CAR_Public/070726.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 26, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 146

                            Headlines


ABBOT'S MEAT: E. coli Contamination Prompts Ground Beef Recall
BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Volumetric Infusion Pumps Recall Expanded
BERKELEY PREMIUM: Settles Suit Over Certain Products for 4.7M
BIOPURE CORP: Sept. 24 Hearing Set For $10M Lawsuit Settlement
BRAVE PRODUCTS: Recalls Log Splitters on Likely Injury Risk

CASTLEBERRY'S FOODS: Expands Canned Meat Recall Over Botulism
COMCAST CORP: Agrees to Settle Double-Billing Lawsuit in Mich.
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Ala. Bankr. Court Dismisses Coleman's Claims
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Ill. Court OKs Settlements in Two Lawsuits
DAIRY FARMERS: Faces 2nd Suit Over Grade A Milk Price Fixing

DIRECTV: Ill. Appellate Court Affirms Decision in "Bess" Suit
EQUITY MEDIA: Faces Shareholder Litigation in Arkansas
ESTES-COX: Recalls RC Planes Over Possible Hearing Damage Risks
FERRO CORP: Settles Heat Stabilizer Industry Litigation in Pa.
KANEKA TEXAS: Oct. 5 Hearing Set in Plastic Additives Settlement

NEW YORK: Federal Judge Certifies Class in Panhandlers' Lawsuit
PAT & OSCARS: Settles California Suit Over Phone Number Request
PIER 1: Settles Credit Card Information Disclosure Suit
POTTERY BARN: Recalls Crib Bumpers Due to Entanglement Hazard
QUIZNOS CORPORATION: Settles Franchisees' Suit in Canada for $2M

ROYAL WINDOW: Settles "Window Coverings" Lawsuit for $2.4M
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Court to Review Decision in Lead Pigment Case
SUISSE BANCORP: Faces Ill. Suit Over "Usurious Interest Rates"
UNITED ARAB: Lawyers Set to Argue for Dismissal of Fla. Lawsuit
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Fraudulent Medicare Enrollment Cues Fla. Suit

WAL-MART STORES: Faces Tex. Litigation Over Lease Agreements


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GREENFIELD ONLINE: Lerach Coughlin Files CT Securities Lawsuit


                            *********

ABBOT'S MEAT: E. coli Contamination Prompts Ground Beef Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott's Meat Inc. of Flint, Michigan, in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 26,669 pounds of
ground beef products because they may be contaminated with E.
coli O157:H7.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration.  The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to foodborne illness.

The products subject to recall include:

      -- 10-pound boxes of "Abbott's GROUND BEEF PATTIE." Each
         box bears the product code "1160."

      -- 10-pound boxes of "Abbott's GROUND BEEF PATTIE 2/1."
         Each box bears the product code "1120."

      -- 10-pound boxes of "Abbott's GROUND BEEF PATTIE 4/1."
         Each box bears the product code "1140."

      -- 13-pound boxes of "Abbott's GROUND BEEF PATTIE 5/1."
         Each box bears the product code "1145."

      -- 10-pound boxes of "Abbott's ORIGINAL CONEY ISLAND
         TOPPING, Beef Pattie Mix." Each box bears the product
         code "1779."

      -- 25-pound boxes of "Abbott's ORIGINAL CONEY TOPPING MIX,
         Beef Pattie Mix." Each box bears the product code
         "1794."

      -- 10-pound boxes of "Abbott's THE BOSS Beef Patties, 6
         oz." Each box bears the product code "1638."

      -- 10-pound boxes of "Abbott's GROUND BEEF." Each box
         bears the product code "1610."

      -- 10-pound boxes of "Abbott's GROUND BEEF, Loose Pack."
         Each box bears the product code "1625."

      -- 10-pound boxes of "Abbott's OUR EXTRA FANCY GROUND
         BEEF." Each box bears the product code "1710."

Each box also bears the establishment number "Est. 10215" inside
the USDA mark of inspection.

The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological
testing.  FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated
with consumption of these products.  The ground beef products
were produced between July 12 and July 20, 2007 and were
distributed to hotels, restaurants and institutions in Michigan.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact company
HACCP Coordinator Pamela Glasco or company President Edward
Abbott at (810) 232-7128.

Media with questions about the recall should contact company
President Edward Abbott at (810) 232-7128.


BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Volumetric Infusion Pumps Recall Expanded
------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter Healthcare Corp., in cooperation with the U.S. Food and
Drugs Administration, notified healthcare professionals and
consumers of a recall of Baxter Upgraded COLLEAGUE Triple
Channel Volumetric Infusion Pumps, Model numbers 2M8153, 2M8163,
and 2M9163.

These electronic infusion pumps are used to deliver controlled
amounts of medications or other fluids to patients through an
intravenous (IV), intra-arterial (IA), epidural, or other direct
line into the bloodstream.

The product was recalled because a software irregularity causes
the newly upgraded COLLEAGUE Triple Channel Volumetric Infusion
Pumps to alarm, display an error code (16:310:867:0002) and stop
the infusion. This occurs during user programming with all three
channels infusing fluids at the same time. There are reports of
serious injuries that are associated with this issue.

In reported cases, the pump stopped infusing which caused it to
activate an audible and a visual alarm. Interruption of life-
sustaining therapy could lead to serious injury or death.

Consumers are advised to remove all the affected triple channel
pumps from service immediately.

COLLEAGUE customers with questions should contact Baxter Medical
Delivery Services at 1-800-843-7867.


BERKELEY PREMIUM: Settles Suit Over Certain Products for 4.7M
-------------------------------------------------------------
On July 3, 2007, an Ohio court granted final approval to the
settlement of the suit "Parker v. Berkeley Premium
Nutraceuticals, Inc., Case No. 04-CV-1903."

The Defendants, Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Inc. and
related entities, have until approximately December 2008 to
fully fund the settlement account.  The deadline for filing a
claim was July 11, 2007 and the Settlement Administrator is no
longer accepting new claims.

In March 2004, the Plaintiffs filed a nationwide class action
lawsuit against Defendants, Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals,
Inc. and related entities in Montgomery County Ohio Court of
Common Pleas.  

Plaintiffs allege that defendants sold products without
substantiating certain claims and that defendants improperly
enrolled certain customers in an automatic product renewal
program.  Defendants deny these allegations.

The Berkeley products covered by this Settlement are: Enzyte;
Avlimil; Rogisen; Altovis; Dromias; Numovil; Pinadol; Prulato;
Rovacid; Suvaril; Nuproxil; Ogoplex; and Rudofil.  

The Settlement was negotiated at arms length and on July 3,
2007, the Court granted final approval to this class action
Settlement.

Among other things, this Settlement will create a $4.7 million
Settlement Fund.  Defendants are required to deposit certain
moneys into the settlement account on a monthly basis.  The
Defendants and related entities have up to 20 months
(approximately December 2008) to fully fund the Settlement Fund.    

Class Members who submitted a valid claim prior to the July 11,
2007 deadline will be eligible to receive a refund.  The refund
amount each claimants will receive depends on the number of
valid claims submitted and will be substantially less than the
purchase price.   

A Court approved post card notice was mailed to all known class
members in May 2007.


BIOPURE CORP: Sept. 24 Hearing Set For $10M Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 24, 2007 at 2:30 a.m. for the
proposed $10,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Biopure
Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-12628-NG."

The hearing will be held before Judge Nancy Gertner, located in
Courtroom 2, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse
Way, Boston, MA 02210.  

Any request for exclusion from the settlement must be made on or
before Sept. 11, 2007.  Deadline for the submission for proof of
claim is on Oct. 31, 2007.

                         Case Background

Following the announcement in December 2003 that Biopure was
being investigated by the U.S Securities and Exchange
Commission, the company, two directors (one a former director),
its former chief executive officer, former chief technology
officer and former chief financial officer were named as
defendants in a number of similar, purported class-action
complaints, filed between Dec. 30, 2003 and Jan. 28, 2004 by
alleged purchasers of the company's common stock.

According to the complaint, Biopure artificially inflated its
stock price by misrepresenting the prospects for U.S. Food and
Drug Administration approval of the marketing of the company's
main product, Hemopure (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7, 2007).

The lawsuit says that the company knew by virtue of its ongoing
communications with the U.S. FDA that regulators had strong
reservations about Hemopure's safety but continued to publicly
hype the product throughout the class period.

Hemopure is an investigational product for the treatment of
acutely anemic surgical patients and for the elimination, delay
or reduction of red blood cell transfusions in these patients.

It is a human blood substitute derived from cow's blood, which
acts like red blood cells to deliver oxygen to the body.  Unlike
donated blood, Hemopure does not have to be matched to a
patient's blood type.

The truth about Hemopure began to emerge on Dec. 24, 2003.  
After the close of the markets on Christmas Eve, Biopure
announced a potential SEC inquiry for securities fraud and, for
the first time, disclosed substantial problems with its Hemopure
product and the FDA approval process.

