in the class.  

For themselves, the four named plaintiffs have claimed aggregate minimum
statutory damages of no less than $16,000, but are expected to claim greater
amounts based on the number of company outlets they visited at which they
claim to have suffered discrimination.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) mandatory
injunctive relief class of all individuals with disabilities who use
wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, at any time on or after
Dec. 17, 2001, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of
disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California Restaurants.  The
class includes claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004, the district
court ordered that the trial of this action be bifurcated so that stage one
will resolve plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief and stage two will
resolve plaintiffs' claims for damages.  

Parties are currently proceeding with the equitable relief stage of this
action.  During this stage, the company filed a motion to partially decertify
the class to exclude from the Rule 23(b)(2) class claims for monetary
damages.  

The district court denied the motion.  Plaintiffs filed their own motion for
partial summary judgment as to liability relating to a subset of the
California Restaurants.  The district court denied that motion as well.  

Discovery is ongoing as of the date of this report.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was in violation of
accessibility laws as to three specific issues: seating, queue rails and door
opening pressure.  

The court has not yet issued a ruling on this motion, according to the YUM!
Brands’ July 20, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2007.

The suit is "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 3:02-cv-05849,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Timothy P. Fox, Esq.
         Fox & Robertson, P.C.
         910-16th Street, Suite 610
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-595-9700
         Fax: 303-595-9705
         E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com

              - and -

         Brad Seligman, Esq.
         The Impact Fund, 125 University Ave.
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304
         Fax: 510-845-3654
         E-mail: bs@impactfund.org

Representing the defendant are:

         Gregory A. Eurich, Esq.
         Jimmy Goh, Esq.
         Holland & Hart, LLP
         555 17th Street, Suite 3200
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-295-8000
         E-mail: geurich@hollandhart.com
                 jgoh@hollandhart.com

              - and -

         Gregory F. Hurley, Esq.
         Greenberg Traurig, LLP
         650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714-708-6564
         Fax: 714 708-6501
         E-mail: sautters@gtlaw.com


TACO BELL: Faces FACTA Violations Complaint in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc., faces a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
alleging violations under the new federal Fair and Accurate Credit
Transaction Act.

The suit, “Doran Phillips vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al.,” was filed on July 5,
2007.  It was delivered to Taco Bell’s agent for service of process in
Illinois.

It is a proposed class action and alleges that Taco Bell failed to protect
the private information of its customers under FACTA.

The complaint alleges a violation of FACTA based on a transaction involving a
licensed restaurant, according to the YUM! Brands’ July 20, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 16, 2007.

The suit is “Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03620,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois under
Judge Mark Filip.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
         Zimmerman and Associates
         100 West Monroe, Suite 1300
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 440-0020
         E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com


TACO BELL: Still Faces Consolidated RGM’s Litigation in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc., continues to face a
consolidated class action in the California that was filed by a Taco Bell
Restaurant General Manager (RGM).

On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp.
styled, “Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp.,” was filed in Orange County
Superior Court.

On Aug. 7, 2006, another putative class action lawsuit styled, “Marina
Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.,” was filed in San Diego County Superior Court.

Both lawsuits were filed by an RGM purporting to represent all current and
former RGMs who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in California from
August 2002 to the present.

The lawsuits allege violations of California’s wage and hour laws involving
unpaid overtime and meal and rest period violations and seek unspecified
amounts in damages and penalties.

As of Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Orange County
case and both cases have been consolidated in San Diego County, according to
the YUM! Brands’ July 20, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2007.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant  
(QSR) with over 34,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories.  YUM
consists of six operating segments: KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John
Silver's (LJS) and A&W All-American Food Restaurants (A&W), YUM Restaurants
International (YRI or International Division) and YUM Restaurants China
(China Division).


WACHOVIA CORP: Faces $5M Labor Code Violations Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corp. is facing a class action filed July 12 in Los Angeles Federal
Court.

Plaintiff Larry Phillips alleges Labor Code violations and seeks $5 million
in payments.

The suit is “Larry Phillips v. Wachovia Corp. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04512-
SVW-PJW,” filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
under Judge Stephen V. Wilson with referral to Judge Patrick J. Walsh.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Larry W. Gabriel, Esq.
          Jenkins Mulligan and Gabriel
          78-065 Main Street, Suite 202
          La Quinta, CA 92253
          Phone: 760-777-1500

          -- and --

         Derek G Howard, Esq.
         Murray and Howard
         436 14th Street, Suite 1413
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Phone: 510-444-2660


XTO ENERGY: Still Faces Suit Over Natural Gas Royalty Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action filed on
January 2006, in the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma by royalty
owners of natural gas wells in Oklahoma.  

Plaintiffs in the suit, “Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc.,” allege that XTO
Energy has not properly accounted to the plaintiffs for the royalties to
which they are entitled and seek an accounting regarding the natural gas and
other products produced from their wells and the prices paid for the natural
gas and other products produced, and for payment of the monies allegedly owed
since June 2002, with a certain limited number of plaintiffs claiming monies
owed for additional time.

A hearing on the class certification has not been scheduled. The plaintiffs
have not alleged, in their petition, an amount they are seeking, according to
Hugoton Royalty Trust's July 20, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2006.

XTO Energy Inc. -- http://www.xtoenergy.com-- and its subsidiaries are  
engaged in the acquisition, development, exploitation and exploration of
producing oil and gas properties, and in the production, processing,
marketing and transportation of oil and natural gas.


