CAR_Public/070730.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 30, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 148

                            Headlines


BOEING CO: Continues to Face Employment Discrimination Lawsuits
BOEING CO: Opposes Motion to Certify Ill. ERISA Violations Suit
COLDWATER CREEK: Recalls Shawl Collar Sweaters for Burn Hazard
DECORATED PACIFIER: Recalled on Failure to Meet Safety Test
EXELON CORP: Pension Plan Still Faces ERISA Litigation in Ill.

EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Ill. Tritium Suit
EXELON GENERATION: Faces Lawsuit Over Ill. Procurement Auction
GREAT ATLANTIC: N.Y. Court Certifies Employees’ Overtime Lawsuit
IMI CORNELIUS: Recalls Drink Dispensers to Replace Faulty Lamp
INDONESIA: Police Wants Suit Against Anti-Terror Squad Dismissed

INTERNATIONAL COAL: Lerach Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
KVH INDUSTRIES: Settles R.I. Securities Fraud, Derivative Suits
LYONDELL CHEMICAL: Labor Union Files Suit Over Basell Sale Deal
MISTER TRANSMISSION: Suit Aims to Recover Illegal Repair Charges
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Copper Tube Antitrust Lawsuits

MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Faces Copper Tubes Antitrust Suit in Cal.
REALTOR ESTATE COS: Md. Suit Alleges “Mortgage Rescue” Schemes
TENNESSEE: Education Dept. Accused of Discriminating Poor Kids
TORO COMPANY: Recalls Blowers with Impellers that Could Break
T. ROWE: High Court Ruling Might Affect “Parthasarathy” Lawsuit

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Cal. Trash Hauler Sued Over Garbage Lockout
21ST CENTURY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in Fla.
GP BIOTECH: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
GPC BIOTECH: Roy Jacobs Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


BOEING CO: Continues to Face Employment Discrimination Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. remains a defendant in two employment discrimination class
actions.

                       Williams Litigation

In the Williams racial discrimination class action, which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the company
prevailed in a jury trial in December 2005, but plaintiffs appealed the pre-
trial dismissal of compensation claims in November 2005.   

                       Calendar Litigation

In the Calender racial discrimination class action, which was filed in the
U.S. Northern District of Illinois -- a spin-off from Williams -- plaintiffs
dropped their promotions claim on June 6, 2006 and put their compensation
claims on hold pending the outcome of the Williams appeal.  

The company reported no development in the case at its July 25, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is an  
aerospace company that operates in six principal segments: Commercial
Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems, Network Systems, Support Systems,
Launch and Orbital Systems, and Boeing Capital Corp.  


BOEING CO: Opposes Motion to Certify Ill. ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. filed a motion opposing a request for class action
certification of a purported class action alleging it violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the company was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, which
was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated participants
and beneficiaries in the Boeing Company Voluntary Investment Plan, alleged
that fees and expenses incurred by the Plan were and are unreasonable and
excessive, not incurred solely for the benefit of the Plan and its
participants, and were undisclosed to participants.

The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and sought injunctive and
equitable relief pursuant to Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA.  

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which Boeing has
opposed, according to the company’s July 25, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2007.

Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is an  
aerospace company that operates in six principal segments: Commercial
Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems, Network Systems, Support Systems,
Launch and Orbital Systems, and Boeing Capital Corp.


COLDWATER CREEK: Recalls Shawl Collar Sweaters for Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coldwater Creek, of Sandpoint, Idaho, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,500 shawl collar sweaters.

The company said the sweaters fail to meet federal flammability requirements.
Should the sweater come in contact with an ignition source, such as a stove
burner, candle flame or cigarette lighter, it could catch fire and cause
serious burns to consumers.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Coldwater Creek shawl collar sweaters in red only. The
textured yarn sweaters were sold in sizes XS through 3X. A tag sewn into the
neck of the sweater displays the Coldwater Creek brand logo.

These recalled shawl collar sweaters were manufactured in Hong Kong and are
being sold by Coldwater Creek catalog and coldwatercreek.com from November
2006 through May 2007 for $62.

Picture of recalled shawl collar sweaters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07563.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop wearing the sweater and return it to Coldwater
Creek for a refund, including tax and postage. The company will provide
consumers with a $20 coupon towards another purchase.

For more information, consumers should contact Coldwater Creek at (800) 262-
0040 between 6 a.m. and 3 a.m. ET, or visit the firm’s Web site:
http://www.coldwatercreek.com.


DECORATED PACIFIER: Recalled on Failure to Meet Safety Test
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following companies, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, are recalling about 1,000 pacifiers decorated with crystals:

          -- Dara Linda’s Baby Bling and Jewelry Design, of
             Davie, Florida;

          -- Bling Toes, of Cherry Valley, Illinois;

          -- Baby Bling Things, of Appleton, Wisconsin;

          -- PeaNaPod Bling and Accessories, of Fort Wayne,
             Indiana; and

          -- MJM Crystal Designs, of Boca Raton, Florida.