Those complaints have since been consolidated in a single action
as, "Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation."

On July 23, 2004, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who acquired the common stock of Biopure during the
period of March 17, 2003 through Dec. 24, 2003 and names as
additional defendants Ronald F. Richards, Howard P. Richman,
Charles A. Sanders and J. Richard Crout.

On Oct. 6, 2004, defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
amended complaint and on Dec. 7, 2004 lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to defendants' motions.  Defendants filed their
replies in further support of their motions on Jan. 24, 2005.

On Feb. 2, 2006 the Judge heard oral arguments on all
outstanding motions.  On March 28, 2006 Judge Nancy Gertner
issued an order denying the motions to dismiss and on the same
date the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which
the defendants filed answers to on April 28, 2006.

On May 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff's
motion for class certification on July 25, 2006.

The consolidated matter has since been settled and the District
Court entered an Order of Preliminary Approval of the settlement
on May 23, 2007.
   
The suit is "In Re Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-12628-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134
         E-mail: ted@shulaw.com

              - and -

         Gilman and Pastor, LLP
         Suite 500, Stonehill Corporate Center, 999 Broadway
         Saugus, MA 01906
         Phone: 781-231-7850
         Fax: 781-231-7840
         Web site: http://www.gilmanpastor.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Bingham McCutchen LLP, Esq.
         150 Federal Street
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-8717
         Fax: 617-951-8736
         E-mail: robert.buhlman@bingham.com

              - and -  

         Mary P. Cormier, Esq.
         Edwards & Angell, LLP
         101 Federal St.
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-2225
         Fax: 617-439-4170
         E-mail: mcormier@edwardsangell.com

For more details, contact:

         In re Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation      
         c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC
         P.O. Box 9014
         Jericho, NY 11753-8914
         Phone: (800) 766-3330
         Fax: (516) 931-0810
         Web site: http://www.berdonclaims.com


BRAVE PRODUCTS: Recalls Log Splitters on Likely Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brave Products Inc., of Streator, Illinois, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
8,000 log splitters with 4,000 additional units recalled in
February 2005.

The company said the log splitter's hydraulic cylinders can have
defective rod retention, causing the seals to leak and the rods
to detach.  This can result in serious injury to the operator,
as the rod can rapidly and unexpectedly extend the splitting
wedge.

Brave Products has received 59 additional reports of leaking
cylinders and/or rod retention failure.  One consumer reported a
hand amputation that could have been caused by this cylinder
defect.

The log splitters are made of steel and painted orange and
black, or blue and black. They have trailer hitches and rubber
tires. Each log splitter has a decal on the side that reads
"Brave Products, Inc." or "Iron & Oak" and "__ ton" (either 15,
22, 26, or 34).

These Brave Products or Iron & Oak models are included in the
recall:

LOG SPLITTER                     MODEL SERIAL NUMBER

Brave VH0234 (34 ton)            Serial #S008277 through S016976
Brave VH0634 (34 ton)            Serial #S026956 through S030562
Brave VH9926 (26 ton)            Serial #S006836 through S017534
Brave VH0626 (26 ton)            Serial #S026965 through S030558
Brave VH9922 (22 ton)            Serial #S006691 through S016862
Brave VH0622 (22 ton)            Serial #S026426 through S030701
Brave SR0622 (22 ton)            Serial #S020721 through S029688
Brave HB0115 (15 ton)            Serial #S013853 through S017534

These Iron & Oak models are being recalled:

LOG SPLITTER                     MODEL SERIAL NUMBER

Model BHVH3402 (34 ton)          S008724 through S017729
Model BHVH3405 (34 ton)          S027103 through S030442
Model BHVH2699 (26 ton)          S006847 through S017720
Model BHVH2699 (26 ton)          S026447 through S030538
Model BHVH2299 (22 ton)          S006735 through S017714
Model BHVH2202 (22 ton)          S026418 through S030547 &
                                 DG (Duro-Glide)
Model BHVH2299FC (22 ton)        S013853 through S017534 &
                                 DG (Duro-Glide)
Model BHVH2202FC (22 ton)        S026999 through S030537 &
                                 DG (Duro-Glide)
Model BHH3003 (30 ton)           S008457 through S017743
                                 S026993 through S030439
Model BHH2003 (20 ton)           S006746 through S017742
                                 S026560 through S030491
Model BHHB0115 (15 ton)          S013853 through S017534
Model TMVH95/HYD, TMVH02/PTO
TMVH03/HYD                       S006645 to S017885
                                 S026736 through S029584

The serial number is located on the hydraulic tank.

The log splitters were manufactured in the United States and are
being sold at Ace, True Value, and Do It Best Hardware stores
and independent power equipment dealers nationwide from January
2002 through October 2004, and from May 2006 through April 2007,
for between $900 and $2,000.

Pictures of recalled log splitters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07243a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07243b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07243c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07243d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07243e.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07243f.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07243g.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07243h.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07243i.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07243j.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07243k.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07243l.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled log
splitters and contact Brave Products Inc. to receive a free
replacement cylinder.

For additional information, contact Brave Products at (800) 350-
8739 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
write to:

          Brave Products Inc.
          P.O. Box 577
          Streator, Ill. 61364-0577.

Consumers also can visit the company's Web sites:
http://www.logsplitters-ironoak.com/or  
http://www.braveproducts.com/


CASTLEBERRY'S FOODS: Expands Canned Meat Recall Over Botulism
-------------------------------------------------------------
Castleberry's Food Company of Augusta, Georgia, an establishment
owned by Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, is voluntarily expanding its
July 19 recall of canned meat products that may contain
Clostridium botulinum, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service announced.  

The recall is being expanded after information gathered by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and FSIS indicated that
processing malfunctions at the establishment have existed longer
than initially estimated.

For that reason, Castleberry's has agreed to recall all of the
following products that may still be in commerce, regardless of
the "best buy" date stamped on the bottom of the can. Consumers
who have any of these products or any foods made with these
products should throw them away immediately.

Double bag the cans in plastic bags that are tightly closed then
place in a trash receptacle for non-recyclable trash outside of
the home.

These products are subject to recall:

     -- 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Austex Beef Stew."
     -- 15- and 19-ounce cans of "Austex Chili with Beans."
     -- 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Austex Chili No Beans."
     -- 12-pack of 19-ounce cans of "Austex Chili No Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Best Yet Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Best Yet Corned Beef Hash."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Big Y Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Big Y Chili no Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Big Y Corned Beef Hash."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Black Rock Chili with Beans."
     -- 24-pack of 10-ounce cans of "Bryan Hot Dog Chili Sauce
        with Beef."
     -- 24-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Bryan Corned Beef Hash."
     -- 24-pack of 10-ounce cans of "Bryan Chili No Beans."
     -- 24-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Bryan Chili No Beans."
     -- 24-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Bryan Chili with Beans."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Bunker Hill Chili no Beans."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Bunker Hill Spicy Chunky Chili no
        Beans."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Castle Chili No Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Beef Stew."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Brunswick Beef Stew
        Chicken and Beef."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Castleberry's BUNKER HILL, ORIGINAL
        Chili NO BEANS."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Castleberry's CHILI WITH BEANS."
     -- 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Chili No
        Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Corned Beef Hash."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Castleberry's HICKORY SMOKED, OVEN
        ROASTED, WITH SKINS, BARBECUE PORK IN BARBECUE SAUCE."
     -- 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Hot Chili
        with Beans."
     -- 10- and 14.5-ounce cans of "Castleberry's BBQ Pork."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Sausage Gravy."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Creamed Chip Beef
        Gravy."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Cattle Drive Beef Stew."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Cattle Drive Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Cattle Drive Chili no Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Cattle Drive CHILI WITH BEANS."
     -- 8-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Cattle Drive Chili with
        Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Cattle Drive Chicken Chili with
        Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Firefighter Chicken Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Firefighter Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Firefighter Chili no Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Food Club Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Food Club Chili no Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Food Club Corned Beef Hash."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Georgia Hash."
     -- 10- and 15-ounce cans of "Goldstar Chili."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Goldstar Tex Mex Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Great Value Chili with Bean." (Canada     
        distribution only)
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Great Value Hot Chili with Beans."  
        (Canada distribution only)
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Kroger Beef Stew."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Kroger Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Kroger Chili no Bean."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Lowes Chili no Bean."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Lowes Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Lowes Corn Beef Hash."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Meijer Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Meijer Chili no Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Meijer CORNED BEEF HASH."
     -- 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Morton House Chili with   
        Beans Beef and Chicken."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Morton House Corned Beef Hash."
     -- 10- and 15-ounce cans of "Paramount Hot Dog Chili
        Sauce."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Paramount Chili no Bean."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Paramount Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Piggly Wiggly Chili with Beans."
     -- 10- and 15-ounce cans of "Piggly Wiggly Chili no Bean."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Piggly Wiggly Corned Beef Hash."
     -- 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Prudence Corned Beef Hash."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Southern Home Chili with Beans."
     -- 10- and 15-ounce cans of "Southern Home Chili no Bean."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Southern Home Corned Beef Hash."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Steak N Shake Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Thrifty Maid Chili with Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Thrifty Maid Corned Beef Hash."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Triple Bar Chili with Beans."
     -- 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Triple Bar Chili with  
        Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Triple Bar Chili no Beans."
     -- 12-pack of 15-ounce cans of "Triple Bar Chili no Beans."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Value Time Beef & Chicken Chili with
        Beans."

