CAR_Public/070725.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 25, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 145

                            Headlines


ANALOG DEVICES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: $100M Securities Suit Deal Granted Final OK
AQUILA INC: Parties Seek to Conclude Suit Over Acquisition
ARIZONA: Tim Hogan Files Contempt Motion in English Program Suit
ARKANSAS: Lawsuit Filed Over District’s Millage Rate Increase

BASF CORP: Distribution Plan in $62.5M POAST Suit Deal Approved
BMW NORTH: Faces Calif. Suit Over Faulty Automatic Transmissions
CASTLEBERRY’S FOOD: Expands Contaminated Chili Products Recall
CENTEX CORP: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Profit Sharing Plan
COVENTRY HEALTH: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.

DILLARDS INC: Appeals Court Revives Racial Profiling Suit
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: High Court Refuses to Reopen Cam Bearing Suit
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Securities Suit Dismissal Motion Denied
HONEYWELL RETIREMENT: Still Faces Ariz. Pensioners' Lawsuit
LOG DEN: Wis. Restaurant Patrons Sue for Food-Related Ailments

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Foster Farms Sues Over Bid-Rigging Scheme
M/I HOMES: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
NASH FINCH: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Complaint
NATIONAL FORWARDING: Accused of Defrauding Freight Haulers
OREGON: Court Approves $14M Settlement with Laid-off Custodians

PEGASUS WIRELESS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
PEMCO AVIATION: Ala. Court Approves Settlement of Labor Case
SARASOTA-MANATEE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Lieber Inmate’s Lawsuit Denied Class Status
SOUTHERN CO: Aug. 14 Fairness Hearing Set in Ga. ERISA Suit

STAPLES INC: November 2007 Trial Set for Calif. Labor Lawsuit
ST. JOHN’S: Mo. Couple Allege Overpricing of “Uninsureds”
TFT-LCD MANUFACTURERS: Girard Gibbs is Direct Buyers’ Liaison
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Still Faces Del. Consolidated Securities Suit
WELLPOINT HEALTH: Ala. Suit Alleges Fraud in AWP Calculation


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                            *********


ANALOG DEVICES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has yet to rule on
a motion seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action against Analog
Devices, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

On Oct. 13, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed on behalf of
participants in the company's Investment Partnership Plan from Oct. 5, 2000
to the present.

The complaint named as defendants the company, certain officers and
directors, and the company's Investment Partnership Plan Administration
Committee.

The complaint alleges purported violations of federal law in connection with
the company's option granting practices during the years 1998, 1999, 2000,
and 2001, including breaches of fiduciary duties owed to participants and
beneficiaries of the company's Investment Partnership Plan under ERISA.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and
injunctive relief.  

On Nov. 22, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed motions to
dismiss the complaint.  On Jan. 8, 2007, the Plaintiff filed memoranda in
opposition.  

On Jan. 22, 2007, the company and the individual defendants filed further
memoranda in support of the motions to dismiss.

The company provided no material development in the matter in its May 22,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended May 5, 2007.

The suit is "Bendaoud v. Hodgson et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11873-NG," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy
Gertner.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
         Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134
         E-mail: ted@shulaw.com
                 tshapiro@shulaw.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: $100M Securities Suit Deal Granted Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Deborah A. Batts of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York entered an order granting final approval to a $100 million
settlement in the matter, "In re American Express Financial Advisors
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 04 Civ. 1773 (DAB)."

The settlement resolves claims that AEFA violated federal securities laws and
breached fiduciary duties by perpetrating a scheme to defraud its investing
clients.

In October 2005, a comprehensive settlement was reached regarding the
consolidated securities class action filed against the company, its former
parent and affiliates in October 2004.

The settlement, under which the company denies any liability, includes a one-
time payment of $100 million to the class members.  

The settlement covers all persons and entities who, at any time from and
including March 10, 1999 through and including April 1,
2006:

      -- paid a fee for financial advisory services as described
         in the American Express or Ameriprise Financial
         Advisory Services Brochure and the Financial Advisory
         Service Agreement;

      -- purchased through American Express Financial Advisors
         (now Ameriprise) any mutual fund in the American
         Express or Ameriprise Preferred Provider Program,
         Select Group Program, or other similar program;
     
      -- purchased through American Express Financial Advisors  
         any mutual fund sold under the American Express, AXP,
         or RiverSource brand;

      -- paid a fee for financial advice, financial planning, or
         other financial advisory services rendered in
         connection with the American Express or Ameriprise
         Strategic Portfolio Service program, Wealth Management
         Service program, or Separately Managed Account program.

On Feb. 14, the court preliminarily approved the settlement (Class Action
Reporter, May 25, 2007).

Following a final approval hearing held on July 13, 2007, the Court approved
the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate.  According to a press
release by Girard Gibbs LLP, law firm for plaintiffs, the settlement covers
clients of AEFA who purchased financial advisory services or financial advice
(such as a financial plan) and/or mutual funds in the American Express family
of mutual funds between March 10, 1999 and February 9, 2004.

Under the settlement terms, the Company will pay $100 million to individuals
who purchased financial advice, financial plans or other financial advisory
services from AEFA. In addition to the settlement fund, AEFA is also
responsible for the costs of settlement and claims administration, estimated
between $15 million and $18 million.

Of the 2.8 million potential claimants who received notice of the settlement,
more than one million claims have been filed. This figure represents
significant participation in the settlement. The Court acknowledged that by
voting with their feet, the vast number of claimants demonstrated the
fairness of the settlement.

According to lead attorney for the class, Daniel Girard, "We are very pleased
to have obtained over $115 million in value for the class members. The
relative percentage of claimants is one of the highest we have ever seen and
with that level of participation, we are confident that the best interests of
the class have been served through the resolution of this litigation."

For more information, contact:

          AEFA Securities Litigation Settlement
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 9089
          Dublin, OH 43017-0989
          Phone: 1-888-212-5605
          Web site: http://www.financialfeesettlement.com

The suit is "In Re American Express Financial Advisors
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Deborah A. Batts.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jules Brody
          Aaron Lee Brody
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 687-7230
          Fax: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: ssbny@aol.com
  
          Sharon M. Lee
          Andrei V. Rado
          Michael Robert Reese
          Steven G. Schulman
          Peter Edward Seidman
          Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, L.L.P.
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: mreese@milberg.com or
                  sschulman@milbergweiss.com or
                  pseidman@milberg.com

          - and -
  
          Daniel Girard
          Jonathan K. Levine
          Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, L.L.P.
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 981-4800
          Fax: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com

Representing the company is:

          Peter Kristian Vigeland
          Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (NYC)
          399 Park Avenue, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-230-8800
          Fax: 212-230-8888
          E-mail: Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com


AQUILA INC: Parties Seek to Conclude Suit Over Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------
Aquila Inc. and Pirate Capital, LLC are in negotiations that may result in
the dismissal of a purported a class action filed by Pirate Capital in the
Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware in and for New Castle County
against the Board of Directors of Aquila.

Pirate Capital serves as the investment advisor to four event-driven hedge
funds, named plaintiffs in the suit:

     -- Jolly Roger Fund LP,
     -- Jolly Roger Offshore Fund Ltd.,
     -- Jolly Roger Activist Fund LP, and
     -- Jolly Roger Activist Fund Ltd.

Pirate Capital alleges breaches of fiduciary duties related to the process
and structure of the proposed transaction with Great Plains Energy, Inc. as
well as conflicts of interest (Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2007).

Aquila began in 1940 as Missouri Public Service.  However, Aquila got caught
up in the Enron bankruptcy that triggered increased credit requirements for
the company and led to the collapse of Aquila's energy-trading business,
contributing to $2.9 billion in losses in the following four years.

Three Aquila employees pled guilty in August 2006 to federal charges that
they submitted false natural gas trade reports to industry publications
between 1999-2005.

Defendant Richard C. Green, a director of Aquila since 1982, caused Aquila to
sell $3.6 billion in assets since 2002 to raise cash to pay debt.

In connection with its restructuring efforts, Aquila undertook a strategic
review in the beginning of 2006, with the assistance of Blackstone Group and
Lehman Bros., advisors to the Aquila Board of Directors and Evercore Partners
Inc., advisor to Aquila's outside directors.