The companies said these pacifiers fail to meet federal safety standards for
pacifiers. The pacifiers’ crystals can separate easily, posing an aspiration
and ingestion hazard to young children.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves pacifiers that were purchased from stores, decorated with
Swarovski crystals, then resold to consumers. The crystals were glued on the
pacifier's handle and guard. They come in different colors and designs. The
chart below lists additional information about the products sold.

Pictures of the recalled pacifiers, which were manufactured in the United
States:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07254a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07254b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07254c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07254d.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take these pacifiers away from young
children immediately and contact the firm for instructions on obtaining a
full refund.

For more information, contact:

          Dara Linda’s Baby Bling and Jewelry Design
          Phone: (954) 600-8988
          E-mail: lkkcreations@yahoo.com
          Website: http://www.jewelryandbabyblingbydara.com

          Bling Toes
          Phone: (815) 718-1280
          E-mail: april.marsh@insightbb.com
          Website: http://www.blingtoes.com
          
          Baby Bling Things
          Phone: (920) 832-9161
          E-mail: Blingthings4you@yahoo.com
          Website:  
                  http://www.myspace.com/babyblingthingsbowtique

          PeaNapod Bling and Accessories
          Phone: (260) 422-3630
          E-mail: cjehyde@verizon.net

          - and -

          MJM Crystal Designs
          Phone: (561) 715-9591
          E-mail: realta@aol.com


EXELON CORP: Pension Plan Still Faces ERISA Litigation in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan remains a defendant in a purported
class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

On July 11, 2006, a former employee of Commonwealth Edison Co. filed the
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that the Plan, which covers certain management
employees of Exelon’s subsidiaries, calculates lump sum distributions in a
manner that does not comply with ERISA.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory relief from the Plan on behalf of
participants who received lump sum distributions since 2001 and injunctive
relief with respect to future lump sum distributions.

The company reported no development in the case at its July 25, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “Fry v. Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan, Case No. 1:06-cv-
03723,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge William T. Hart.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         George A. Zelcs, Esq.
         Korein Tillery
         205 N. Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 641-9750
         E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com

Representing the defendants is:

         William F. Conlon, Esq.
         Sidley Austin LLP
         One South Dearborn Street
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 853-7000
         E-mail: wconlon@sidley.com


EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Ill. Tritium Suit  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action over tritium ground water
contamination in Exelon Corp.’s Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant have
voluntarily dismissed their case.

Exelon is accused of spilling more than six million gallons of tritium-laced
water from its Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant into the surrounding community
over a 10-year period and of failing to notify residents and regulatory
officials.

On March 13, 2006, a class action was filed against Exelon Corp., Exelon
Generation Co. and Commonwealth Edison Co., (as the prior owner of Braidwood)
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all
persons who live or own property within 10 miles of Braidwood.

Initially, the plaintiffs primarily sought compensation for diminished
property values, but in February 2007, they amended their complaint to seek
punitive damages.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the
class action status of the lawsuit on March 19, 2007.

Plaintiffs requested reconsideration and sought certification of a class of
approximately 200 persons whose property allegedly had tritium at levels
below detection level, along with a class of adjacent property owners
(unspecified in number) that had allegedly been affected by tritium from the
plant.

On June 8, 2007, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit with
prejudice, according to the company’s July 25, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2007.

The suit is "Duffin et al. v. Exelon Corp. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01382,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge Suzanne B. Conlon.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas Evans Sakellariou, Esq.
         McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner, Buck, Hutchison & Ruttle
         2455 Glenwood Avenue
         Joliet, IL 60432
         Phone: (815) 729-4800


EXELON GENERATION: Faces Lawsuit Over Ill. Procurement Auction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Generation Co. was named a defendant in purported class action filed
in Illinois state court over the state’s procurement auction.

On March 28, 2007 and March 30, 2007, class actions were filed in Illinois
state court against Commonwealth Edison Co. and Exelon Generation Co. as well
as the other suppliers in the Illinois procurement auction, claiming that the
suppliers manipulated the auction and that the resulting wholesale prices are
unlawfully high.

Exelon Corp. -- http://www.exeloncorp.com/-- is a utility services holding  
company.  The Company operates through its principal subsidiaries: Exelon
Generation Co., LLC, Commonwealth Edison Co., and PECO Energy Co.  
Generation’s business consists of its owned and contracted electric
generating facilities, its wholesale energy marketing operations and its
retail sales operations.  

ComEd’s energy delivery business consists of the purchase, and regulated
retail and wholesale sale of electricity, and the provision of distribution
and transmission services to retail and wholesale customers in northern
Illinois, including the City of Chicago.  PECO’s energy delivery business
consists of the purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity, and the
provision of distribution and transmission services to retail customers in
southeastern Pennsylvania, including the City of Philadelphia.


GREAT ATLANTIC: N.Y. Court Certifies Employees’ Overtime Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York certified a class of plaintiffs in
a suit filed against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. on behalf of
former employees of the supermarkets it operates.

On June 24, 2004, a class-action complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York against The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., d/b/a
A&P, The Food Emporium and Waldbaum's, alleging violations of the overtime
provisions of the New York Labor Law.