Each can label or can end bears the establishment number "EST.
195" inside the USDA seal of inspection. The canned meat
products were distributed nationwide, with the exception the
Great Value chili products which were exported only to Canada.
The problem was discovered during an investigation into
illnesses in Indiana and Texas. The investigation led to a
recall by FDA of three types of meatless hotdog chili sauce.

That recall is also being expanded to include all meatless
products produced at the plant that might still be in commerce.  

On July 21, the FDA also issued an expanded recall for the
following hot dog chili sauce products and Natural Balance
Eatables dog food varieties:

     -- 10-ounce cans of "Austex Onion Hot Dog Chili Sauce"
        bearing the UPC code "30300-97101."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Austex Hot Dog Chili Sauce" bearing
        the UPC code "30300-99533."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Hot Dog Chili Sauce"
        bearing the UPC code "30300-00101."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Castleberry's Onion Hot Dog Chili
        Sauce" bearing the UPC code "30300-07101."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Bunker Hill Hot Dog Chili Sauce"
        bearing the UPC code "75266-04152."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Kroger Hot Dog Chili Sauce" bearing
        the UPC code "11110-83942."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Meijer Hot Dog Chili Sauce" bearing
        the UPC code "41250-85862."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Food Lion Hot Dog Chili Sauce" bearing
        the UPC code "35826-06911."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Bloom Hot Dog Chili Sauce" bearing the
        UPC code "35826-06911."
     -- 10-ounce cans of "Thrifty Maid Hot Dog Chili Sauce"
        bearing the UPC code "21140-21367."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Irish Stew with Beef Dog Food" bearing
        the UPC code "23633-59860."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Chinese Take Out with Sauce with
        Vegetables and Chicken Dog Food" bearing the UPC code
        "23633-59861."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Southern Style Dumplings with Gravy
        with Chicken and Vegetables Dog Food" bearing the UPC
        code "23633-59862."
     -- 15-ounce cans of "Hobo Chili with Chicken Pasta Dog         
        Food" bearing the UPC code "23633-59863."

Botulism is a rare but serious paralytic illness caused by a
nerve toxin. Symptoms of botulism include double vision, blurred
vision, drooping eyelids, slurred speech, difficulty swallowing,
dry mouth, and muscle weakness.  The illness can cause
paralysis, respiratory failure and death.  Symptoms usually
occur from 18 to 36 hours after eating contaminated food.  
Anyone who is experiencing any of these symptoms should contact
a physician.

For additional information about botulism, please visit the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web site:

        http://www.cdc.gov/botulism/botulism.htm

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact
company's Consumer Hotline at (888) 203-8446.

Media with questions about the recall should contact the company
public affairs representative Della Sweetman at (619) 200-0436
or Doug McGraw at (212) 453-2202.


COMCAST CORP: Agrees to Settle Double-Billing Lawsuit in Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp. has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
by Detroit area customers who were allegedly double-billed for a
monthly maintenance charge for up to seven years, WDIV reports.

Filed in 2006, plaintiffs allege that Comcast charged Digital
Cable Package subscribers in Michigan a separate Cable Guard
Service fee even though Cable Guard Service was already included
in their package price.  The digital cable subscribers were
charged 99 cents a month for "cable guard service," said Detroit
lawyer Peter Macuga, who represents the Comcast subscribers.

In May, Comcast entered in a settlement agreement that, if
approved, will result in the dismissal with prejudice and
release of all claims asserted by the plaintiff against the
defendant and would terminate the lawsuit.

Under the settlement, Comcast agreed to send refunds, which
could amount to $2 million, to about 200,000 Detroit area
customers.  The most anyone could receive as a credit on their
bill or a refund is just over $80.

The class includes any former and/or current subscriber who paid
for Cable Guard Service while simultaneously subscribed to a
Digital Cable Package between March 8, 2000 through April 30,
2007.

Comcast spokesman Jerome Espy said subscribers are receiving a
notice about the proposed settlement with their July invoices.

The court has scheduled a Final Settlement Approval Hearing on
Sept. 18, 2007.

The suit is "Wish v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 2:06-cv-
11919-VAR-RSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, under Judge Victoria A. Roberts, with
referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen.

Representing defendants are:

          John A. Behrendt
          Thomas J. Tallerico
          Bodman LLP
          201 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 500
          Troy, MI 48084
          Phone: 248-743-6000
          E-mail: abehrendt@bodmanllp.com or
                  ttallerico@bodmanllp.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David R. Dubin
          Peter W. Macuga, II
          Macuga & Liddle
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207-3101
          Phone: 313-392-0015
          Fax: 313-392-0025 (fax)
          E-mail: ddubin@mlclassaction.com or
                  pmacuga@mlclassaction.com

          - and -

          David F. Zuppke
          David F. Zuppke Assoc.
          30200 Telegraph Road, Suite 440
          Bingham Farms, MI 48025
          Phone: 248-258-9499
          E-mail: dzuppke@earthlink.net


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Ala. Bankr. Court Dismisses Coleman's Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Alabama bankruptcy court dismissed claims in a purported
consumer class action against Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc.,
according to the company's July 20, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

On June 2, 2004, Delmar Coleman filed a lawsuit in the Circuit
Court of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, alleging that plaintiff Coleman
was harmed by an alleged failure to refer, in the notice given
after repossession of her vehicle, to the right to purchase the
vehicle by tender of the full amount owed under the retail
installment contract.  Plaintiff sought damages in an
unspecified amount, on behalf of a purported nationwide class.

The company removed the case to federal bankruptcy court, and
filed a motion for summary judgment as part of its adversary
proceeding against the plaintiff in the bankruptcy court.  The
federal bankruptcy court granted the plaintiff's motion to send
the matter back to Alabama state court.

The company appealed that ruling to the federal district court,
which later ordered the bankruptcy court to decide whether the
plaintiff has standing to pursue her claims, and, if standing is
found, to reconsider its remand decision.

Irvine, California-based Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. --
http://www.consumerportfolio.com/ -- is engaged in purchasing  
and servicing retail automobile contracts originated primarily
by franchised automobile dealers and, to a lesser extent, by
select independent dealers in the U.S. in the sale of new and
used automobiles, light trucks and passenger vans.  Through its
automobile contract purchases, the Company provides indirect
financing to the customers of dealers, who have limited credit
histories, low incomes or past credit problems, who the Company
refers to as sub-prime customers.  The Company serves as an
alternative source of financing for dealers, facilitating sales
to customers who otherwise might not be able to obtain financing
from traditional sources, such as commercial banks, credit
unions and the captive finance companies affiliated with major
automobile manufacturers.  It does not lend money directly to
consumers. Rather, it purchases automobile contracts from
dealers under several different financing programs.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Ill. Court OKs Settlements in Two Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
confirmed the settlements reached in two purported class actions
filed against Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc.

In August and September 2005, two plaintiffs represented by the
same law firm filed substantially identical lawsuits, each of
which purports to be a class action, and each of which alleges
that the company improperly accessed consumer credit
information.

The company has reached agreements to settle these cases, which
agreements have been confirmed by the court.  No member of
either class objected to the settlements and the company has met
the obligation of each agreement effectively ending each case.

The suits are "Cavin v. Bill Jacobs Joliet, L.L.C. et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-05025," and "Smith v. Rockenbach Chevrolet Sales Inc
et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-05454," both filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Charles
R. Norgle, Sr. and Judge Ruben Castillo, respectively.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
         Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
         120 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 739-4200
         E-mail: courtecl@aol.com


DAIRY FARMERS: Faces 2nd Suit Over Grade A Milk Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern dairy farmers have filed a second antitrust class
action claiming there was a conspiracy to fix Grade A milk
prices, strangle competition and restrict independent dairy
farmers' and independent coops' access to milk bottling plants.

The complaint, filed July 5, names these parties as defendants:

          -- Dean Foods Company,
          -- National Dairy Holdings, L.P.,
          -- Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.,
          -- Dairy Marketing Services, LLC,
          -- Southern Marketing Agency, Inc.,
          -- James Baird,
          -- Gary Hanman and
          -- Gerald Bos

Named plaintiffs:

          -- James D. Baisley,
          -- Eva C. Baisley,
          -- Stephen J. Cornett,
          -- William C. Frazier,
          -- Brandon C. McCain,
          -- Jerry L. Holmes,
          -- Rocky Creek Dairy, Inc. and
          -- Van Der Hyde Dairy, Inc.