Following this strategic review, the Board determined that a “targeted”
auction process be undertaken, and instructed that their financial advisors
contact nine parties consisting of seven strategic buyers and two financial
buyers.

Ultimately, in August 2006, Aquila received five preliminary bids, ranging
from $4.15 to $5 per share.  Following due diligence, only Great Plains
submitted a final bid.

Great Plains requested that Aquila enter into an exclusivity agreement in
order to finalize the terms of any possible deal. Thus, from November 2006
until Feb. 7, 2007, Aquila and Great
Plains had such an exclusivity arrangement.

On Feb. 7, 2007, Aquila announced it had entered into a definitive agreement
with Great Plains pursuant to which Great Plains will acquire all the
outstanding shares of the company for $1.80 in cash plus 0.0856 Great Plains
share for each share of Aquila common stock.

Prior to Great Plains' acquisition of Aquila, Black Hills Corp. will acquire
certain utilities from Aquila in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa for $940
million.  The transaction is conditioned upon the Black Hills acquisition.

The transaction is valued at approximately $1.7 billion, or $4.54 per share,
based on Great Plains's closing stock price on Feb. 6, 2007.  Great Plains is
also assuming approximately $1 billion of Aquila's debt.

The price in the transaction does not represent a premium for Aquila
stockholders and is a discount to Aquila's Feb. 6, 2007 closing price of
$4.67 per share.

After the transaction was announced, Aquila management announced that it
anticipated substantial EBITDA growth through 2012, indicating that the
transaction price undervalues Aquila.

According to Pirate's presentation relating to the transaction, Great
Plains "negotiated a sweetheart deal for control of
Aquila."

Pirate has asserted its adamant opposition to the deal with Great Plains
since the deal was announced on Feb. 7, 2007, and instead recommends that
Aquila accept only the transaction with Black Hills Corp. and continue to
operate as a stand-alone company.

According to Pirate's presentation, Aquila "will be an investment grade,
Missouri electric utility play with EBITDA growth rates in excess of 20.0%
per year compared to the current junk-rated disparate mix of assets providing
barely 10.0% annualized growth."

Pirate values the company at $5.00-5.50 per share.

                        The Class Action

The class action raises these questions:

     -- whether the defendants have fulfilled, and are capable
        of fulfilling, their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and
        the other members of the class, including their duties
        of entire fairness, fair dealing, loyalty, due care,
        and candor;

     -- whether the defendants have disclosed all material
        facts in connection with the challenged transaction;
        and

     -- whether plaintiffs and the other members of the class
        would be irreparably damaged if the defendants are not
        enjoined from the conduct described herein.

Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

     -- declaring this to be a proper class action and naming
        plaintiffs as class representatives;

     -- granting preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
        against the consummation of the transaction as described
        in the complaint;

     -- in the event the transaction is consummated, rescinding
        the transaction and awarding rescissory damages;

     -- ordering defendants to fully disclose all material
        information regarding the transaction;

     -- ordering defendants to pay to plaintiffs and to other
        members of the class all damages suffered and to be
        suffered by them as the result of the acts and
        transactions alleged in the complaint;

     -- awarding plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of the
        action including allowances for plaintiff's reasonable
        attorneys' and experts' fees; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as may be just
        and proper.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d5e

The suit is "Jolly Roger Fund et al. v. Aquila, Inc. et al.," filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

Representing plaintiffs is:

         Norman M. Monhait, Esq.
         Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.
         919 Market St., Ste. 1401, Citizens Bank Ctr.
         Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
         Phone: (302) 656-4433


ARIZONA: Tim Hogan Files Contempt Motion in English Program Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------  
Lawyer Tim Hogan has filed a motion asking a federal judge to fine the
Arizona Legislature and declare it in contempt of a court order to spend more
on English language programs, Chris Kahn of the Associated Press reports.

Mr. Hogan proposes a daily fine on the Legislature’s failure to adequately
fund programs that teach English to Arizona students who speak it as a second
language.  The fine would be $500,000 a day for the first month that it fails
to act, $1 million a day for the next month, $1.5 million a day for the next
month, and so on.  This should begin after a 15-day grace period.

He also asked the court to expedite a hearing to consider his request.

                        Case Background

The state was ordered to improve its offering to students learning English
after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000 that the state's programs for
approximately 150,000 students were inadequately funded.  

The order was part of a ruling in a class action, which was originally filed
in 1992 and led by Mr. Hogan on behalf of Nogales Unified students and
parents.

The deficiency was declared a violation of a federal law that guarantees
equal opportunities in education.  The state was fined $500,000 in January
2006 for missing a deadline to draft ways to improve the program.  

The fine was increased to $1 million, resulting to a $21 million in total
fines.  The fines were stopped when the latest version of a Republican bill
seeking to revamp the English learning programs was passed into law in March
2006.

In April 2006, U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins ruled that the law still
doesn't adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out the
costs of providing those programs, and doesn't explain the basis for funding
that it does provide.

The 9th Circuit panel heard arguments in the case in San Francisco on July
25, 2006.  In August, it vacated orders by Judge Collins, blocked the
distribution of the fines to public schools, and allowed the state to return
the money to the general fund.

The circuit court ordered Judge Collins to review whether the state has made
improvements to its programs in light of changes in education funding and
related circumstances since the original 2000 ruling.

The August ruling of the appellate court did not rule directly on the latest
law regarding the program.  

Judge Collins finished on Jan. 25 a hearing to determine whether the state
has already improved the program (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2007).  

On March 22, he issued a ruling stating that the system is still deficient.  
He ordered lawmakers to resolve the issue by the end of their current
session.  

Meanwhile, the Legislature adjourned this year without any discussion of
revamping English language learning to comply with Judge Collins' judgment.
Instead, Republican lawmakers and the state schools chief asked the 9th
Circuit to put Collins' ruling on hold.

The appeals court rejected that request on June 25 saying Judge Collins
hasn't yet found the Legislature in contempt for ignoring his earlier ruling
to boost the programs.  

The class action is "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et
al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Timothy Michael Hogan, Esq.
          Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
          202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste. 153, Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Phone: 602-258-8850
          Fax: 602-258-8757
          E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org

Representing the defendants are:

          Lynne Christensen Adams, Esq.
          Jose A. Cardenas, Esq.
          Lewis & Roca, LLP
          40 N. Central Ave., Phoenix
          AZ 85004-4429
          Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790
          Fax: 602-734-4015 and 602-734-3852
          E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com
                  jcardenas@lrlaw.com


ARKANSAS: Lawsuit Filed Over District’s Millage Rate Increase
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollarway Patrons for Better Schools and several individuals filed a
purported class action in the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Arkansas
challenging the results of the March 13 referendum to increase the district’s
millage rate, The Pine Bluff Commercial reports.

Dollarway Superintendent Thomas Gathen had admitted that incorrect figures
were advertised when pushing for the tax hike that increased the district’s
property tax rate to 42.3 mills.

The plaintiffs argue that the court should nullify the tax increase
completely.  According to them, collecting proceeds based on the results of
the March election would result in an “illegal exaction” because of the “...
deliberate, knowing, erroneous, capricious, grossly negligent and
prejudicial ‘official actions’ taken by members of the Board of Education of
the Dollarway School District, and the administrators of the Dollarway School
District (especially Superintendent Thomas Gathen...”

They asked for a judgment requiring the district to reimburse them for
litigation costs and “...any and all addition relief that the Circuit Court
may find that the plaintiff-class is entitled to receive.”

Named as defendants in the suit were all members of the Dollarway School
Board, the district, Jefferson County Judge Mike Holcomb, members of the
Jefferson County Quorum Court, Tax Assessor Larry Fratesi and Tax Collector
Stephanie Stanton.


BASF CORP: Distribution Plan in $62.5M POAST Suit Deal Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan of Distribution in the $62.5 million nationwide settlement of a suit
filed by farmers who purchased BASF Corp.'s herbicide POAST(R) was approved
at a June 5, 2007 Final Approval Hearing, according to the settlement Web
site http://www.poastclassaction.com/.