Three named plaintiffs, Benedetto Lamarca, Dolores Guiddy, and Stephen
Tedesco, alleged on behalf of a class that the Company failed to pay overtime
wages to full-time hourly employees who were either required or permitted to
work more than 40 hours per week.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. In July
2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and certified the class as
follows:

     * All full-time hourly employees of Defendants who were
       employed in Defendants' supermarket stores located in the
       State of New York, for any of the period from June 24,
       1998 through the date of the commencement of the action,
       whom Defendants required or permitted to perform work in
       excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime
       wages.

The Court also ruled that the issue of whether to include an “opt-in” or “opt-
out” provision is premature and can be decided after discovery has been had.

As class certification was granted only recently, and as discovery on the
prospective plaintiffs comprising the class has yet to be conducted, neither
the number of class participants nor the sufficiency of their respective
claims can be determined at this time.

For more details, contact:

         Rachel Geman, Esq.
         Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 355-9500
         E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com

              - and -

         Adam T. Klein, Esq.
         Outten & Golden LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 245-1000
         E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com


IMI CORNELIUS: Recalls Drink Dispensers to Replace Faulty Lamp
--------------------------------------------------------------
IMI Cornelius, of Osseo, Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 8,000 frozen carbonated drink
dispensers, with 990 of the same units previously recalled.

The company said a problem with the dispenser’s florescent lamp can cause
electrical arcing, which poses a fire hazard to consumers.

IMI Cornelius has received five reports of smoldering or fire involving the
dispenser’s florescent lamp. No injuries or property damage have been
reported.

The frozen drink dispensers have two or four dispensing valves and are made
of stainless steel with various color combinations. Serial numbers starting
with 62xxxxxxxx are included in this recall. The serial number
and “Cornelius,” “FCB” and “Pinnacle” are printed on the unit’s right side
panel.

These recalled frozen carbonated drink dispensers were manufactured in the
United States and are being sold to fast-food restaurants, discount
department stores, movie theaters and convenience stores nationwide from
November 2001 through June 2007 for between $6,000 and $7,000 for the two-
valve dispensers, and between $10,000 and $12,000 for the four-valve
dispensers.

Pictures of the recalled frozen carbonated drink dispensers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07564a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07564b.jpg

Customers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled dispensers
unless the florescent lamp has been removed. IMI Cornelius is contacting
customers directly and is providing a free replacement light assembly. The
company will send a representative to install the replacement light assembly
free of charge, or provide the owners with a modification and instruction kit.

For additional information, call IMI Cornelius at (800) 238-3600, extension
5, between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.cornelius.com.


INDONESIA: Police Wants Suit Against Anti-Terror Squad Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesia's National Police attempted to have a lawsuit asking the Indonesian
government to dissolve a special anti-terror team that has taken into custody
hundreds of terrorist suspects thrown out of court on technical grounds, the
AAP News reports.

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

The suit alleges discrimination by the squad, with only Muslims targeted,
alongside claims Detachment 88 members have tortured suspects.

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

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

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

Last week, lawyer Rudy Heriyanto handed up the National Police Chief's
written argument to the South Jakarta District Court, arguing the case didn't
meet the technical requirements of a class action.

"A class action can only be done in ... environmental management and consumer
protection (matters)," the document says.  "This class action is absolutely
inapplicable."

Mr. Bashir did not attend last week’s hearing, which lasted less than five
minutes, according to the report.

The court will resume hearing the case this week.


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Lerach Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP is lead counsel in a class
action commenced on behalf of institutional investors in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against International Coal
Group, Inc.

The Court appointed the City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System and
AIP Alternative Strategies Funds-Alpha Hedged Strategies Fund as co-lead
plaintiffs.

In April, the law firm commenced the suit on behalf of all persons who
acquired International Coal Group, Inc. common stock in connection with and
traceable to ICG's common stock offerings which took place on or about Nov.
21, 2005 and Dec. 7 to 8, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, April 10, 2007).

The complaint charges ICG and certain of its officers and directors and its
underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

Further, the complaint alleges that in November and December 2005, ICG
undertook two integrated stock transactions involving Registration Statements
filed and effective with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Offerings were mutually interdependent. The statements in the November
and December 2005 Registration Statements concerning the company's business,
the strength of its management team, its safety and maintenance practices,
its ability to capitalize on favorable market conditions, its ability to
deliver optimum selections of coal to meet increasing demand, and its
acquisition of the Anker Coal Co. and company reorganization were all false
and misleading when made.

In fact, the company was suffering from serious shortfalls in its maintenance
and safety procedures, its mines were ill-equipped, as were its miners, the
Anker acquisition had been a mistake, saddling the company with outmoded and
dangerous mining operations, the company's top management team was distracted
by work involved in the November 2005 reorganization and December 2005
offering and the company would be unable to produce sufficient amounts of
coal in desired mixes to meet its revenue and earnings and production
forecasts.

After the November and December 2005 Registration Statements became
effective, information entered the marketplace in a series of company-
specific negative revelations contradicting the prior representations made
and demonstrating the falsity of the Registration Statements.