Plaintiffs claim the defendants conspire with others, including
the Kroger Co. to:

     -- control access to bottling plants through long-term
        full-supply agreements;

     -- force independent producers to sell to DFA-controlled
        marketing entities, boycott milk producers who resist;

     -- flood the Southeast with milk to depress prices;

     -- punish independent producers by driving them out of
        business; and

     -- reap unjust profits from their illegal cartel.

The action was filed pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of:

     -- all dairy farmers either directly or through Dairy
        Marketing Services, LLC, sold Grade A milk to defendants
        during any time from Jan. 1, 2001 to the present; and

     -- all dairy farmer members of Maryland & Virginia
        Producers Cooperative Association, Inc. whether
        individuals or entities, who produced Grade A milk  
        through Southern Marketing Agent, Inc. sold Grade A milk
        to defendants during at ny time from Jan. 1, 2001 to the
        present.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
         stabilize, maintain, and/or artificially lower the
         price paid to Southeast dairy farmers for Grade A milk;

     (b) whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy to foreclose
         independent dairy farmers from access to fluid Grade A
         milk bottling plants in the Southeast;

     (c) whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy to foreclose
         dairy farmer members of independent cooperatives from
         access to fluid Grade A milk bottling plants in the
         Southeast;

     (d) whether, in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendants
         entered into full-supply agreements to foreclose such
         independent access;

     (e) whether, in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendants
         engaged in group boycott of independent dairy farmers
         and independent cooperatives;

     (f) whether DFA, and DFA, DMS and SMA collectively,
         exercise monopoly power in the production and marketing
         of Grade A milk in the Southeast United States;

     (g) whether DFA, and or DFA, DMS, and SMA collectively,
         have abused their monopoly power;

     (h) whether Dean, and/or Dean, DFA, and NDH collectively,
         have a monopsony in the purchase of Grade A milk in the
         Southeast United States;

     (i) whether Dean, and/or Dean, DFA, and NDH collectively,
         have abused and/or misused their monopsony;

     (j) whether defendants conspired to monopolize and/or
         monopsonize and/or restrain interstate trade of Grade A
         milk produced and marketed in the Southeast;

     (k) whether defendants' conduct has violated the Sherman
         Act;

     (l) whether Baird, Bos and Hanman participated in,
         authorized, directed and/or knowingly approved or
         ratified defendants' violation of the Sherman Act;

     (m) whether defendants caused injury to plaintiffs and
         proposed class members under the Sherman Act; and

     (n) whether plaintiffs and proposed class members are
         entitled to:

              (i) an injunction prohibiting the continuation of
                  defendants' violations, and ordering such
                  other and further injunctive relief as is
                  necessary to restore competition;

             (ii) a declaration of their eligibility to an award
                  of damages and other monetary relief,
                  including treble damages;

            (iii) interest from the date they should have
                  received all monies rightfully owed to the
                  actual date of payment as a result of this
                  lawsuit; and

             (iv) attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief
                  the court deems just and reasonable.

Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

     -- declare this action to be a proper class action
        maintainable pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure and declaring named plaintiffs to be
        class representatives;

     -- adjudge and declare that defendants have engaged in
        unlawful conduct in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the
        Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1-2;

     -- preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from
        violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Sections 1-2;

     -- declare null and void the full-supply agreements by and
        between Dean, NDH and DFA as described;

     -- preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and/or
        any entity controlled by any of them from entering into
        full-supply agreements as described;

     -- order Dean, NDH, DFA, their subsidiaries or joint
        ventures to divest fluid Grade A milk bottling plants
        necessary to restore competition in the Southeast;

     -- against all defendant, jointly and severally, award
        plaintiffs and the proposed class damages in an amount
        to be proven at tail, to be trebled with interest and
        the costs of this suit, including attorneys' fees; and

     -- award such further relief, including structural
        remedies, as the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Baisley et al v. Dean Foods Company et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00052," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, under Judge Robert Echols, with
referral to Judge John S. Bryant.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Robert G. Abrams
          Kenneth C. Anderson
          Robert J. Brookhiser
          Gregory J. Commins, Jr.
          Robert L. Green, Jr.
          Terry L. Sullivan
          Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 783-0800
          Fax: (202) 383-6610

          Joanne E. Caruso
          Howrey LLP
          550 S Hope Street, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Phone: (213) 892-1800
          Fax: (213) 892-2300

          - and -

          William David Bridgers
          James F. Neal
          Neal & Harwell
          150 Fourth Avenue, N
          2000 First Union Tower
          Nashville, TN 37219-2498
          Phone: (615) 244-1713
          E-mail: dbridgers@nealharwell.com or
                  jneal@nealharwell.com

Representing defendants are:

          Paul Savage Davidson
          Lea C. Owen
          Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP
          Nashville City Center
          511 Union Street, Suite 2700
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Phone: (615) 244-6380
          Fax: (615) 244-6804
          E-mail: paul.davidson@wallerlaw.com or
                  carol.owen@wallerlaw.com


DIRECTV: Ill. Appellate Court Affirms Decision in "Bess" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Fifth Appellate Court affirmed a decision denying a motion
to stay proceedings in an Illinois class action filed against
DirecTV, Rachel Weinhaus of The St. Clair Record reports.

Originally, Charlotte Bess, who is represented by David A.
Nester of Nester & Constance, filed the purported class action
in St. Clair Circuit Court.

The company both sought a stay on the proceedings and to compel
arbitration.  However, Judge Robert P. LeChien of St. Clair
Circuit Court refused, thus the company appealed the matter to
the Fifth Appellate Court.

Though Justice Bruce Stewart, who wrote the opinion for the
court, did find that Ms. Bess waived her argument that she did
not knowingly waive her right to a jury trial, the appellate
court upheld the lower court's findings that the arbitration
agreement in DirecTV's customer agreement contract was both
procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

For more details, contact:

         David A. Nester, Esq.
         Nester & Constance
         123 West Washington Street
         Belleville, IL 62220
         Phone: (618) 234-4440


EQUITY MEDIA: Faces Shareholder Litigation in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
Equity Media Holdings Corp., formerly known as Equity
Broadcasting Corp., faces a purported shareholder class action
in the circuit court of Pulaski County, Arkansas over a merger
agreement, according to the company's Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2007 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Equity Media Holdings Corp. was incorporated in Delaware on
April 29, 2005 as Coconut Palm Acquisition Corp. to serve as a
vehicle for the acquisition of an operating business through a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition and/or other
similar transaction.  On March 30, 2007, Coconut Palm merged
with Equity Broadcasting Corp., with Coconut Palm remaining as
the legal surviving corporation.  Immediately following the
merger, Coconut Palm changed its name to Equity Media Holdings
Corp.

In connection with the merger between EBC and Coconut Palm, EBC
and each member of EBC's board of directors was named in a
lawsuit filed by an EBC shareholder on June 14, 2006.  As a
result of the merger between EBC and Coconut Palm, pursuant to
which EBC merged into Coconut Palm, Coconut Palm, which was
renamed Equity Media Holdings Corp., is a party to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit contains both a class action component and
derivative claims.  The class action claims allege various
deficiencies in EBC's proxy used to inform its shareholders of
the special meeting to consider the merger.

These allegations include:

      -- the failure to provide sufficient information regarding
         the fair value of EBC's assets and the resulting fair
         value of EBC's Class A common stock;

      -- that the interests of holders of EBC's Class A common
         stock are improperly diluted as a result of the merger
         to the benefit of the holders of EBC's Class B common
         stock;

      -- failure to sufficiently describe the further dilution
         that would occur post-merger upon exercise of Coconut
         Palm's outstanding warrants;

      -- failure to provide pro-forma financial information;

      -- failure to disclose alleged related party transactions;

      -- failure to provide access to audited consolidated
         financial statements during previous years;

      -- failure to provide shareholders with adequate time to
         review a fairness option obtained by EBC's board of
         directors in connection with the merger; and

      -- alleged sale of EBC below appraised market value of its
         assets.

The derivative components of the lawsuit allege instances of
improper self-dealing, including through a management agreement
between EBC and Arkansas Media, LLC.

Equity Media Holdings Corporation owns and operates television
stations in the United States.  Equity Media currently covers
25.5% of the U.S. population in 42 markets, according to Nielsen
Research, and is the second largest affiliate group of the top
ranked Univision and Telefutura networks, two networks driven by
the growth of the Hispanic population in the U.S.  Equity Media
is a growing broadcaster with multiple sources of revenue and
value in its operations that include its Broadcast Station
Group, Broadcast Services Division and Spectrum Holdings
Division.  Equity Media's proprietary Centralized Automated
Satellite Hub (C.A.S.H) system and Retro Television Network
provide centralized content distribution services, which are
unique within the media industry.


ESTES-COX: Recalls RC Planes Over Possible Hearing Damage Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Estes-Cox Corp., of Penrose, Colorado, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
21,000 Sky Rangers Park Flyer Radio Control Airplanes.

The company said the airplanes are launched by hand and can
explode near the consumer's head, posing a risk of temporary
hearing loss and injuries to eyes, face and hands.