Counsel for the Class will now ask the Court to appoint a Special Master (a
retired Judge), to review, approve or deny claims. This process will occur
this summer, probably in August, and claimants will be notified by mail of
the status of their claim when the Special Master issues his report and
recommendations to the District Court. Claimants with claims denied in whole
or part will have the opportunity to contest the Special Master's report and
recommendations.

While claim evaluation is underway this summer, Class Counsel await a
requested private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service addressing
tax issues for successful claimants. Class Counsel anticipates receipt of the
requested private letter ruling this fall, perhaps September.

A distribution to claimants will not occur until after the hearing addressing
the Special Master's report and recommendations, and receipt of the requested
private letter ruling from the IRS.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 in Norman County District Court,
Ada, Minnesota by 11 farmers who accused New Jersey-based BASF
Corp. of fraudulently marketing the same herbicide as different
products -- POAST and POAST Plus -- at different prices.

The lawsuit claimed that this marketing was intended to obtain
inflated prices for the same herbicide from minor crop farmers.
Minor crop farmers are growers of sugarbeets, sunflowers,
potatoes, field beans, fruits and vegetables, and flowers.  

After a trial and numerous appeals, the farmers prevailed.

On Nov. 17, 2006, BASF paid $62.5 million into the Farmers'
Common Fund, an interest-bearing bank account approved by the
court, to hold farmers' money until distribution.

The jury found that the herbicides were essentially the same,
but that BASF charged more for Poast (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 15, 2006).

Farmers who bought Poast herbicide from 1992 to 1996 are
eligible to share in the judgment.  Plaintiffs' attorney Douglas Nill
estimated that several thousand farmers are eligible.  The distribution will
be pro rata.

Deadline to file objections was May 9, 2007.  Deadline to file
claims was May 16, 2007.

The class action on the Net: http://www.poastclassaction.com/.

The suit is "Peterson v. BASF Corp., Case No. C2-97-295," filed
in Norman County District Court, Ada, Minnesota.

Class Counsel is Douglas J. Nill, P.A., 1100 One Financial
Plaza, 120 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1801,
Phone: 1-866-573-3669 (Toll-free), Website:
http://www.FarmLaw.com.


BMW NORTH: Faces Calif. Suit Over Faulty Automatic Transmissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
BMW North America is facing a class-action complaint filed July 20 in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accusing it of
selling and leasing cars with faulty automatic transmissions that won’t go
into reverse, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Kevin Daugherty claims the Zahnradfabrik Friedrichshafen
5HP19 automatic transmission “is defective because the reverse clutch pack
and snap ring ... are unable to withstand the hydraulic pressure exerted
inside the clutch drum, which renders the ZF Transmissions inoperable in
reverse gear.”

He claims BMW knew of the defect but shipped the cars anyway, and failed to
notify customers despite receiving “hundreds of complaints” about it.

Plaintiff brings this action both individually and as a class action on
behalf of all those who purchased or leased a new or used BMW vehicle
equipped with a ZF Transmission in the State of California, at any time, and
whose clutch drum did not engage, thereby resulting in an ability to operate
vehicles in reverse gear.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on whether:

     (a) whether the vehicles are defectively designed;

     (b) whether BMW knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that
         vehicles were defectively designed at the times that
         BMW sold the vehicles to class members;

     (c) whether BMW knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that
         the vehicles were defectively designed at the times
         that BMW made affirmative representations in its
         marketing brochures concerning the ZF transmissions in
         the vehicles;

     (d) whether BMW's conduct in connection with the sale of
         the vehicles violated Section 1770 of the Consumer
         Legal Remedies Act;

     (e) whether BMW was unjustly enriched by the retention of
         non-gratuitous benefits conferred by plaintiff and
         members of the class; and

     (f) whether as a result of BMW's misconduct, plaintiff and
         class members are entitled to damages, restitution,
         equitable relief, injunctive relief, or other relief,
         and the amount and nature of such relief.

Plaintiff prays that the court enter judgment and orders in his favor and
against BMW as follows:

     -- an order certifying the class and directing that this
        case proceed as a class action;

     -- judgment in favor of plaintiff and the members of the
        class in an amount of actual damages to be determined at
        trial;

     -- an order enjoining BMW further wrongful conduct in the
        State of California;

     -- an order granting reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
        as well as pre- and post judgment interest; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court may deem
        appropriate.

The suit is "Kevin Daugherty et al. v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. CV
07 4719JFU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          William L. Larson, Esq.
          Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, California 90211
          Phone: (310) 854-4444
          Fax: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com or larson@kbla.com

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Richard Doherty, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
          James Smith, Esq.
          Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law
          28 West, 44th Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 404-2200
          Fax: (212) 404-2226

          - and -

          Arthur N. Abbey, Esq.
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 889-3700
          Fax: (212) 684-5191


CASTLEBERRY’S FOOD: Expands Contaminated Chili Products Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Castleberry’s Food Co. is taking extra steps to ensure public safety by
voluntarily expanding its recall originally announced on July 18 due to the
risk of botulinum toxin, a bacterium which can cause botulism.

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.

The recall originally announced on July 18 affected only 10 products
with ‘best by’ dates from APR30 2009 through MAY22 2009. The extended recall
now includes the following canned products in the following sizes with
all ‘best by’ and code dates:

     -- Austex Onion Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC
        3030097101)
     -- Austex Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC 3030099533)
     -- Austex Beef Stew, 15 oz can (UPC 3030090815)
     -- Austex Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 3030091015)
     -- Austex Chili With Beans, 19 oz can (UPC 3030092519)
     -- Austex Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 3030097715)
     -- Austex Chili No Beans, 19 oz can (UPC 3030097719)
     -- Best Yet Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC 4217841082)
     -- Best Yet Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 4218740842)
     -- Big Y Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 1889480424)
     -- Big Y Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC 1889480225)
     -- Big Y Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 1889480425)
     -- Black Rock Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 3030001715)
     -- Bloom Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC 2543992448)
     -- Bryan Hot Dog Chili Sauce With Beef, 10 oz can (UPC
        5340030010)
     -- Bryan Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC 5340030110)
     -- Bryan Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 5340030200)
     -- Bryan Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 5340030205)
     -- Bryan Chili No Beans, 10 oz can (UPC 5340035264)
     -- Bunker Hill Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC
        7526604152)
     -- Bunker Hill Chili No Beans, 10 oz can (UPC 7526604112)
     -- Bunker Hill Spicier Chili No Beans, 10 oz can (UPC
        7526604224)
     -- Castleberry’s Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC
        3030000101)
     -- Castleberry’s Onion Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC
        3030007101)
     -- Castleberry’s Brunswick Stew Chicken & Beef, 15 oz can
        (UPC 3030000315)
     -- Castleberry’s Barbecue Pork, 10 oz can (UPC 3030000402)
     -- Castleberry’s Barbecue Pork, 14.5 oz can (UPC
        3030000415)
     -- Castleberry’s Barbecue Beef, 10 oz can (UPC 3030000602)
     -- Castleberry’s Beef Stew, 15 oz can (UPC 3030000815)
     -- Castleberry’s Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC  
        3030000915)
     -- Castleberry’s Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        3030001015)
     -- Castleberry’s Sausage Gravy, 10 oz can (UPC 3030005130)
     -- Castleberry’s Creamed Chip Beef Gravy, 10 oz can (UPC
        3030005150)
     -- Castleberry’s Hot Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        3030007217)
     -- Castleberry’s Chili No Beans, 10 oz can (UPC 3030007701)
     -- Castleberry’s Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 3030007715)
     -- Castleberry’s Georgia Hash, 15 oz can (UPC 3030000215)
     -- Cattle Drive Beef Stew, 15 oz can (UPC 3030001530)
     -- Cattle Drive Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 3030001520)
     -- Cattle Drive Chicken Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        3030001525)
     -- Cattle Drive Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC         
        3030001515)
     -- Firefighters Chicken Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        7372500413)
     -- Firefighters Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 737250041)
     -- Firefighters Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 7372500412)
     -- Food Club Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC 3680080204)
     -- Food Club Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 3680080404)
     -- Food Club Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 3680080504)
     -- Food Lion Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC
        3582606911)
     -- Goldstar Original Chili, 10oz can (UPC 2457500001)
     -- Goldstar Chili, 15oz can (UPC 2457500005)
     -- Goldstar Tex-Mex Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        2457500008)
     -- Great Value Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 8113179994)
     -- Great Value Hot Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        8113179995)
     -- Kroger Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC 1111083942)
     -- Kroger Beef Stew, 15oz can (UPC 1111083928)
     -- Kroger Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 1111083930)
     -- Kroger Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 1111083908)
     -- Lowes Foods Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 4164301092)
     -- Lowes Foods Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC 4164301094)
     -- Lowes Foods Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 4164301097)
     -- Meijer Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC 4125085862)
     -- Meijer Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 4125095220)
     -- Meijer Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 4125095221)
     -- Meijer Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC 4125095229)
     -- Morton House Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        7526665829)
     -- Morton House Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC
        7526665830)
     -- Morton House Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        7526665993)
     -- Paramount Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC
        7526600510)
     -- Paramount Chili for Hot Dogs, 15 oz can (UPC 7526600526)
     -- Paramount Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 7526600731)
     -- Paramount Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 7526600732)
     -- Piggly Wiggly Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        4129037252)
     -- Piggly Wiggly Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 4129037354)
     -- Piggly Wiggly Chili No Beans, 10 oz can (UPC 4129037355)
     -- Piggly Wiggly Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC
        4129037357)
     -- Prudence Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC 4114100015)
     -- Southern Home Chili No Beans, 10 oz can (UPC 3825948713)
     -- Southern Home Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 0788015340)
     -- Southern Home Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        0788015341)
     -- Southern Home Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC
        0788015359)
     -- Steak n Shake Chili With Beans, 10 oz can (UPC
        5184400120)
     -- Thrifty Maid Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC
        2114021367)
     -- Thrifty Maid Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (2114021370)
     -- Thrifty Maid Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (2114021375)
     -- Triple Bar Ranch Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        3030005801)
     -- Triple Bar Ranch Chili With Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        3030005804)
     -- Triple Bar Ranch Chili No Beans, 15 oz can (UPC
        3030005805)
     -- Value Time Beef and Chicken Chili With Beans, 15 oz can
        (UPC 1122542159)