As a result, the company's stock price declined sharply, damaging Class
members who purchased the stock issued by the company in the Offerings.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all persons who acquired ICG
common stock in connection with and traceable to ICG's common stock offerings
in November and December 2005.  The Class Period is Nov. 18, 2005 to Oct. 4,
2006.

ICG is a coal producer with operations in West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland
and Illinois.

For more information, contact:

          William Lerach
          Darren Robbins
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com
          Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com


KVH INDUSTRIES: Settles R.I. Securities Fraud, Derivative Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
KVH Industries, Inc., has reached definitive agreements to settle securities
class action claims filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Rhode Island against the company and certain of its officers in 2004 on
behalf of a class of KVH shareholders, as well as two related derivative
lawsuits filed by KVH shareholders against certain of KVH's directors and
officers.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlements, plaintiffs and their attorneys will
receive an aggregate cash payment of $5.3 million, all of which will be paid
by KVH's insurance carrier.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that statute, as well as claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf
of purchasers of the company's securities in the period Oct. 1, 2003 and July
2, 2004 and seeks certain legal remedies, including compensatory damages
(Class Action Reporter, April 3, 2007).

The Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan has been appointed lead plaintiff in
the case.  This matter consolidates into one action eight separate complaints
filed between July 24, 2004 and Sept. 15, 2004.

On Jan. 14, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  The
court denied this motion in part and granted it in part (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 9, 2005).

On Oct. 14, 2005, the defendants answered the consolidated complaint and
denied liability and all allegations of wrongdoing.  

Under the recent settlement, KVH also agreed to adopt, formalize, or
reconfirm adherence to certain corporate governance policies and practices.

The settlements are subject to notice to shareholders and approval by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island and the Rhode Island
Superior Court.

"KVH is pleased to have reached this settlement in order to avoid the time
and expense involved in proceeding to trial. It is also important to note
that, under the terms of the settlement, KVH does not admit to any wrongdoing
by the company or its officers," said Patrick Spratt, KVH's chief financial
officer.

The suit is "Sekuk Global, et al. v. KVH Industries, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-00306-ML," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island, under Judge Mary M Lisi.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Matthew F. Medeiros
          Little, Medeiros, Kinder, Bulman & Whitney
          72 Pine St., 5th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903
          Phone: 401-272-8080
          Fax: 401-521-3555
          
          - and -

          Barry J. Kusinitz
          155 South Main St., Suite 405
          Providence, RI 02903
          Phone: 401-831-4200
          Fax: 401-831-7053

Representing the company are:

          John H. Henn
          Kalun Lee
          Brandon F. White
          Foley Hoag LLP
          155 Seaport Boulevard
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: 617-832-1000
          Fax: 617-832-7000
           
          - and -

          Brooks R. Magratten
          Benjamin V. White III
          Vetter & White, Incorporated
          20 Washington Place
          Providence, RI 02903
          Phone: 401-421-3060
          Fax: 401-272-6803


LYONDELL CHEMICAL: Labor Union Files Suit Over Basell Sale Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labor union pension fund Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 filed a suit in
the state District Court in Harris County seeking to block Lyondell Chemical
Co.’s sale for what it said is too low a price, The Houston Chronicle reports.

According to the report, Dutch chemical company Basell Holdings -- which is
owned by billionaire industrialist Leonard Blavatnik's Access Industries --
offered more than $12 billion in cash for Lyondell, one of the nation's
largest chemical makers.

The offer equates to $48 per share, which was 20% higher than Lyondell's
stock price on July 16, the day before the deal was announced.

The purchase price is 45% higher than Lyondell's closing price on May 10, a
day before Access Industries disclosed an option to buy about 8 percent of
the Houston firm, the report said.

But the pension fund said in the suit the company had an obligation to
shareholders to make a deal that delivered maximum returns.

The pension fund claims the company and its board could have done more to
find a better price, but instead rushed to accept an offer by Basell.

"The proposed acquisition offer does not adequately value Lyondell and the
synergies that will result from the proposed acquisition," the lawsuit said.

The pension fund is seeking class-action status on behalf of Lyondell
stockholders.

Basell is the world's largest producer of polypropylene and Europe's largest
producer of polyethylene, both key ingredients in plastics. Lyondell is the
fourth-largest U.S. chemical maker and manufactures propylene that Basell
needs to make its biggest product, polypropylene resin.


MISTER TRANSMISSION: Suit Aims to Recover Illegal Repair Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mister Transmission (International) Ltd. is facing a class action alleging it
and related companies violated consumer protection laws and charged illegal
estimate fees to consumers.

Repair shops often ask for a fee to inspect a vehicle that is in need of
repair and to give an estimate of the full cost of repair. However, consumer
protection laws in Ontario prohibit repair shops from charging estimate fees
if they go on to carry out actual repairs.

The lawsuit alleges that Mister Transmission charged illegal estimate fees of
$550 plus taxes to consumers who had transmissions fixed at its repair
centers.

The lawsuit was filed by Brenda Osler. Ms. Osler took her minivan to Mister
Transmission when the transmission failed. Mister Transmission charged her a
fee for inspecting her vehicle to estimate the cost of repairs and replaced
her transmission. Ms. Osler is represented by lawyers Glyn Hotz, Darrel Hotz
and Brian Osler.