Estes-Cox has received 45 reports of airplanes exploding,
including 22 reports of consumers experiencing temporary ear
pain or hearing being affected; five reports of minor burns to
hands, faces or eyes; two reports of chest impact from debris;
two reports of eye injuries; and one report of a cut hand. One
consumer sought medical attention for burning eyes.

This recall involves Model 4116 Sky Rangers Park Flyer radio
control airplanes, which come with a black battery charger. The
airplanes have a wingspan of about 14 inches, a light blue,
white and orange polystyrene foam fuselage, and a copper coil on
the rudder. Airplanes with a warning sticker on the fuselage
near the on/off switch are not included in the recall.

These recalled remote controlled airplanes were manufactured in
China and are being sold at hobby stores and other retailers
nationwide from September 2005 through December 2006 for between
$20 and $40.

Pictures of the recalled remote controlled airplanes:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07250a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07250b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled airplanes
immediately and contact Estes-Cox to verify that their plane is
being recalled and for instructions on returning the airplane
for a replacement product.

For additional information, contact Estes-Cox at (800) 576-5811
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. MT Monday through Thursday, or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.estesrockets.com/


FERRO CORP: Settles Heat Stabilizer Industry Litigation in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ferro Corp. entered into an agreement with the direct purchasers
in a class action civil lawsuit related to alleged antitrust
violations in the heat stabilizer industry.

The settlement agreement needs the approval of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for it to be
final.

The direct purchasers class action was filed along with two
other actions after the U.S. Department of Justice requested
documents from the Company in 2003 in connection with its
investigation into possible antitrust violations in the heat
stabilizer industry.

In April 2006, the Department of Justice notified Ferro that it
had closed its investigation and that the Company was relieved
of any obligation to retain documents that were responsive to
the Department of Justice's earlier document request.

Before closing its investigation, the Department of Justice took
no action against the Company or any of its current or former
employees.

Ferro is vigorously defending the remaining two civil actions
alleging antitrust violations in the heat stabilizer industry.


KANEKA TEXAS: Oct. 5 Hearing Set in Plastic Additives Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 5, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $5,900,000 settlement by Kaneka Texas Corp. in the
matter, "In Re Plastic Additives Antitrust Litigation, Master
Docket No. 03-CV2038 and MDL Docket No. 1684."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 6A,
601 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19106.

Any objection and exclusion to and from the settlement must be
made on or before Sept. 15, 2007.  Deadline for the submission
for proof of claim is on Oct. 31, 2007.

                        Case Background

The case is an antitrust class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of plastics additives (including, but not limited to,
impact modifiers, heat stabilizers, and processing aids) between
Jan. 1, 1990 and Jan. 31, 2003.

Plastics additives are added to plastic resins in order to
enhance the quality of those resins.  Among the principal
plastics additives are heat stabilizers, impact modifiers, and
processing aids.

Heat stabilizers are used to protect resins from thermal
degradation and to enhance the flexibility and stability of the
end product.

Impact modifiers are used to improve the resistance of the
finished plastics products to stress and improve the strength of
plastics.  

Impact modifiers also reduce the weathering, chemical
resistance, tensile strength, and stress rupture of plastic
compounds.

Processing aids are chemicals that enable plastics to be
processed at lower temperatures thereby eliminating heat
degradation and ensuring quality, as well as providing greater
control over the flow of melted plastic.

Plaintiff alleges a nationwide and worldwide conspiracy among 16
companies to fix prices of plastics additives in order to raise,
maintain, or stabilize prices for plastics additives above the
level where they otherwise would have been in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Plaintiff alleges that the conspiracy began in or around Jan. 1,
1990 and ended around Jan. 31, 2003 when it was announced that
these companies were being investigated by U.S., European, and
Japanese law enforcement and antitrust investigators for
participating in an international cartel to fix the prices of
plastics additives.

Plaintiffs seek to recover, among other things, treble damages
on behalf of itself and others who purchased plastics additives
from the defendants and others during the class period.

For more details, contact:

         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
         805 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 1-800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980
         Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/

         Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.
         One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-238-1700
         Fax: 215-238-1968
         E-Mail: info@kohnswift.com
         Web site: http://www.kohnswift.com/

         Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP
         Phone: 800-778-1822,
         E-mail: info@gbcslaw.com
         Web site: http://gbcslaw.com

              - and -

         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         150 East 52nd Street, Thirtieth Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 838-7797
         Fax: (212) 838-7745
         Web site: http://www.cmht.com


NEW YORK: Federal Judge Certifies Class in Panhandlers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted class-action status to the matter, "Wise et al. v. Kelly
et al.," Larry Neumeister of The Associated Press reports.

The suit was brought on behalf of thousands of suspected
panhandlers arrested or forced off streets over the past 15
years by police who used a law that was declared
unconstitutional.

Recently, the lawyers behind the case extended its reach
statewide after receiving data that showed enforcement of the
unconstitutional law had continued throughout the state.

Back in October 1992, U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet ruled
that a state law violated the First Amendment when it allowed
the arrest of anyone who "loiters, remains or wanders about in a
public place for the purpose of begging."  A federal appeals
court later upheld that ruling.

The City Council passed a new, more specific law aimed at
"aggressive panhandling" after the 1992 ruling.  But, lawyers
for the panhandlers have repeatedly reported to Judge Scheindlin
that New York City police continued to issue summonses under
such law (Class Action Reporter, April 20, 2007).

In the past, Judge Scheindlin repeatedly expressed her dismay
that New York City has continued enforcing the law after it was
ruled unconstitutional, though the city recently has insisted it
has taken steps to stop.

Certifying the class action was the only way to effectively
prevent the law from being enforced statewide, according to the
judge, who still expresses doubts about the ability of law
enforcement agencies to comply with court orders.

Asked for comment on the ruling, plaintiffs' lawyer Matthew D.
Brinckerhoff told The Associated Press that with the decision to
grant class action status, it means "we will finally be able to
put an end to this after 15 years."

Mr. Brinckerhoff also told AP that the class will likely
consists of 5,000 to 10,000 people who were subjected to the law
after it was declared unconstitutional.

The suit is "Wise et al v. Kelly et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-05442-
SAS-THK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin with
referral to Judge Theodore H. Katz.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq.
         Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP
         75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Flr.
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-763-5000
         Fax: 212-763-5001
         E-mail: mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Rachel Amy Seligman, Esq.
         New York City Law Department
         100 Church Street
         New York, NY 10007
         Phone: (212) 788-0784
         Fax: (212) 788-9776
         E-mail: rseligma@law.nyc.gov


PAT & OSCARS: Settles California Suit Over Phone Number Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 7, 2007 fairness hearing is set in the settlement of the
suit, "Sheffrey v. Pat & Oscars, Case no. GIC 87540" pending in
California Superior Court for the County of San Diego.

The hearing will be at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Linda B.
Quinn in Department 74 of the San Diego County Superior Court,
located at 330 W. Broadway, San Diego, California 92101.

This lawsuit claims that Pat & Oscars violated California Civil
Code section 1747.08 by and through its practice of utilizing a
pre-printed form for credit card transactions with a space
specifically designated for filling in a consumer's telephone
number.  The lawsuit seeks money or other benefits for the Class
Members who were presented with the allegedly offending form.
Pat & Oscars denies allegations of wrongdoing.

The class consists of all persons in California who entered into
a credit card transaction with Pat & Oscars, wherein a credit
card transaction form was utilized which contained a pre-printed
space specifically designated for filling in the telephone
number of the cardholder, during the time period from August 8,
2005, through August 27, 2006.

Pat & Oscars has agreed to provide all Class Members who have
not chosen to opt out of the settlement with one non-
transferable $12.50 gift certificate (no minimum or maximum
purchase) good on any purchase at any Pat & Oscars location,
valid for 45 days from the date of issuance of the gift
certificate.  The gift certificate will have no cash value.

Deadline for filing requests for exclusion and objection is
Aug. 17, 2007.  Deadline for filing claims is Sept. 27, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Pat & Oscars Claims Administrator
          c/o Class Action Administration, Inc.
          P.O. Box 6877
          Broomfield , CO 80021
          Toll free: (866) 431-5306

          Lindsay & Stonebarger, Esq.
          Class Counsel
          620 Coolidge Drive,
          Suite 225  
          Folsom, CA 95630


PIER 1: Settles Credit Card Information Disclosure Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The court granted on June 1, 2007 a final approval to a
settlement of the suit, "Evanoff v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc."

The settlement affects all persons (i) who purchased merchandise
with a credit card from a Pier 1 store in California between
October 4, 2005 and December 31, 2006, and (ii) whose address or
telephone number was requested, and/or recorded, by Pier 1 in
connection with a credit card transaction.

Plaintiff Lorraine Evanoff filed a class action against Pier 1
Imports (U.S.), Inc., doing business as Pier 1 Imports on behalf
of herself and all Class Members. Plaintiff's law firm that
represents Plaintiff and the Class Members, is Blum³Collins,
LLP.  