In addition, the following canned Natural Balance brand pet food products,
which Castleberry’s co-packs for Natural Balance, are being recalled. These
include:

     -- Natural Balance Eatables for Dogs Irish Stew With Beef,
        Potatoes & Carrots, 15 oz can (UPC 2363359860)
     -- Natural Balance Eatables for Dogs Chinese Take Out With
        Sauce With Vegetables and Chicken, 15 oz can (UPC
        2363359861)
     -- Natural Balance Eatables for Dogs HOBO Chili With
        Chicken & Pasta, 15 oz can (UPC 2363359863)
     -- Natural Balance Eatables for Dogs Southern Style
        Dumplings With Chicken & Vegetables, 15 oz can (UPC
        2363359862)

Consumers are advised not use these products even if they do not look or
smell spoiled. Consumers with these products should dispose of them by double
bagging in plastic bags that are tightly closed before being placed in a
trash receptacle for non-recyclable trash outside of the home, according to
the Food and Drug Administration.

Additional instructions for safe disposal can be found at
http://www.cdc.gov/botulism/botulism_faq.htm.

“There is nothing more important to us than the health of those who use our
products every day,” said Steve Mavity, SVP Technical Services/Quality
Assurance for Castleberry’s. “We are taking every step necessary, and are
working hand in hand with health officials around the clock to ensure the
safety of consumers.”

Mr. Mavity said, “We believe we have isolated the issue to a situation of
under-processing on one line of our production facility. As an extra
precaution to the recall we announced on Wednesday, we have shut down this
line altogether and are recalling all products produced on it.”

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
(CDC) to investigate possible contamination of these products.

Castleberry’s was notified by the FDA of two confirmed botulism cases and two
potential botulism cases involving individuals who ate Hot Dog Chili Sauce
products. No new cases have been reported since the recall was announced on
July 18.

There have been no reported illnesses linked to Natural Balance canned pet
food, but Castleberry’s recommends that all these products should be
discarded. While botulism can affect some pets, dogs and cats are inherently
resistant. The disease has only been seen occasionally in dogs and has not
been reported in cats. Ferrets are highly susceptible to botulinum toxin. The
incubation period can be two hours to two weeks; in most cases, the symptoms
appear after 12 to 24 hours.

Botulism is characterized by progressive motor paralysis. Typical clinical
signs may include muscle paralysis, difficulty breathing, chewing and
swallowing, visual disturbances and generalized weakness may also occur.
Death usually results from paralysis of the respiratory or cardiac muscles.
Pet owners who have used these products and whose pets have these symptoms
should contact their veterinarian immediately.

Consumers with any questions should visit Castleberry’s Web site:
http://www.castleberrys.com.

A toll-free hotline is also available for consumer questions at 1-800-203-
4412 or 1-888-203-8446.


CENTEX CORP: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Profit Sharing Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centex Corp. settled a purported class action that was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the administrative
committee of the company's profit sharing plan, the company and certain of
the company's current and former directors and executive officers.

According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange  
Commission, the suit alleges:

     -- breach of fiduciary duty,
  
     -- violation of disclosure obligations to plan   
        participants,  

     -- failure to monitor the performance of plan fiduciaries,

     -- breach of duty of loyalty, and  

     -- violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act  
        of 1974 in connection with investments by the profit  
        sharing plan in shares of the company's common stock.  

This action was brought by certain former employees of the company and seeks
unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees and equitable and injunctive
relief.  

In May 2007, the case was settled and dismissed, without any material amount
being paid by the company, according to the company’s May 22, 2007 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Nemec et al. v. Hannigan et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01451," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Sam
A. Lindsay.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Roger F. Claxton, Esq.
         Robert J. Hill, Esq.
         Claxton & Hill
         3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103
         Dallas, TX 75204-2471
         Phone: 214/969-9029
         Fax: 214/953-0583
         E-mail: claxtonhill@airmail.net


COVENTRY HEALTH: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc. is facing a class action in Tampa Federal Court,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plainfiff Jamie Lannette Allen alleges non-payment of overtime work in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Allen v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., Case No. 8:07-cv-01234-EAK-
TBM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
under Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich with referral to Thomas B. McCoun.

Representing the plaintiff is:

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


DILLARDS INC: Appeals Court Revives Racial Profiling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that plaintiffs in a class
action against Dillard’s Inc. had a valid claim of racial discrimination
against the national retail chain, Dustin Arand of The Columbian Missourian
reports.

In 2003, 17 black former customers and employees of Dillard’s sued the
retailer in U.S. District Court, alleging that Dillard’s had engaged in
systematic racial discrimination against black customers.

They claimed service staff and security guards followed and watched them
closely while they were in the store, yet ignored them when they sought
assistance in making purchases.

According to Mr. Arand, several of Dillard’s former employees acknowledged
an “unwritten” policy of discrimination against black customers going back
over a decade, which included heightened surveillance and a double standard
for refunds on returned items.

The U.S. District Court in Kansas City dismissed the suit in 2005, saying
that the plaintiffs’ allegations did not constitute racial discrimination
under Federal Civil Rights legislation.

In its recent decision, the 8th Circuit overturned the 2005 ruling, and
ordered the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to hear
the case.

Neither the plaintiffs’ lawyers nor Dillard’s lawyers could be reached for
comment, Mr. Arand said.

Dillard's, a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, has
faced several discrimination lawsuits since 1988.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: High Court Refuses to Reopen Cam Bearing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to reopen a consumer class action filed
against Harley-Davidson, Inc. over its 1999 and early-2000 model year Harley-
Davidson motorcycles equipped with Twin Cam 88 and Twin Cam 88B engines, The
Associated Press reports.  

In January 2001, the company, on its own initiative, notified each owner of
1999 and early-2000 model year Harley-Davidson motorcycles equipped with Twin
Cam 88 and Twin Cam 88B engines that the company was extending the warranty
for a rear cam bearing to 5 years or 50,000 miles.  

Subsequently, on June 28, 2001, a putative nationwide class action was filed
against the company in state court in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, which was
amended by a complaint filed Sept. 28, 2001.  The complaint alleged that this
cam bearing is defective and asserted various legal theories.  

The complaint sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for
affected owners, an order compelling the company to repair the engines and
other relief.  On Feb. 27, 2002, the company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint was granted by the court and the amended complaint was dismissed in
its entirety.  An appeal was filed with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.  