"The law is quite clear as to when estimate fees are illegal," says Mr.
Hotz. "A repair shop cannot charge a fee for figuring out what is wrong with
a car and estimating the cost of repair if the work is actually carried out."

The lawsuit seeks recovery of estimate fees paid to Mister Transmission on
behalf of Ontario consumers who had repairs carried out by the company and
its franchisees. "Consumer protection laws allow consumers to get their money
back when illegal charges are imposed by vehicle repair shops," says Mr.
Osler. "Any illegal charges have to be returned to the people who paid them."

For more information, contact:

          Glyn Hotz
          Barrister & Solicitor
          Phone: (416) 785-7883
          E-mail: hotz@sympatico.ca

          - and -

          Brian Osler
          Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public
          Phone: (905) 882-7045
          E-mail: brian@geodesic.ca


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Copper Tube Antitrust Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries, Inc. remains a defendant in several purported antitrust
class actions with regards to copper tube, according to the company’s July
25, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006.

Beginning in September 2004, the Company has been named as a defendant in
several purported class action complaints brought by direct and indirect
purchasers alleging anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of
copper tubes in the U.S.

Two such purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee.  The remaining suits were filed in state
courts in Tennessee, California and Massachusetts.

Certain of the suits purport to address the sale of copper plumbing tube in
particular.  

Plaintiffs' motions to consolidate the Federal Actions and the actions
pending in California state court, respectively, have been granted.  

All of the suits, which are similar, seek monetary and other relief.

Wholly owned Company subsidiaries, WTC Holding Company, Inc., Deno Holding
Company, Inc., and Mueller Europe Ltd. (Mueller Europe), are named in all of
the suits, and Deno Acquisition Eurl is or was named in two of the actions,
but has not been, or was not, served with the complaints in those actions.  

The claims against WTC Holding Company, Inc. and Deno Holding Company Inc.
have been dismissed without prejudice in the suits pending in California and
Massachusetts state courts.

In September 2006, the Federal Actions were dismissed as to Mueller Europe
for lack of personal jurisdiction.  In October 2006, the Federal Actions were
dismissed in their entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to all
defendants.  

Although plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of
Mueller Europe, the court has held that such motion was mooted by its
dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  

Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing the
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the court denied in
May 2007.  

In June 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Federal Actions with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Company, WTC Holding
Company, Inc., Deno Holding Company, Inc., and Mueller Europe filed notices
of cross-appeal in July 2007.

In May 2007, before either the Company or Mueller Europe had been required to
respond to the complaint in the Massachusetts state court action, the court
overseeing the Massachusetts state court action granted plaintiffs' voluntary
motion to dismiss that action without prejudice.

The Company's demurrer to the complaint and the Company's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim have been filed in the state court actions filed
in California and Tennessee, respectively.  

Mueller Europe has not yet been required to respond to the complaints in any
of the state court actions pending in Tennessee or California.  

The court overseeing the California state court action has stayed that action
conditioned upon the parties' submitting periodic status reports on the
status of the Federal Actions.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--is a  
manufacturer of copper, brass, plastic, and aluminum products.  The range of
these products include copper tube and fittings; brass and copper alloy rod,
bar, and shapes; aluminum and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact
extrusions; plastic fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings,
and fabricated tubular products.

The Company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves,
malleable iron fittings, steel nipples, faucets and plumbing specialty
products.  The Company's businesses are operated in two reportable segments:
the Plumbing & Refrigeration segment and the Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEM) segment.  The Plumbing & Refrigeration segment is composed of the
Standard Products Division, European Operations, and Mexican Operations. The
OEM segment is composed of the Industrial Products Division and Engineered
Products Division.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Faces Copper Tubes Antitrust Suit in Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries, Inc., Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Company, Inc., Deno
Holding Company, Inc., and Deno Acquisition Eurl are named in a purported
class action in relation to anticompetitive activities with respect to the
sale of ACR copper tubes.

The suit was filed by indirect purchasers in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The suit alleges anticompetitive activities with respect to plumbing tubes as
well as ACR copper tubes.  The Company,
Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Company, Inc., and Deno Holding Company, Inc.
have been served, but have not yet been required to respond, in the suit.

The suit is “Carpinelli et al. v. Boliden AB et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-04528-
MJJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Monique Alonso, Esq.
         Gross & Belsky, LLP
         180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415/544-0200
         Fax: 415/544-0201

Representing the defendant is:

         Thomas Edward Wallerstein, Esq.
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP
         555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560
         Redwood Shores, CA 94065
         Phone: 650-801-5000
         Fax: 650-801-5100
         E-mail: tomwallerstein@quinnemanuel.com


REALTOR ESTATE COS: Md. Suit Alleges “Mortgage Rescue” Schemes
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed July 24 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland accuses:

          -- Metropolitan Money Store Corp.;  
          -- Fordham and Fordham Investment Group, Ltd.;  
          -- RTE Title & Escrow, LLC;  
          -- Sussex Title, LLC;  
          -- Diane Linda Jones;    
          -- Leticia Nicholls;    
          -- Jamie Armand Clark;    
          -- Joy Jenis Jackson;    
          -- Kurt Fordham;    
          -- Alexander Jamil Chaudhry;    
          -- Valerina Tomlin;    
          -- Jennifer McCall;    
          -- Southern Title Insurance Corp.; and    
          -- Chicago Title Insurance Co.

of defrauding people in “mortgage rescue” schemes.