The lawsuit alleges that Pier 1 violated California law by
requesting credit card customers to provide address or telephone
information in connection with a credit card transaction. Pier 1
denies that it has done anything wrong, and denies that any
class member is entitled to any relief.

The Court has determined that the Action should proceed as a
Class Action, for purposes of settlement only, with Plaintiff as
the representative of the Class.

Judge William Highberger approved a proposed settlement on the
suit on Feb. 22, 2007.

For those Class Members, during the period of October 4, 2005
through December 31, 2006, whose names and addresses appear in
Pier 1's customer database, and who do not opt-out of the
settlement, Pier 1 has agreed to automatically provide these
Class Members with a savings certificate providing either:

     (i) a $5 discount off a future purchase of any amount at
         any Pier 1 store in California, or

    (ii) a $10.00 discount off a future purchase of $40.00 or
         more.  The Credit Certificate is subject to additional         
         terms and conditions.

The Parties agreed that, subject to the Court's final approval,
the named Plaintiff, Lorraine Evanoff shall be entitled to an
incentive award of up to $2,250 in recognition of the risk to
Plaintiff as the Class representative in commencing the lawsuit
in the Action and the amount of time and effort spent by
Plaintiff as the Class representative.  The Parties also agreed
that, subject to the Court's final approval, Class Counsel shall
be entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs of up to
$125,000. The payment of attorneys' fees will not affect the
benefits provided to the Settlement Class.

The suit is "Evanoff v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Case No. BC
359562," filed in the California Superior Court for the County
of Los Angeles.

Representing the plaintiff is Steven A. Blum, Esq. of
Blum³Collins LLP, 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4880, Los Angeles,
CA 90017.

Representing the defendant is John T. Brooks, Esq. of Luce,
Forward, Hamilton & Scripts LLP, 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101.


POTTERY BARN: Recalls Crib Bumpers Due to Entanglement Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pottery Barn Kids, of San Francisco, California, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 31,000 units of Matelasse Crib Bumpers.

The company said the decorative stitching on the bumper's edge
can come loose, posing an entanglement hazard to young children.

Pottery Barn Kids has received two reports of incidents
involving the decorative stitching coming loose. No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves the Diamond Matelasse, Floral Matelasse and
Polka Dot Matelasse crib bumpers made of 100% cotton. The
Diamond Matelasse bumpers are white and have decorative thread
in pink, blue, green, yellow or chocolate stitched along the
scalloped edge. The Polka Dot and Floral bumpers come in
assorted colors with matching decorative stitching. A label on
the bumper reads "pottery barn kids."

These recalled crib bumpers were manufactured in Portugal and
are being sold at Pottery Barn Kids stores nationwide, its
catalog, and online stores from February 2003 through June 2007
for about $90.

Pictures of the recalled crib bumpers:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07252a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07252b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07252c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the bumpers immediately and
remove any exposed stitching, or contact Pottery Barn Kids for a
refund.

For additional information, call Pottery Barn Kids toll-free at
(877) 800-9720 between 7 a.m. and 12 a.m. ET daily or visit the
company's website: http://www.potterybarnkids.com/


QUIZNOS CORPORATION: Settles Franchisees' Suit in Canada for $2M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quiznos Corporation has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a
proposed class action over delays in getting locations approved
for its franchisees, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, the ChronicleHerald.ca reports.

The judge approved the settlement over objections from more than
25 of those who lost deposits and taxes in the range of $30,000
each.

Lawyers defending against a class-action lawsuit have also
assured an Ontario judge that Quiznos has addressed causes of
past grievances.

In 2005, Hamilton resident Moiez Al-Harazi -- a recent immigrant
to Canada -- filed the suit against Quiznos with his wife, Susan
Shoraan in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging that
the company is violating Canadian franchise law by not
disclosing to potential franchisees full details and processes
for securing locations (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2006).

Lead attorney Ben Hanuka of Toronto law firm Goldman, Sloan,
Nash & Haber, LLP, related that the Company has threatened to
terminate the franchise agreements of franchisees who signed
agreements after 2001, but have not been granted locations.

He argued that Quiznos broke franchise law and owed full refunds
for not warning how difficult it is for business novices to find
a suitable location.

The couple claimed they had lost about $28,500, plus federal
sales tax, when they failed to find a shop location within the
15 months dictated in franchise agreements.

Quiznos denied its disclosure was lacking in any way and vowed a
fight if the partial refund, or a second chance to find
locations, was not accepted.

Justice Maurice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
said he gave great weight to Mr. Hanuka's professional judgment,
praising the franchise lawyer for his diligence and tenacity. He
warned the objectors they could well lose if they fought in
court to win more money or punish Quiznos.

"The intensity of the disappointment, frustration and the anger
directed at Quiznos was evident," he acknowledged in a ruling
released last week.

But Justice Cullity concluded after two days of hearings in June
and early July the settlement was in the best interest of those
who lost deposits.

Mr. Hanuka negotiated the settlement, with the Hamilton couple
standing to recover about $15,000, plus fees for acting as
representative plaintiffs.

The settlement provides two choices:

     -- Half of the deposit back to anyone who paid after Dec.
        21, 2003, and a quarter if they paid earlier; or

     -- another chance to find a location in 12 months, open a
        store in 24 months and earn a $26,630 discount on
        equipment and supplies.

Those approved for the second option would recover as little as
$5,000 if they back out within 12 months, but would pay no part
of the legal fees.

Justice Cullity also agreed that Mr. Hanuka should be paid up to
$450,000, or 20 per cent of the total settlement, for getting
the deal and overseeing payments. He noted Mr. Hanuka would be
getting less than his normal hourly rate. Quiznos will pay him
all but $100,000.

Denver-based Quiznos has more than 4,900 locations in 15
countries and 425 in Canada, where it boasts it is growing
fastest among quick-service restaurant chains.


ROYAL WINDOW: Settles "Window Coverings" Lawsuit for $2.4M
----------------------------------------------------------
A proposed $2,400,000 settlement has been reached with defendant
Royal Window Coverings (USA) L.P. in a lawsuit over "Window
Coverings" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

"Window Coverings" means vertical blinds, horizontal blinds,
mini-blinds, shutters, components of vertical blinds, horizontal
blinds and shutters, including without limitation extruded
polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl) slats and vanes, valences,
valence clips, rails, internal mechanisms, channel panels
designed to hold vertical blind slats and valences, and related
products.

Plaintiffs Blind Builders USA Inc. and Presidential Window
Coverings have been appointed by the Court to serve as
representatives of the Class. Plaintiffs' Counsel, who have been
appointed by the Court to serve as Class Counsel, are the law
firms of Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C., and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau
& Pachios, LLP.

In April, 2007, two class action complaints were filed against
Royal by direct purchasers of Window Coverings.  Plaintiffs
allege in their Complaints that Royal attempted to enter into a
contract, combination or conspiracy to fix, maintain, raise or
stabilize the prices of Window Coverings sold in the United
States in violation of the federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs
further allege that as a result of the attempted conspiracy,
they and other direct purchasers of Window Coverings have been
injured by paying more for Window Coverings than they would have
paid in the absence of the illegal conduct.

In the Complaints, Plaintiffs also seek recovery of treble
damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an award of
attorneys' fees.  Royal denies Plaintiffs' allegations. Neither
Plaintiffs nor Royal have proven their assertions. The Court
expresses no opinion as to whether Plaintiffs' allegations are
correct or whether Royal has engaged in any wrongdoing.

On May 15, 2007, the Court granted preliminary approval of a
Settlement Class defined as:

All Persons (excluding Defendants, their parents, predecessors,
subsidiaries and affiliates, their co-conspirators and
government entities) who purchased Window Coverings:

     (1) directly from Royal Window Coverings (USA) L.P  (and
         its current and former direct and indirect parents,  
         subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, predecessors,
         successors, and assigns);

     (2) in the U.S., from a facility located in the U.S., or
         from a facility located outside the United States for
         use or resale in the U.S.;

     (3) for fabrication, assembly, and/or resale to commercial
         or residential contractors or for installation in
         commercial or residential buildings; and

     (4) did so at any time during the period from June 1, 2002
         through December 31, 2002.

The Class does not include national retailers that sell finished
or replacement Window Coverings.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, have entered into a
Settlement Agreement with Royal dated April 4, 2007 under which
Royal has paid into escrow the sum of $2,400,000.  The
Settlement Agreement gives Royal the right to withdraw from the
Settlement Agreement in the event that the total dollar amount
of sales of Window Coverings to persons who exercise the right
to be excluded from this settlement exceeds $500,000 in the
aggregate during the Class Period.

Class Counsel will ask the Court for reimbursement for expenses
incurred in prosecuting the case, up to $100,000, and for
counsel fees, not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund, with
accrued interest.  Litigation expenses include, but are not
limited to, costs for economic experts, and for document
reproduction.