On April 12, 2002, the same attorneys filed a second putative nationwide
class action against the company in state court in Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin relating to this cam bearing issue and asserting different legal
theories than in the first action.  The complaint sought unspecified
compensatory damages, an order compelling the company to repair the engines
and other relief.

On Sept. 23, 2002, the company's motion to dismiss was granted by the court,
the complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and no appeal was taken.  

On Jan. 14, 2003, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
Feb. 27, 2002 dismissal of the complaint in the first action, and the company
petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review.  

On March 26, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals
and dismissed the remaining claims in the action.  On April 12, 2004, the
same attorneys filed a third action in the state court in Milwaukee County,
on behalf of the same plaintiffs from the action dismissed by the Wisconsin
Supreme Court.  This third action was dismissed by the court on July 26,
2004.  

In addition, the plaintiffs in the original case moved to reopen that matter
and amend the complaint to add new causes of action.  
On Sept. 9, 2004, Milwaukee County Circuit Court refused to allow the
reopening or amendment.  Plaintiffs again appealed to the Wisconsin Court of
Appeals, and on Dec. 13, 2005, the Court of Appeals again reversed the trial
court.  

On Jan. 12, 2006, the company filed a petition for review with the Wisconsin
Supreme Court.  Oral arguments were heard on Sept. 7, 2006.  In July 2007,
the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals decision that allowed
amendments to the suit to include warranty and contract claims.  It said the
circuit court has no authority to reopen the case without an order.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Securities Suit Dismissal Motion Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a
motion by Herley Industries Inc. and Herley's former Chairman, Lee N. Blatt
to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit filed against them.

In 2006, Herley was faced with several securities class action commenced in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Herley Industries, Inc. between Oct. 1,
2001 and June 14, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2006).

The complaint alleges that Herley and its top officers defrauded persons
investing in Herley securities, violating the federal securities laws.  

On June 6, 2006, Herley revealed that the company and its Chairman, Lee N.
Blatt, had been indicted on multiple charges, in connection with excessive
profits improperly "earned" by Herley on contracts with the U.S. Department
of Defense.

On June 13, 2006, the company announced that its operations in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, Woburn, Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois, and a subsidiary in
Farmingdale, New York had been suspended from receiving new contract awards
from the U.S. Government.  Government contracts had historically accounted
for approximately 25% of Herley's business.

The Court also denied motions by certain officers to dismiss claims under one
section of the securities laws, while dismissing claims under another.

The suit is “In re Herley Industries Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:06-cv-02596-JS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, under Judge Juan R. Sanchez.

Representing defendants are:

          Joel L. Frank
          Thomas P. Hogan, Jr.
          Lamb McErlane PC
          24 East Market Street
          P.O. Box 565
          West Chester, PA 19381-0565
          Phone: 610-430-8000
          Fax: 610-692-6210
          E-mail: jfrank@chescolaw.com or thogan@chescolaw.com

          - and -

          Timothy D. Katsiff
          Blank Rome LLP
          One Logan Square
          18th & Cherry Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
          Phone: 215-569-5500
          Fax: 215-569-5555
          E-mail: katsiff@blankrome.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Stanley P. Kops
          102 Bala Avenue
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 610-949-9999
          E-mail: Stankops@aol.com

          - and -

          Marc A. Topaz
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056


HONEYWELL RETIREMENT: Still Faces Ariz. Pensioners' Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. continues to face a certified class action filed
by members of its retirement earnings plan.

Plaintiffs in the suit seek unspecified damages relating to allegations that,
among other things, Honeywell impermissibly reduced the pension benefits of
employees of Garrett Corp., a predecessor entity, when the plan was amended
in 1983 and failed to calculate certain benefits in accordance with the terms
of the plan.

In the third quarter of 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on these claims and in favor of the
Honeywell on virtually all other claims.

The company said it strongly disagrees with, and intends to appeal, the
court's adverse ruling.  In September 2006, the court certified a class.

No material development was reported in the matter in Honeywell
International, Inc.’s July 19, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings
Plan, Case No. 2:04-cv-00424-ROS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Roslyn O. Silver.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Daniel Lee Bonnett, Esq.
         Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Esq.
         Martin & Bonnett, PLLC
         3300 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1720
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Phone: 602-240-6900
         Fax: 602-240-2345
         E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
                 jkroll@martinbonnett.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael L. Banks, Esq.
         Amy Covert, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         1701 Market St.
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2721
         Phone: 215-963-5387 and 215-963-4749
         Fax: 215-963-5001
         E-mail: mbanks@morganlewis.com
                 acovert@morganlewis.com

              - and –

         Dawn L. Dauphine, Esq.
         Osborn Maledon, PA
         P.O. Box 36379
         Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379
         Phone: 602-640-9000
         Fax: 602-640-6075
         E-mail: ddauphine@omlaw.com


LOG DEN: Wis. Restaurant Patrons Sue for Food-Related Ailments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nine people have filed a class action in Door County, Wisconsin Circuit Court
seeking compensation for ailments caused by eating and drinking at the Log
Den Restaurant in Egg Harbor, reports say.

At least 225 people became ill after consuming food or drink prepared and
sold at the Log Den during the period beginning May 1, the lawsuit stated.

Serving food and beverages that caused ailments were a breach of "the implied
warranty" of the business that those items were "reasonably fit for human
consumption," the lawsuit stated.

"Restaurants are not supposed to serve food and drink that cause people
injury," said Brett Reetz, one of three lawyers who brought the suit.

Water tests confirmed the presence of norovirus in a well just outside the
restaurant, according to WBAY Green Bay.  It causes vomiting, diarrhea, and
fatigue.

The suit seeks to recover damages from the Log Den, the trust company that
owns the land where the restaurant operates at 6543 Division Road, Egg
Harbor, and the unnamed insurance companies that provide coverage to the
business.  It seeks lost wages, medical expenses, along with lawyer and court
fees.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Brett E. Reetz
          4158 Main St
          Fish Creek, WI 54212
          Phone: (920) 868-2867
          Fax: (920) 868-3196

          - and -

          Shane Laughton Brabazon
          Brabazon Law Offices, LLC  
          P.O. Box 11213
          221 Packerland Drive
          Green Bay, WI 54307-1213
          Phone: (920) 494-1106 or (800) 596-0691 (Toll Free)
          Fax: (920) 494-0501
          Web site: http://www.brabazonlawoffice.com


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Foster Farms Sues Over Bid-Rigging Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Cos. is facing a class-action antitrust claim filed July 20
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged bid-
rigging scheme in insurance services from 1998 to 2005.

Named plaintiff Foster Poultry Farms brings this action for treble damages
and attorney’s fees under the Sherman Act and for forfeiture of compensation,
restitution, damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, treble damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees under state law.

The complaint alleges that during the period from 1998 to 2005, Marsh
received substantial compensation for serving as Foster Farms’ insurance
broker. From 1998 to 2005 Foster Farms paid substantial amounts in insurance
premiums for insurance policies to the AIG Defendants as well as other
insurers. Marsh promised Foster Farms during this period that it would act in
the best interests of Foster Farms to obtain cost-effective insurance, but
failed to do so.

Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the Defendants’ alleged massive scheme to
manipulate the market for commercial insurance. The Defendants participated
in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the
sale of insurance by coordinating and rigging bids for insurance policies,
allocating insurance markets and customers, including Foster Farms, and
raising, maintaining, or stabilizing premium prices above competitive levels.

Defendants allegedly breached the duties owed to Foster Farms by failing to
fully and accurately disclose, among other things:

     (a) the existence, source and amount of their Contingent
         Commissions;

     (b) the material impact of the Contingent Commissions on  
         their overall profitability;

     (c) that the Contingent Commissions created economic
         incentives for the Defendants to act contrary to their
         fiduciary duties to Foster Farms;

     (d) that the Contingent Commissions created economic
         incentives for the Defendants to act contrary to their
         duty of care to Foster Farms;

     (e) that the Contingent Commissions created economic
         incentives for the Defendants to act contrary to their
         duty of loyalty to Foster Farms;

     (f) that the Contingent Commissions created economic
         incentives for the Defendants to act contrary to their
         duty to provide impartial advice to Foster Farms;

     (g) that the Contingent Commissions created economic
         incentives for the Defendants to act contrary to their
         duty to exercise their best judgment on behalf of
         Foster Farms;

     (h) that the Contingent Commissions created economic
         incentives for the Defendants to act contrary to their
         duty of candor and full disclosure to Foster Farms; and

     (i) that the Contingent Commissions created economic
         disincentives for the Defendants to carry out their
         contractual obligations to Foster Farms.