The scheme allegedly started with a massive advertising campaign on
television, radio, print and in the public right-of-ways using Metropolitan
to find homeowners in distress -- especially targeting African American
homeowners. The ads encouraged the homeowners facing foreclosure or potential
foreclosure to call Metropolitan for help with their financial situation.

So-called real estate investor wannabes, a/k/a "Straw Buyers", who were
complicit in the scheme, loaned their credit to fund the scam so that the
real estate professionals could reduce their personal liability and create a
transaction on paper which appear legitimate but was actually an elaborate
scheme to defraud homeowners and the community.

As a result of the scheme, many homeowners are now allegedly threatened with
loss of their home in tens or hundreds of pending foreclosures that, upon
information and belief, involve loans funded as a direct and proximate result
of New Century Mortgage's lose if not non-existent underwriting standards.

The suit further alleges that defendants have engaged in willful, systemic
and widespread violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and as to the
plaintiffs and other class members residing in Maryland, the emergency
legislation known as the Protection of Homeowners in Foreclosure Act (PHIFA).

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all homeowners who entered into an
agreement with Jackson, McCall or Mr. Fordham, directly or through
Metropolitan and Fordham, and the transaction resulted in a transfer of the
title to their principal residence to a third person with whom Jackson,
McCall or Mr. Fordham, directly through Metropolitan and Fordham had an
agreement to have an interest in the transferred property, and where the
property transfer was settled by RTE or Sussex or other affiliates of
Metropolitan.

The purported class wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the actions of RTE, Sussex and their principals
         Southern and Chicago violated RESPA;

     (b) whether the defendants, Jackson, McCall and Mr.
         Fordham, using Metropolitan and Fordham, engaged in a
         pattern of racketeering;

     (c) whether the defendants, Jackson, McCall and Mr.
         Fordham, using Metropolitan and Fordham, engaged in the
         collection of unlawful debt;

     (d) whether RTE, Sussex and their principals Southern and
         Chicago breached duties to plaintiffs and members of
         the class, causing them damages;

     (e) whether the acts of the defendants caused damages to
         the plaintiffs and members of the class;

     (f) whether the PHIFA applies to the transactions involving
         plaintiffs and the members of the class who reside in
         Maryland;

     (g) whether Jackson, McCall, Mr. Fordham, Metropolitan and
         Fordham are foreclosure consultants under the PHIFA;

     (h) whether Jackson, McCall and Mr. Fordham, using
         Metropolitan and Fordham, are foreclosure purchasers
         and/or affiliated with foreclosure purchasers;

     (i) whether Jackson, McCall and Mr. Fordham, using
         Metropolitan and Fordham, Ms. Jones, Ms. Nicholls and           
         John Does 1-50 made the written disclosures and gave
         plaintiffs and members of the class the written notices
         required under the PHIFA;

     (j) whether the deeds to the properties of plaintiffs and
         members of the class obtained by Ms. Jones, Ms.
         Nicholls and John Does 1-50 are void as in violation of
         public policy as set forth in the PHIFA;

     (k) whether RTE, Sussex and their principals Southern and
         Chicago knew or should have known of the scheme of
         Jackson, McCall and Mr. Fordham, using Metropolitan and
         Fordham, and their straw purchasers which was in
         violation of the PPHIFA;

     (l) whether RTE, Sussex and their principals Southern and
         Chicago breached duties to plaintiffs and members of
         the class, causing them damages; and

     (m) whether RTE, Sussex and their principals Southern and
         Chicago had a duty to inquire to determine whether the
         transactions of plaintiffs and members of the class
         complied with the PHIFA.

Plaintiffs request:

     -- certification of the defined class;

     -- appointment of plaintiffs as class representatives;

     -- appointment of plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;

     -- an award consisting of a trebling of the damages
        suffered by the plaintiffs and the other members of the
        class against the RICO defendants, jointly and
        severally, as a result of the other members of the RICO           
        violations as set forth, including the amounts
        improperly paid to the "Foreclosure Reversal Program"
        with respect to their mortgage loan transactions;

     -- pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Section 2607(d)(2), an amount
        equal to three times the amount of any and all payments
        to Ms. Jackson, Ms. McCall, and Mr. Fordham, using
        Metropolitan and Fordham, Nicholls, Jones, John Does 1-
        50, RTE, and/or Sussex in respect of each mortgage loan,
        as well as any and all other amounts or damages allowed
        to be recovered by RESPA including the equity stripped
        from the class members properties for excessive non-bona
        fide services and not actually made in accordance with
        the transactions HUD-1 Settlement statement, to be paid
        by the aforesaid defendants jointly and severally;