Class Counsel intend to apply to the Court for incentive awards
to be paid to the Class Representatives in amounts not to exceed
$25,000 for each Plaintiff.  Class Counsel's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Incentive Awards will be on file
at the office of the Clerk of the Court after August 17, 2007.

Deadline for exclusion is Aug. 28, 2007.  Deadline for filing
claims is August 28, 2007

The suit is "Blind Builders USA Inc. v. Royal Window Coverings
(USA) L.P., Civil Action No. 07-1387," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

For more information, contact:

          Settlement Administrator
          Royal Window Coverings Settlement
          P.O. Box 58968
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-8968

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          Robert J. LaRocca, Esq.
          Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
          Allan M. Hoffman, Esq.
          Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C
          One South Broad Street
          Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          David J. Ekelund, Esq.
          Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios LLP
          One City Center
          P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Court to Review Decision in Lead Pigment Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal agreed to review a decision
handed down in a purported class action against The Sherwin-
Williams Co. and the other defendants with regards to lead
pigment in paints.

Initiated in March 2000, the named plaintiffs in the suit are
the County of Santa Clara, County of Santa Cruz, County of
Solano, County of Alameda, County of Kern, City and County of
San Francisco, San Francisco Housing Authority, San Francisco
Unified School District, City of Oakland, Oakland Housing
Authority, Oakland Redevelopment Agency and the Oakland Unified
School District.

The case purports to be a class action on behalf of all public
entities in the State of California except the state and its
agencies.  

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint asserts claims for fraud
and concealment, strict product liability/failure to warn,
strict product liability/design defect, negligence, negligent
breach of a special duty, public nuisance, private nuisance and
violations of California's Business and Professions Code.

Various asserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants
through pre-trial demurrers and motions to strike.

In October 2003, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment against the remaining counts on statute of
limitation grounds.

Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision and on March 3,
2006, the Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate District, reversed in
part the demurrers and summary judgment entered in favor of the
company and the other defendants.  

The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for abatement brought by the cities of Santa
Clara and Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco, and
reversed summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs' fraud claim
to the extent that the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
had made fraudulent statements or omissions minimizing the risks
of low-level exposure to lead.

The Court of Appeal further vacated the summary judgment holding
that statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims, and held that those claims had
not yet accrued because physical injury to the plaintiffs'
property had not been alleged.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for damages to the plaintiffs' properties, most
aspects of the fraud claim, the trespass claim and the unfair
business practice claim.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a fourth
amended complaint.

On April 4, 2007, the trial court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to bar payment of contingent fees to private
attorneys.

The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's order and the
California Court of Appeal has decided to review the decision,
according to the company's July 23, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The Sherwin-Williams Co. -- http://www.sherwin-williams.com--  
is engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of paint,
coatings and related products to professional, Industrial,
commercial and retail customers primarily in North and South
America.  Effective Jan. 1, 2006, the Company changed its
operating segments to Paint Stores Group, Consumer Group and
Global Group.  In April 2007, the Company announced its entry
into the Indian paint market with its acquisition of the
business of Nitco Paints, a manufacturer and distributor of
exterior specialty paints and coatings used in the construction
of office buildings, high rise apartments, shopping malls,
hospitals and schools.  In June 2007, the Company complete the
acquisition of M.A. Bruder & Sons Incorporated.


SUISSE BANCORP: Faces Ill. Suit Over "Usurious Interest Rates"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suisse Bancorp is facing a class action in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division,
alleging that "lawsuit lending" company, charges usurious
interest rates, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

"Suisse is in the business of lending money to litigants, whose
tort claims are pending in separate actions, and requires those
litigants to execute agreements... to pay unlawful interest.
Suisse is a part of the burgeoning industry commonly referred to
as 'lawsuit lending,' 'pre-settlement lending' or 'litigation
finance,'" the suit states.

Lead plaintiff Joseph Nakvos claims Suisse charges "at a
minimum, 45 percent per annum for loans," though the Illinois
Interest Act law limits the annual interest rate to 9 percent.
He claims Suisse takes advantage of people "when they are
desperate and nearly destitute, advertising itself as 'a lender
of last resort.'"

This is a class action seeking redress for a series of
transactions wherein Suisse Bancorp, Inc. and its principals and
employees convinced plaintiffs to enter into a number of loans
charging, unlawful, usurious rates of interest. These loans
charged interest between five and 10 times the statutory
maximum.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all similarly situated
people in the State of Illinois who contracted with Suisse
Bancorp and paid unlawful, usurious interest.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (a) whether the contracts provide for interest in excess of
         the statutory maximum;

     (b) whether defendant is liable to plaintiff and the class
         for damages; and

     (c) the extent of damages defendant is liable to plaintiff
         and the class.

Plaintiff prays the court to:

     -- certify the case as a class action, appoint plaintiffs
        as class representatives, and appoint plaintiffs'
        attorney as class counsel;

     -- award plaintiffs and the class twice the total of all
        interest, discount and charges under the loan or paid by
        plaintiffs and the class members, whichever is greater;

     -- award plaintiffs and the class punitive damages;

     -- order an accounting to determine the amount of all
        interest, discount and charges paid by the plaintiffs
        and class members;

     -- award plaintiffs and the class the fees, expenses and
        costs of their attorneys; and

     -- grant any such further relief the court may deem fair
        and just.

The suit is "Joseph Nakvos et al. v. Suisse Bancorp. Inc., Case
No. 07CH19403," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Marvin A. Miller
          Mathew Van Tine
          Lori Fanning
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 332-3400

          - and -

          Norman Hafron
          Rosenfeld Hafron Shapiro & Farmer
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1763
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 372-6058


UNITED ARAB: Lawyers Set to Argue for Dismissal of Fla. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the ruler of Dubai, United Arab Emirates are set
for the dismissal of the class action, "Minor R.M., et al v. Bin
Rashid, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-22253-CMA," which is blaming
the emir for the enslavement of thousands of children from South
Asia and Africa who worked as camel jockeys.

According to a report by The Peninsula On-line, Habib al-Mulla,
one of several legal representatives for the defendants, was
quoted as saying, "We believe we have strong grounds for a
dismissal."

Previously, the attorneys argued that the issue is being fully
addressed and that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction.  In court
papers, it was indicated that UAE authorities in conjunction
with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), established a
program in May 2005 to compensate, provide services, for and
repatriate young camel jockeys to their home countries,
primarily Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sudan and Mauritania (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 26, 2006).

UAE, which banned use of underage camel jockeys in July 2005,
announced on Dec. 11, 2006 that it would set aside a minimum of
$9 million to expand and extend the program through 2009.

According to dismissal motion, which was filed by former U.S.
Attorney Marcos Daniel Jimenez, legal representative for the
UAE, "As a result of these international efforts, the practice
of using underage camel jockeys has ended in the U.A.E, and the
lives of former camel jockeys are being changed for the better
today."

The dismissal motion includes several documents in support of
the UAE program regarding underage camel jockeys, including:

     -- A letter from leading Pakistani human rights activist  
        Ansar Burney to Motley Rice, LLC, the plaintiffs' law  
        firm handling the case, saying that the Emirates has  
        "initiated and implemented effective measures for  
        curbing the use of children in camel racing" and urging  
        that the lawsuit be withdrawn.

     -- The recent UNICEF report stating that the "initiative  
        puts children first by providing support to victims of  
        trafficking and exploitation ... it's now up to the rest  
        of the world to follow the initiative and example set by  
        the UAE"

     -- A State Department report on human trafficking issued in  
        September noting enactment of the youthful jockey ban  
        and stating that "all identified victims were  
        repatriated at the government's expense to their home  
        countries."

Plaintiffs contended that the federal court in Miami is a proper
legal venue, since, the UAE's royal family members own hundreds
of horses at farms upstate in Ocala and because no other court
in the world could fairly address the claims.

However, the UAE argued that there is no connection between
anyone involved in the camel jockey issue and the Miami federal
court and that the country's rulers have immunity as heads of
state.  Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga has not yet ruled on the
dismissal request or on whether the case should be a class
action.

                        Case Background

In September 2006, Motley Rice, LLC, in association with
attorney John A. Thornton of Miami, filed suit against several
Arab Sheikhs, including Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum
and Sheikh Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, for the alleged abduction and human trafficking of
thousands of young boys from Asia and Africa (Class Action  
Reporter, Sept. 14, 2006).

According to the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Florida, boys as young as two years old
have been stolen from their families, trafficked across
international borders, and kept in brutal camel-racing camps
throughout the UAE, forced to train camels and perform as
jockeys.   

Once abducted, the children were allegedly sold into slavery to
serve as camel jockeys for the entertainment of the Arabian
elite.   

Camel racing has long been a favored pastime of the Arab elite.
Yet, despite the enactment of legal weight and age limits, child
jockeys weighing less than 20 kg (44 lbs.) have become the
standard in races.   

Because of the extreme danger involved in camel racing, Arab
sheikhs have not used their own children for training or riding,
and instead have resorted to this alleged child enslavement.   