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter judgment on its behalf on all claims and to
grant the following relief:

     -- Treble damages and attorneys’ fees as remedies for the
        Defendants’ violations of the Sherman Act and injunctive
        relief permanently enjoining the Defendants from
        violating section 1 of the Sherman Act through the
        conduct set forth herein;

     -- Forfeiture of compensation retained by Marsh;
        restitution of payments received from Foster Farms;
        damages caused by the Defendants’ conduct; punitive
        damages owing to the malicious, willful, and wanton
        nature of the Defendants’ conduct;

     -- Prejudgment interest; treble damages; injunctive relief;
        and attorneys’ fees as remedies for the Defendants’
        violations of state law; and

     -- Such other and further relief that the Court deems just
        and proper.

The suit is “Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03315-KSH-PS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, under Judge Katharine S. Hayden, with referral to
Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          James G. McCarney
          Howrey, LLP
          153 East, 53rd Street, 54th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 896-6500
          E-mail: mccarneyj@howrey.com


M/I HOMES: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------
M/I Homes of Tampa, LLC is facing a class action filed on July 13 in Tampa
Federal Court, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiff Yvette Milagros Cowdry alleges violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The suit is “Cowdry v. M/I Homes of Tampa, LLC et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-01236-
EAK-TGW,’ filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
under Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich with referral to Thomas G. Wilson.

Representing the plaintiff is:

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


NASH FINCH: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has denied a motion
seeking the dismissal of a consolidated complaint in the securities fraud
class action against Nash Finch Co.

On Dec. 19, 2005, and Jan. 4, 2006, two purported class actions were filed
against the company and certain of the company's executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of
the company's common stock during the period:

     * from Feb. 24, 2005, the date the company announced an
       agreement to acquire two distribution divisions from
       Roundy's

     * through Oct. 20, 2005, the date the company announced a
       downward revision to its earnings outlook for fiscal
       2005.

One of the complaints was voluntarily dismissed on March 3, 2006 and a
consolidated complaint was filed on June 30, 2006.  The consolidated
complaint alleges that the defendants violated the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by issuing false statements regarding, among other things, the
integration of the distribution divisions acquired from Roundy's, the
performance of the company's core businesses, its internal controls, and its
financial projections, so as to artificially inflate the price of the
company's common stock.  

The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint,
which the Court denied on May 1, 2007, according to the company’s July 19,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 16, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Nash Finch Co. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 0:02-cv-04736-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin
L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
         332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Phone: 651-287-2100
         E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

         Connie M. Cheung, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudma & Robbins LLP
         100 Pine St., Ste. 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 288-4545
         Fax: (415) 288-4534
         E-mail: conniec@lcsr.com
  
              - and -

         Vernon J. Vander Weide, Esq.
         Head Seifert & Vander Weide
         333 S. 7th St., Ste. 1140
         Mpls, MN 55402-2421
         Phone: 612-339-1601
         Fax: 612-339-3372
         E-mail: vvanderweide@hsvwlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Bleck, Esq.
         Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, LLP
         45 S. 7th St., Ste 3300
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-607-7000
         Fax: 612-607-7100
         E-mail: mbleck@oppenheimer.com


NATIONAL FORWARDING: Accused of Defrauding Freight Haulers
----------------------------------------------------------
National Forwarding Co., the Pentagon’s authorized agent for national and
international moving services, is facing a class-action complaint filed July
20 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging
it cheated freight haulers, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Spaulding Moving and Storage claims National, which arranges
moving services for federal employees, refuses to pay obligatory additional
transportation charges for shipments to designated countries.

It further claims that rather than paying the extra money, per mile per
weight, National keeps it, breaching contract and illegally enriching itself.

Plaintiff brings this nationwide class action on behalf of all persons in the
U.S. who contracted with National Forwarding in connection with moving
services rendered for employees of the U.S. Department of Defense and who
were not properly compensated pursuant to the applicable Hauling Contract by
National Forwarding for unpaid "Additional Transportation Charges" during the
period from 1997 until the present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

    (a) whether defendant breached its contracts with plaintiff
        and the class;

    (b) whether defendant has unlawfully retained "Additional
        Transportation Charges" entitled to plaintiff and the
        class;

    (c) whether the Hauling Contract's terms are uniform among
        plaintiff and all class members; and

    (d) whether class members have sustained damages and, if so,
        what is the proper measure of damages.

Plaintiff asks that the court enter an order:

     -- certifying this matter as a class action, appointing
        plaintiff as class representative and designating
        plaintiff's counsel as class counsel;

     -- finding that defendant has breached its contracts with
        plaintiff and the class and awarding plaintiff and the
        class damages in connection therewith;

     -- awarding plaintiff's and the class counsel's fees and
        costs in connection with maintaining this action;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class pre-judgment interest
        to the extent allowed by law;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class any penalties as
        allowed by law; and

     -- providing any other relief the court deems just and
        equitable.

The suit is “Spaulding Moving and Storage, Inc. v. National Forwarding Co.,
Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-04095,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, under Judge William T. Hart.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Anthony F. Fata
          Dominic J. Rizzi
          Christopher B. Sanchez
          Cafferty Faucher LLP
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          E-mail: afata@caffertyfaucher.com or
                  drizzi@caffertyfaucher.com or
                  csanchez@caffertyfaucher.com


OREGON: Court Approves $14M Settlement with Laid-off Custodians
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge John Jelderks approved a $14.5 million settlement of a
class action filed against the Portland Public Schools board by custodians
laid off in 2002, the Portland Business Journal reports.

The suit was filed after the district hired Portland Habilitation Center
workers to replace its union custodians to save money.  In 2005, the Oregon
Supreme Court ruled that the district violated state labor law in doing so.

In 2006, the Portland Public Schools board, which is involved in a mediation
to resolve the class action, agreed to settle the suit for $14.5 million
(Class Action Reporter, April 26, 2007).

The settlement, which would benefit 280 custodians, was reached in a
mediation led by Edward Leavy, a senior judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals.  Under the agreement, each custodian will receive approximately
$37,000 (before taxes) in back pay and other damages.  

Some $500,000 of the settlement will be paid as federal employment taxes and
$200,000 will be paid to outside attorneys.

The settlement resolves all damage claims by the custodians in Oregon federal
and state courts. Each custodian will receive a cash payment of more than
$37,000 after payment of all court costs and attorney fees.

In addition, custodians who had "extraordinary" health care costs that would
have been paid for by the school district's insurance carriers, but did not
because of the termination, will receive reimbursement for those costs. There
are also provisions for payment of lost PERS contributions.

"We are very pleased that the settlement received such wide acceptance,"
noted the plaintiffs' attorney, Mark Griffin of Griffin & McCandlish of
Portland.

Representing Portland Public Schools are:

          Jeffrey Austin
          Miller Nash LLP  
          3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower
          Portland, OR 97204-3699
          Phone: (503) 224-5858
          Fax: (503) 224-0155

          - and -

          Doug Hamilton
          Patrick O'Malley
          Resolution Counsel, LLP
          1500 SW Taylor Street
          Portland, OR 97205
          Phone: 503.226.2800 or 503.226.1114
          Fax: 503.226.2801
          E-mail: hamilton@resolutioncounsel.com or
                  omalley@resolutioncounsel.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Mark Griffin
          Griffin & McCandlish - Attorneys at Law
          Waldo Bldg, Suite 202
          215 SW Washington
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: 503-224-2348
          Fax: 503-224-3634

          - and -

          Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter, P.C.  
          209 S.W. Oak Street, 5th Floor
          Portland, Oregon 97204
          Phone: 503-227-1600
          Telecopier: 503-227-6840
          Website: http://www.ssbls.com


PEGASUS WIRELESS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pegasus Wireless Corp. faces a purported securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the
company’s May 21, 2007 Form 10QSB Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2007.