     -- an award of compensatory damages in the amount of the
        equity taken from the residences of plaintiffs and the
        other members of the class against the defendants,
        jointly and severally;

     -- pursuant to PHIFA for the plaintiffs and Maryland
        subclass members, an award against the defendants,
        jointly and severally, equal to up to three times the
        amount of any and all damages due to the defendants'
        willful conduct;

     -- an award against RTE and Sussex for their gross
        negligence, in an amount to be determined at trial, but
        in no event less than the total equity of the
        plaintiffs' and class members plus punitive damages in
        the amount of three times the plaintiffs' and class
        members lost equity in their properties;

     -- an award against Southern in the amount of any and all
        awards made against Mr. Chaudhry and/or Sussex, pursuant
        to respondent superior liability;

     -- an award against Chicago in the amount of any and all
        awards made against Ms. Tomlin and/or RTE, pursuant to
        respondent superior liability;

     -- a declaration that the deeds from plaintiffs and
        Maryland subclass members to any straw buyers, obtained
        and filed violation of PHIFA, are void;

     -- a declaration that any encumbrances incurred by the
        straw purchasers based on the illegally recorded deed
        are void;

     -- an injunction prohibiting Ms. Jones, Ms. Nicholls and
        John Does 1-50 from transferring or otherwise
        encumbering the properties of plaintiffs and Maryland
        subclass members;

     -- awn award of pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
        attorney's fees as permitted under the PHIFA in favor of
        plaintiffs and the Maryland subclass members; and

     -- such other and further relief as the nature of the
        case may require.

The suit is “Proctor et al. v. Metropolitan Money Store Corp. et al., Case
No. 8:07-cv-01957-RWT,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland under Judge Roger W. Titus.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Scott C. Borison
          Janet Sue Legg
          Legg Law Firm LLC
          5500 Buckeystown Pike
          Frederick, MD 21703
          Phone: 13016201016
          Fax: 13016201018
          E-mail: borison@legglaw.com or legg@legglaw.com

          Benjamin Howard Carney
          Peter A. Holland
          The Holland Law Firm PC
          Clock Tower Place
          1410 Forest Dr Ste 21
          Annapolis, MD 21403
          Phone: 14102806133
          Fax: 14102808650
          E-mail: ben@hollandlawfirm.com or
                  peter@hollandlawfirm.com

          - and -

          Phillip R. Robinson
          Civil Justice Inc
          520 W Fayette St Ste 410
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Phone: 14107060174
          Fax: 14107063196
          E-mail: probinson@civiljusticenetwork.org


TENNESSEE: Education Dept. Accused of Discriminating Poor Kids
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Department of Education is facing a class-action complaint
filed July 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, accusing it of unconstitutional discrimination, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Latricia Wilson and Courtney Robinson allege the department
discriminates against poor children and kids with learning disabilities by
refusing to grant them high school diplomas if they fail any section of
the “Gateway” exam, even though they have completed all their class work.

Students who do not pass all sections of the exam are given a “special
diploma” which harms their employment opportunities, the suit states.  Rich
kids can avoid the requirement by going to a private school, but poor kids
have no alternatives to public education.

Plaintiffs claim the state policy, instituted in school year 2001-02, denies
them due process.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 USC 1983, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution, and 20 USC 1412 of the Individuals With Disabilities Act.

They demand $60 million in damages for the thousands of kids affected, “less
oppressive and intrusive” graduation assessments, and court monitoring.

They also claim they were denied an adequate education because the schools
they attended were cited for failing to meet requirements of the No Child
Left Behind Act.

Plaintiffs pray:

     -- that the court certifies the class of public school
        students and all appropriate subclasses;

     -- that the court declares that the Defendant has violated
        the constitutional and statutory rights of the
        Plaintiffs and class members, and find the Defendant
        liable for damages in the amount of $60,000,000;

     -- That injunction be entered enjoining the Defendant from
        carrying out the current manner in which it assesses
        high school students for graduation, until such time as
        a less oppressive and intrusive means can be adopted;

     -- That the court oversee and monitor remedial efforts to
        modify and correct the manner in which assessments are
        conducted and that such monitoring continue until such
        time as the said violations are eliminated; and

     -- That the court awards the Plaintiffs and class members
        any other such relief as the court deems appropriate.

The suit is “Wilson et al v. Tennessee Department of Education, Case No. 2:07-
cv-02490-SHM-dkv,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee, under Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr., with referral to Judge Diane
K. Vescovo.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Javier M. Bailey
          Walter Bailey & Associates
          100 North Main St., Ste. 3002
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Phone: 901-575-8702
          E-mail: javierbailey@gmail.com


TORO COMPANY: Recalls Blowers with Impellers that Could Break
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Co., of Bloomington, Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 900,000 Toro Power
Sweep Electric Blowers.

The company said the blower’s impeller, which is a rotating component on the
blower, can break, resulting in pieces of plastic flying out of the blower.
This poses a risk of serious injury to the user or a bystander.

Toro has received 154 reports of broken impellers, including 21 reports of
minor cuts and bruises resulting from projected impeller pieces.