According to the lawsuit, this practice has resulted in a vast
conspiracy among camel owners to buy boys in the slave trade,
hold them in brutal camps, forcing them to care for and exercise
the camels, and then race against each other on "race days."  

Because one cannot race without competitors, it is alleged that
the use of enslaved boys by the named defendants caused others
to do the same.   

According to the 2005 U.S. Department of State Trafficking in  
Persons Report, "Those who survive the harsh conditions are
disposed of once they reach their teenage years."  Having been
ripped from their families at such a young age, these children
are typically unable to locate their families again or even, in
most cases, speak their own language.   

The suit is brought on behalf of the boys and/or the legal
guardians of the boys who were allegedly enslaved and is brought
against the individual slave owners in Dubai and the United Arab
Emirates.   

Dubai's ruling family has denied the allegations of abduction
and human trafficking.  The ruling Maktoum family believes that
the alleged enslaving of thousands of young camel jockeys is
"baseless."  Also the family believes a U.S. court has no
jurisdiction over things, which happen outside the U.S. (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 18, 2006).  

On its part, the ruling family claimed it had banned child
jockeys and revamped the sport.  According to family members,
they have overhauled the sport, banned the use of child jockeys
and helped UNICEF in a rehabilitation program for them.

According to the Maktoums' representative, Dr. Habib al-Mullah,  
Dubai's rulers feel the efforts they have made to enforce
regulations in the sport are being overlooked.  In this
relation, it should be noted that it has been illegal to use
children as camel jockeys in the UAE since 1993.

The suit is "Minor R.M., et al v. Bin Rashid, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-22253-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Ronald L. Motley, Esq.
         Ness Motley Loadholt Richardson & Poole
         28 Bridgeside Boulevard
         Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
         Phone: 843-216-9000

              - and -

         John Andres Thornton, Esq.
         100 SE 2 Street, Suite 2700
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-532-6851
         Fax: 538-1070
         E-mail: johnandresthornton@hotmail.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Fraudulent Medicare Enrollment Cues Fla. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Joseph H. Saunders filed suit in the Pinellas County
Civil Court against United Health Group Inc. and United
Healthcare of Florida, Inc. on behalf all those who he says were
fraudulently enrolled in the company's Medicare Advantage plans,
Carol Gentry of The Tampa Tribune reports.

The suit, filed for Charleen G. Edge, alleges a United
Healthcare agent enrolled her in a managed-care plan for 2006
when she thought she was signing up for the drug plan co-
sponsored by AARP and United.

Ms. Edge claims she has incurred more than $30,000 in medical
bills which would have otherwise been covered by Medicare.

According to the lawsuit, United Healthcare has used the Part D
drug sign up period to fraudulently disenroll people from
Medicare in order to enroll them in their own PPO/HMO plans.

The lawsuit, which seeks judicial certification as a class
action, cites 5,000, but Mr. Saunders acknowledged that's just a
guess until he gets access to company documents. He said he
knows there are more people in Ms. Edge's fix because of
congressional hearings in May and June on abusive marketing
practices in Medicare Advantage.

In a written statement, United rejected the accusations of
fraud, saying, "We have zero tolerance for any misconduct by
brokers and agents and take appropriate actions as necessary,"
said Peter Ashkenaz, vice president for public relations for
United and its Medicare subsidiary, Ovations.

But he said the company is investigating the complaints "to
ensure that all her claims are paid according to the terms of
her plan."

For more information, contact:

          Joseph H. Saunders
          Saunders & Walker, P.A.  
          3491 Gandy Boulevard North, Suite 200
          Pinellas Park, Florida 33781
          Phone: 727-579-4500 or 800-748-7115
          Fax: 727-577-9696
          Website: http://www.SaundersLawyers.com

WAL-MART STORES: Faces Tex. Litigation Over Lease Agreements
------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas allegedly
violating state law in its dealings with optometrists who lease
space.

The suit, "Forte v. Walmart Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00155," was filed by Doris Forte, O.D., of Harris County, Texas
on April 2, 2007.

According to the complaint, "plaintiff brings this action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
her own behalf and on behalf of a class of all past and present
optometrists who have ever entered into license or lease
agreements for office space with Wal-Mart's establishments
(including Wal-Mart Super Centers, and Sam's Club Stores,
hereinafter collectively referred to as "Wal-Mart") for the
operation of their optometry practice in the State of Texas,
which has as a written lease term that provides for the hours
and days of operations of the Optometrists' practices.

The complaint further states, "There are questions of law and
fact common to the class and these questions predominate over
individual questions.  Such questions include, without
limitation, whether Defendant's common operating business
practices and procedures requiring optometrists to enter into
license or lease agreements for the lease of office space on
Wal-Mart's premises in Texas, contain terms in the lease or
license agreements scheduling the days and hours of an
optometrist's practice, and is done in a manner to pressure
optometrists to maintain specific days and hours of operation of
their practices, in violation of Tex. Occ. Code Section
351.408."  

It explains, "Tex. Occ. Code Section 351.408 makes it illegal
for manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of ophthalmic goods
from controlling or attempting to control the professional
judgment, manner of practice, or practice of an optometrist or
therapeutic optometrist, particularly by setting or attempting
to influence the office hours of an optometrist or therapeutic
optometrist."

Further more, the complaint states that plaintiff and the class
she represents seek:

      -- a declaration by this Court that the written leases and
         license agreements issued by Wal-Mart to optometrists
         who practice within the State of Texas which contain
         the hours and days of operation required of the
         optometrists, as well as Wal-Mart's policy of using
         this lease format in an institutional company and
         statewide process to effectively pressure optometrists
         to maintain specific days and hours of operation of
         their practices, to be in violation of Tex. Occ. Code
         Section 351.408;

      -- the issuance of an injunction against Wal-Mart Stores,
         Inc., requiring that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., cease now
         and for evermore the use of lease agreements which
         include written terms for optometrists leasing offices
         within the State of Texas from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
         that schedule or reference the days or hours of
         operations of the optometrists and which are used in a
         coercive manner to illegally influence the days and
         hours of operation of optometrists' practices in the
         State of Texas.  Furthermore, Plaintiff on her own
         behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
         requests that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., hereinafter be
         enjoined from attempting to enforce said days and hours
         of operation against optometrists and be prevented from
         threatening to terminate or refusing to renew said
         lease agreements upon expiration if an optometrist does
         not agree to include as a term of the lease agreement
         the amount of days and hours of operation of their
         practice.

      -- to recover the civil penalty allowed by law under Tex.
         Occ. Code Section 351.603(b), not to exceed a separate
         and distinct statutory penalty of $1,000 per day for
         each optometrist/member of the class for each day of
         Wal-Mart's violation against each optometrist/member of
         the class under Tex. Occ. Code Section 351.408.  

      -- to recover her costs of court and reasonable attorney's
         fees.   

The suit is "Forte v. Walmart Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00155," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas under Judge Hayden Head.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         J A Tony Canales, Esq.
         Canales & Simonson
         2601 Morgan Ave., PO Box 5624
         Corpus Christi, TX 78465
         Phone: 361-883-0601
         Fax: 361-884-7023
         E-mail: tonycanales@canalessimonson.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Jim E. Cowles, Esq.
         Cowles & Thompson
         901 Main St., Ste. 4000
         Dallas, TX 75202
         Phone: 214-672-2101
         Fax: 214-672-2301
         E-mail: jcowles@cowlesthompson.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


GREENFIELD ONLINE: Lerach Coughlin Files CT Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a
class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of purchasers of Greenfield Online Inc. common stock
between February 9, 2005 and September 30, 2005, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint charges Greenfield Online and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning Greenfield
Online, its business, operations and prospects. Unbeknownst to
shareholders, the true facts were:

     (i) that the Company was experiencing several adverse       
         trends in its core business which were negatively
         impacting its revenues and earnings and causing the
         Company to miss its internal performance expectations;

    (ii) that the Ciao AG acquisition was not a success as Ciao
         AG was not performing according to expectations; and

   (iii) that the Company was materially overvaluing Ciao AG and
         should have, but did not, write down the value of Ciao
         AG on its financial statements by tens of millions of
         dollars.

As a result, the Company lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements concerning the Company's earnings, prospects
and financial results.

On August 9, 2005, after the markets closed, Greenfield Online
announced that it was lowering its outlook on fiscal 2005. Upon
this news, on the next trading day, shares of the Company's
stock fell $3.31 per share, or 27%, to close at $8.94 per share,
on heavy trading volume. Then, on September 29, 2005, the
Company, for the second time, lowered its outlook for the 2005
third quarter and fiscal year.

Moreover, the Company announced that defendant Dean A. Wiltse,
the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, had left
the Company. In reaction to this announcement, shares of the
Company's stock fell $1.53 per share, or over 20%, to close at
$5.44 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased the common stock of Greenfield Online between February
9, 2005 and September 30, 2005.

Greenfield Online Inc. provides Internet survey and comparison
shopping solutions primarily in North America and Europe.

For more information contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Lerach Coughlin
          Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com
          Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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