Michael Mitchell, who claims to be a shareholder of Pegasus filed the class-
action complaint claiming that Pegasus, as well as several individual members
of the Pegasus Board of Directors have violated Federal Securities Laws by
publishing a series of false and misleading statements.

The suit is “Mitchell v. Pegasus Wireless Corp. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
06969-MHP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing the plaintiff are:

         Aaron H. Darsky, Esq.
         Schubert & Reed LLP
         Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-788-4220
         Fax: 415-788-0161
         E-mail: adarsky@schubert-reed.com

              - and –

         Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq.
         Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
         650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Phone: 504-455-1400
         Fax: (504) 455-1498
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Perry J. Woodward, Esq.
         Terra Law LLP
         177 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor
         San Jose, CA 95113
         Phone: 408-299-1200
         E-mail: pwoodward@terra-law.com


PEMCO AVIATION: Ala. Court Approves Settlement of Labor Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has approved a
settlement in a purported class action against Pemco Aviation Group, Inc. and
its subsidiary, Pemco Aeroplex.

In December 1999, the company and Pemco Aeroplex were served with the suit,
alleging unlawful employment practices of race discrimination and racial
harassment by the company's managers, supervisors and other employees.

The suit is seeking declaratory, injunctive relief and other compensatory and
punitive damages.  It sought damages in the amount of $75.0 million.

On July 27, 2000, the U.S. District Court determined that the group would not
be certified as a class since the plaintiffs withdrew their request for class
certification.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission subsequently entered the case
purporting a parallel class action.  The court denied consolidation of the
cases for trial purposes, but provided for consolidated discovery.

On June 28, 2002, a jury determined that there was no hostile work
environment in the original case and granted verdicts for the company with
regard to all 22 plaintiffs.  Nine plaintiffs elected to settle with the
company prior to the trial.

On Dec. 13, 2002, the court granted the company summary judgment in the EEOC
case.  That judgment was appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by the
EEOC.  The panel reinstated the case to federal district court.

On Oct. 27, 2004, the Company petitioned the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to
rehear the case.  The petition was denied on Dec. 23, 2004.

The Company filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court on March 23, 2005, which was denied on Oct. 3, 2005.  

The case was remanded to federal district court in Birmingham, Alabama for
trial, and trial was scheduled for May 14, 2007.  

In continuing mediation efforts, the Company has reached an agreement to
settle the case with the EEOC for $0.4 million.  The court approved the
settlement and a Consent Decree was entered on April 16, 2007.

The suit is "Thomas, et al. v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:99-cv-03280-WMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama under Judge William M.
Acker, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Adedapo T. Agboola, Esq.
         Bender & Agboola, LLC
         711 18th Street
         North Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-322-2500
         Fax: 205-324-2120

         Cheryl A. Kidd, Esq.
         Simon & Associates
         1150 Financial Center, 505 North 20th Street
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-324-2727
         Fax: 205-324-2605

              - and -

         Tyrone Quarles, Esq.
         UAB Office Of Counsel
         820 Administration Building, 1530 3rd Avenue
         South Birmingham, AL 35294-0108
         Phone: 205-934-3474
         Fax: 205-975-6079
         E-mail: chill@uab.edu


SARASOTA-MANATEE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarasota-Manatee Jewish Housing Council, Inc. is facing a class action filed
on July 13 in Tampa Federal Court, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plainfiff Kenneth Negron alleges unpaid work in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The suit is “Negron v. Sarasota-Manatee Jewish Housing Council, Inc., Case
No. 8:07-cv-01229-SCB-TGW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge Susan C. Bucklew with referral to Thomas G.
Wilson.

Representing the plaintiff is:

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


SOUTH CAROLINA: Lieber Inmate’s Lawsuit Denied Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge denied a bid by a Lieber Correctional Institution inmate to
file a class action against the prison for overcrowding because she is acting
as her own lawyer.

Forty-five-year-old inmate Thurman Lilly sued the institution on behalf of
more than 550 inmates of the maximum security prison, Meg Kinnard of The
Associated Press reports.

The suit alleges overcrowding at the jail violates prisoners’ constitutional
rights.  Ms. Lilly composed the lawsuit in which 568 other inmates have
signed.  She filed the suit on her behalf and on behalf of her fellow inmates
in June in U.S. District Court in Charleston.  It names a dozen prison
officials as defendants, including Corrections Director Jon Ozmint and Lieber
warden Stan Burtt.

Allegations of overcrowding at the jail include claims that "Prisoners ...
are housed two and three to a cell, in cells designed for one prisoner.  It
also includes claims that supervision of mentally disturbed prisoners is
inadequate and that medical treatments are well below state standards.

The overcrowding could result to the spread of diseases and fights between
inmates, she said.


SOUTHERN CO: Aug. 14 Fairness Hearing Set in Ga. ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
An August 14, 2007 fairness fearing is scheduled for the ERISA class
action, “Spivey v. Southern Co. et al.,” pending in the U.S/ District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division on behalf of Plaintiffs
and a class of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Southern Company Employee Savings Plan from April 2, 2001 to July 26, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the Class members by:

     -- failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan’s
        assets;

     -- failing to provide participants with complete and
        accurate information regarding Mirant stock sufficient
        to advise participants of the true risks of investing
        their retirement savings; and

     -- failing to properly monitor the performance of their
        fiduciary appointees, and remove and replace those whose
        performance was inadequate.

Not all claims were brought against every Defendant.

On October 4, 2005, the District Court issued an order in this matter in
which it denied Southern Company’s motion to dismiss the three claims alleged
in the Southern ERISA Complaint. The Court also allowed the Plaintiff to
proceed with the lawsuit against all of the Defendants named in the Southern
ERISA Complaint.

By order entered June 12, 2007, Judge Richard W. Story of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia preliminarily certified
Plaintiff’s claims as a Class Action, preliminarily approved the Settlement
Agreement, and appointed Mark T. Spivey as Class Representative of the
Settlement Class.

Judge Story certified the following Settlement Class:

All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Southern Company
Employee Savings Plan at any time between April 2, 2001 and July 26, 2006 and
whose Plan accounts held Mirant Stock in the Plan’s Mirant Stock Fund,
excluding the Southern Defendants and the Immediate Family, beneficiaries,
alternate payees, Representatives, or Successors-in-Interest in connection
with their accounts in the Plan.

A Fairness Hearing is scheduled for August 14, 2007.

Defendants in the case are:

     -- Southern Co.,                          
     -- Southern Company Services, Inc.,
     -- Employee Savings Plan Committee,  
     -- Pension Fund Investment Review Committee,
     -- Michael D. Garrett,      -- Charles D. McCrary,
     -- David M. Ratcliffe,      -- Elmer B. Harris,
     -- H. Allen Franklin,       -- Robert A. Bell,
     -- W. Dean Hudson,          -- Ellen N. Lindermann,
     -- Christopher C. Womack,   -- Craig R. Elder,
     -- Thomas A. Fanning,       -- Robert M. Gilbert,
     -- Carson B. Harreld,       -- William B. Hutchins, III,
     -- Kathleen S. King,        -- Ronnie R. Labrato,
     -- Michael W. Southern,     -- Kirby R. Willis,
     -- Gale E. Klappa,          -- Allen L. Leverett


STAPLES INC: November 2007 Trial Set for Calif. Labor Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A November 2007 trial is scheduled for aconsolidated labor class action
pending in a California state court against Staples, Inc.

Various class actions were brought against the company for alleged violations
of what is known as California's wage and hour law.  

The first of these lawsuits was filed on Oct. 21, 1999.  These cases were
subsequently consolidated as the "Staples Overtime Cases," Superior Court for
the State of California, County of Orange, Civil Complex Center, (Judicial
Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4235, Lead Case No. 816121).

The plaintiffs have alleged that the company improperly classified both
general and assistant store managers as exempt under the California wage and
hour law, making such managers ineligible for overtime wages.  

The plaintiffs are seeking to require the company to pay overtime wages to
the putative class for the period from Oct. 21, 1995 to the present.  

The court has granted class certification to the case.  Its ruling though is
procedural only and does not address the merits of the plaintiffs'
allegations.

The trial date for the case has been scheduled for November 2007.

The company provided no material development in the matter in its May 22,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended May 5, 2007.