YOTRIO INTL: Recalls Reclining Lounge Chairs with Weak Support
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yotrio International LLC, of Orinda, California, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 15,000 lounge chairs.

The company said faulty support brackets and/or weak frames can cause the
chairs to collapse, posing a fall and severe laceration hazard to consumers.

Yotrio has received one report of a chair collapsing causing to the consumer
to fall to the ground. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Rockingham deluxe reclining lounge chairs. The folding
lounge chairs have an orange mesh covering that attaches to a steel frame by
a woven cord. The high-back chairs measure 40-inches long by 28-inches wide
by 46-inches high and have a padded headrest. A hangtag attached to the chair
reads in part “Backyard Creations” and “Deluxe Rockingham Reclining Chair.”

These recalled reclining lounge chairs were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Menards stores from March 2007 through May 2007 for between $40
and $60.

Picture of the recalled reclining lounge chairs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07247.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled chairs immediately and
return them to the store where purchased for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Yotrio at (800) 793-7055 between 8 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. Consumers can also visit the firm’s
Web site: http://www.yotrioint.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CV TECHNOLOGIES: Faces $110M Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Siskinds LLP and Sutts Strosberg LLP have jointly filed, on
July 20, 2007, a $110 million class action against CV Technologies Inc. under
Ontario's new investor protection legislation, Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario
Securities Act.

The suit is seeking, among other things, leave to proceed with a suit under
Ontario's investor protection legislation against CV Technologies, the
manufacturers of Cold F/X., CV's chief executive, two members of its Board of
Directors, and CV auditors, Grant Thornton LLP.

The claim is on behalf of all persons who acquired CV securities between
December 11, 2006 and March 23, 2007.

The proposed class action arises out of CV's revenue-recognition practices.
On December 11, 2006, CV released its management discussion and analysis in
which it reported net sales of $46.9 million, an increase of 47% from the
prior year, and net earnings of $4.1 million.

Before the commencement of trading on March 26, 2007, CV announced
that "while reported U.S. sales in the fourth quarter of 2006 and the first
quarter of 2007 were $8.6 million, this primarily represented sales to
retailers for stocking their shelves. The actual sell through to consumers
has been disappointing and is estimated to be $1.5 - $2.5 million for the
first six months of 2007."

On April 11, 2007, CV announced that its consolidated financial statements
for the year ended September 30, 2006, as well as its interim consolidated
financial statements for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 required
restatement due to a revenue deferral issue in the U.S. markets. Upon this
news, CV's share price over the TSX fell sharply.

On June 14, 2007, CV issued restated financial statements and reported
substantially lower net sales and net earnings for fiscal 2006 and the first
quarter if fiscal 2007.

The notice of action alleges that the defendants negligently or recklessly
overstated CV's revenues for fiscal 2006 and the first quarter of 2007 and
thereby artificially inflated the trading price of CV securities.

The plaintiffs claim $110 million in damages on behalf of the Class Members,
including themselves.

Dimitri Lascaris, a lawyer in Siskinds' class actions department, said "we
are determined to ensure that the potential of Part XXIII.1 is fully
realized, and that investors be afforded meaningful relief when they suffer
losses due to inaccurate information. Our securities laws must have teeth if
the investments of Canada's working families are to be protected."

Jay Strosberg of Sutts Strosberg LLP added "it is alleged that the financial
statements at issue were misleading. Investors and members of the public
expect that a company's financial statements can be relied upon at all times.
Our goal is to prosecute this class action and seek meaningful compensation
for the class members."

ColdFX class action on the net: http://www.coldfxclassaction.com/

For more information, contact:

          Dimitri Lascaris
          Siskinds LLP
          Phone: (519) 660-7844

          - and -

          Jay Strosberg
          Sutts Strosberg LLP
          Phone: (519) 561-6285


SOUTHWESTERN RESOURCES: Faces $220M Suit Over China Gold Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Sutts Strosberg LLP and Siskinds LLP have jointly filed, on
July 20, 2007, a $220 million class action seeking damages as a result of
Southwestern Resources Corp.’s recent announcement that the integrity of
certain of its drill core samples were compromised.

On July 19, 2007, Southwestern issued a press release and disclosed that
there were deficiencies in its control procedures for its Boka Gold Project.
The company also disclosed that it believes there were errors in reported
assay results announced in 2007 and that the integrity of drill core samples
was compromised. Upon this news, Southwestern's share price fell sharply.

The class action was brought on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of
Southwestern in the period August 31, 2005 to July 18, 2007.

The notice of action alleges that the defendants negligently or recklessly
misrepresented the quantity of gold in its drill samples taken from the Boka
Gold Project in China.

Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., of the Sutts, Strosberg LLP law firm
said, "Investors are entitled to assume that public companies will ensure
that the integrity of drill core samples will not be compromised. Surely,
public mining companies have learned something about quality control from the
events which occurred 10 years ago!"

Dimitri Lascaris, a lawyer in Siskinds' class actions department, added, "The
resource sector is critically important to the Canadian economy. Investors
must be able to have confidence in the information disseminated by companies
operating in this sector."

Southwestern class action on the net: http://www.southwesternclassaction.com/

For more information, contact:

          Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C.
          Sutts Strosberg LLP
          Phone: (519) 561-6228

          - and -

          Dimitri Lascaris
          Siskinds LLP
          Phone: (519) 660-784


                            *********


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  * * *