Staples, Inc. -- http://www.staples.com/-- is an office products company.   
The Company sells a variety of office supplies and services, business
machines and related products, computers and related products, and office
furniture.  Its product offering includes Staples, Quill and other branded
products.  Staples operates in three business segments.

The North American Retail segment consists of the U.S. and Canadian business
units that operate office products stores.  The North American Delivery
segment consists of the U.S. and Canadian business units that sell and
deliver office products and services directly to customers.  The
International Operations segment consists of operating units that operate
office products stores, and that sell and deliver office products and
services directly to customers in 19 countries in Europe, South America and
Asia.  In May 2007, the Company acquired American Identity, a distributor of
corporate branded merchandise, from Republic Financial Corp.


ST. JOHN’S: Mo. Couple Allege Overpricing of “Uninsureds”
---------------------------------------------------------
Gregory and Anna Polsgrove of Stockton, Missouri filed a class action against
St. John’s Hospital accusing it of “price gouging,” Dirk VanderHart of the
News-Leader.com reports.

The couple asserts the company charges uninsured patients higher prices than
those who are insured or on Medicare and unfairly making money off of
uninsured patients, who they say are often poor.

According to Mr. VanderHart, the case stems from care Gregory Polsgrove
received at the hospital in 2004 following a heart attack.  The suit says
that, because the man was uninsured, St. John’s forced him to sign a contract
agreeing to pay his eventual medical bills.

The suit alleges that at that time, Mr. Polsgrove didn’t know St. John’s
engaged in discriminatory and deceptive pricing practices that charge
uninsured customers significantly higher rates than other patients.  The
Polsgroves ended up being billed about $46,224.

The Polsgroves seek to represent all uninsured patients who have received
care at St. John’s.


TFT-LCD MANUFACTURERS: Girard Gibbs is Direct Buyers’ Liaison
-------------------------------------------------------------
Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action against numerous manufacturers of Thin-
Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays (TFT-LCDs), alleging that those
manufacturers conspired to fix prices on the screens in violation of federal
antitrust laws.

Similar cases against these manufacturers were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California before the Honorable
Susan Y. Illston.  On July 10, 2007, Judge Illston appointed Girard Gibbs LLP
as liaison counsel for the consolidated actions on behalf of direct purchaser
plaintiffs.

The complaint alleges that the manufacturers agreed to restrict the supply of
TFT-LCDs in the market, causing persons and business who bought TFT-LCDs
directly from the manufacturers to pay artificially inflated and non-
competitive prices in violation of federal law.  Customers who bought TFT-
LCDs directly from the defendants or their subsidiaries from approximately
January 1, 1998, to the present are considered members of the class.

TFT-LCDs are thin, flat panel display devices that are used in televisions,
desktop computer monitors, notebook computer monitors, mobile phones,
personal digital assistants and other electronic devices.

The class action names these defendants, among others:

     -- Samsung,           -- Toshiba
     -- L.G. Philips,      -- Sharp Corp.,
     -- Hitachi,           -- Sanyo,
     -- NEC,               -- AU Optronics

For more information, visit http://www.girardgibbs.com/or contact Aaron  
Sheanin.


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Still Faces Del. Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
VERITAS Software Corp., which was acquired by Symantec Corp., continues to
face a consolidated securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware.

On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint, "Paul Kuck, et al. v.
Veritas Software Corp., et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.

The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with
company's announcement on July 6, 2004 that it expected results of operations
for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 to fall below earlier estimates.  
The complaint generally seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Subsequently, additional purported class action complaints have been filed in
Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the court entered an order
consolidating these actions and appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 27, 2005, expanding the
class period from April 23, 2004 through July 6, 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint also named another officer as a defendant
and added allegations that the company and the named officers made false or
misleading statements in the company's press releases and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings regarding the company's financial results, which
allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were unsigned or
lacked essential terms.

Defendants to this matter filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in July 2005, which was denied by the court in May 2006.

The company provided no material development in the matter in its May 23,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 30, 2007.

The suit is "Kuck v. Veritas Software, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
00831-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
under Judge Sue L. Robinson.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
         Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess
         Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070
         Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
         Phone: (302) 656-4433
         E-mail: CKeener@rmgglaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Erica Niezgoda Finnegan, Esq.
         Cross & Simon, LLC
         913 North Market Street, 11th Floor, Suite 1001
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302) 777-4200 and (302) 777-4224
         E-mail: efinnegan@crosslaw.com

              - and -

         Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
         Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
         1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, P.O. Box 951
         Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
         Phone: (302) 984-6037
         Fax: (302) 658-1192
         E-mail: pwalsh@potteranderson.com


WELLPOINT HEALTH: Ala. Suit Alleges Fraud in AWP Calculation
------------------------------------------------------------
Wellpoint Health Networks is facing a class-action complaint filed July 12 in
the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, Bessemer Division accusing it
of cheating pharmacies, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Pharmacy Xpress claims Wellpoint defrauded pharmacies and
benefit managers for years by knowingly using old price lists to calculate
its reimbursement at the “average wholesale price.”

Plaintiff claims the average wholesale price is updated electronically in
real time and is easily accessible. It claims Wellpoint intentionally and
fraudulently uses old data to defraud its clients and increase it profits.

Plaintiff brings this action as a statewide class action pursuant to Rule 23
(b)(3) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all independent
pharmacies and/or similar entities who entered into a contract which provided
for reimbursement of prescriptions according to a formula which included the
Average Wholesale Price (AWP) with defendants and/or their subsidiaries
and/or related entities on or after January 1, 2000.

The suit is "Pharmacy Express et al. v. Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. et
al," filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, Bessemer
Division.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Kenneth E. Riley
          Farris Riley & Pitt, LLP  
          2025 3rd Ave. North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 324-1212
          Fax: (205) 324-1255


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

September 24-25, 2007
MEALEY'S BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
COMPLETE ANATOMY OF A BAD FAITH CASE: SHARPEN YOUR TRIAL SKILLS, CITE-WORTHY
CASE ANALYSIS, WINNING STRATEGIES
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 25, 2007
LEXISNEXIS® WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING, NEGOTIATING AND
COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 26-27, 2007
Positioning The Class Action Defense For Early Success
American Conference Institute
Phoenix
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

September 26-28, 2007
MEALEY'S NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION SUPERCONFERENCE: EMERGING ISSUES, TRIAL
SKILLS, INSURANCE, MEDICINE, BANKRUPTCY AND

FINANCIAL & RISK MANAGEMENT
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 1-2, 2007
MEALEY'S SUBPRIME MORTGAGE INSURANCE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The InterContinental Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 11-12, 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

October 17-18, 2007
MEALEY'S INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
London, UK
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 18-20, 2007
2ND ANNUAL LEXISNEXIS CIC CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Sheraton Atlanta Hotel, Downtown
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 7-9, 2007
MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION DEFECT SUPERCONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Casuarina Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8-9, 2007
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT SECURITIES, TAX,
ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 14-15, 2007
MEALEY'S GLOBAL REINSURANCE FORUM
Mealeys Seminars
Elbow Beach, Bermuda
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

July 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND TORT CASES IN
TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 25, 2007
LEXISNEXIS® ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CONTINGENCY FEE RELATIONSHIPS IN
LIGHT OF THE SANTA CLARA V. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD

COMPANY CASE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 26, 2007
LEXISNEXIS MED SCHOOL FOR LAWYERS: TOXICOLOGY & EXPOSURE DETERMINATION FOR
CAUSAL ASSESSMENT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 31, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CONTACT LENS SOLUTION LITIGATION UPDATE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 31, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: ADVANCED REINSURANCE ARBITRATION: UK AND US
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 2, 2007
MEALEY'S TOXIC TORT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 2, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: PROCEDURAL ISSUES IN REINSURANCE DISPUTES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 7, 2007
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE: WHERE WE STAND IN LIGHT OF
KEASBEY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 8, 2007
MEALEY'S WRAP INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TOXIC TORT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: VAPOR INTRUSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: MANAGING INSURANCE LITIGATION COSTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE SERIES: INSURANCE ISSUES REGARDING SUBPRIME MORTGAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 14, 2007
INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE SERIES: PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 15, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: D&O
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR
CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND
ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                            *********


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  * * *