The recall involves Toro Power Sweep electric blower model 51586 that was
manufactured between 2000 and 2002. The electric blowers have serial numbers
that range between 000055100 and 220255609. There are two decals on the main
housing of the blower. One decal reads, “TORO Power Sweep” and the decal on
the opposite side of the blower contains the model number and serial number.
The recalled units can be identified by a black impeller fan, which can be
seen through the air inlet screen on the bottom of the unit.

These recalled power sweep electric blowers were manufactured in the United
States and are being sold through Toro dealers and various mass retailers
nationwide including The Home Depot, Lowes, Target and K-Mart stores from
January 2000 through late December 2002 for about $32.

Pictures of the recalled power sweep electric blowers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07253a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07253b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled blowers immediately and
contact Toro to receive a replacement blower.

For more information, contact Toro at (888) 279-3191 between 7:30 a.m. and 7
p.m. CT Monday through Friday or 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Saturday. Consumers can
also visit the Toro web site: http://www.toro.com.The Toro Company has  
notified registered owners directly.


T. ROWE: High Court Ruling Might Affect “Parthasarathy” Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in another
case could apply to a suit pending against the company in Illinois state
court, according to the company’s July 25, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2006.

In September 2003, a purported class action, “T.K. Parthasarathy, et al.,
including Woodbury, v. T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc., et al.,” was
filed in the Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois,
against:

     * T. Rowe Price International, and the
     * T. Rowe Price International Funds

with respect to the T. Rowe Price International Stock Fund.

The basic allegations in the case were that the T. Rowe Price defendants did
not make appropriate price adjustments to the foreign securities owned by the
T. Rowe Price International Stock Fund prior to calculating the Fund’s daily
share prices, thereby allegedly enabling market timing traders to trade the
Fund’s shares in such a way as to disadvantage long-term investors.

Following three years of procedural litigation in State and Federal courts,
the case has been remanded to the State Court.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in a similar case holding that
actions such as this one are barred by a federal preemption statute and may
not be maintained as class actions under state law, it seems clear that,
substantively, class actions such as this one may not be maintained in either
federal court or state court.

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. -- http://www.troweprice.com-- is a financial  
services holding company that provides investment advisory services to
individual and institutional investors in the sponsored T. Rowe Price mutual
funds and other investment portfolios.  

The Company operates its investment advisory business through its subsidiary
companies, primarily T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price
International Funds, Inc. and T. Rowe Price Global Investment Services
Limited.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Cal. Trash Hauler Sued Over Garbage Lockout
-------------------------------------------------------------
Castro Valley (Cal.) woman Cindy Simons filed a class action against Waste
Management of Alameda over the garbage lockout that has affected trash
collections in the East Bay, Chris Metinko of the Contra Costa Times reports.

The lockout affects about 200,000 Waste Management customers in Oakland,
Emeryville, San Ramon, Livermore, Albany, Hayward, Newark, Castro Valley and
Oro Loma sanitary districts and some unincorporated areas.  The suit was
filed in Alameda County Superior Court.

Many areas have complained of scattered trash collections since the lockout
began, despite the company's reassurance it is back up to full speed with
replacement workers.

Last week, Judge Richard Keller of the Alameda County Superior Court issued
an injunction compelling the garbage hauler to pick up trash in the city.

The lawsuit claims the company continued to take payments from residents when
it was not providing trash collection service. It further claims the company
breached its contact and broke state business codes.  It seeks reimbursement
for money already paid to Waste Management as well as damages.

Plaintiffs’ counsel:

          Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
          1438 Market Street
          San Francisco, California 94102
          Phone: 415.896.1000
          Fax: 415.896.2249
          Email: contact@libertylaw.com


              New Securities Fraud Suit Cases


21ST CENTURY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
21st Century Holding Company (Nasdaq:TCHC) between October 3, 2006 and May 3,
2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges 21st Century and certain of the Company's executive
officers with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and S.E.C. Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder. Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and prospects caused 21st Century's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

The Complaint further alleges that during the Class Period defendants
reported the Company's financial results in a positive manner and issued
positive financial guidance touting the Company's purportedly strong
financial performance and prospects. Defendants, however, failed to fully
disclose, and their assertions misleadingly failed to take into account:

     (i) the negative effect on the Company's financial
         performance and prospects resulting from their decision
         to increase loss reserves through the hiring of new
         actuaries;

    (ii) the increased competition from the state-backed
         Citizens Property Insurance Corp.; and

   (iii) the impact of increased reinsurance rates, and as a
         result of the foregoing, during the Class Period
         Defendants made false and misleading statements of
         present fact and financial guidance which
         misrepresented 21st Century's business and financial
         performance.

On May 3, 2007, 21st Century shocked the market when it announced
disappointing financial results for the first quarter of 2007 and
substantially lowered its previously issued guidance for 2007 from $4.50 per
share to $2.00 to $2.50 per share. The May 3, 2007 press release also
reported that prepaid reinsurance premiums had grown from $8,671,572 in the
first quarter of 2006 to $16,972,078 in the first quarter of 2007. Loss and
loss adjustment expenses had increased from $7,568,843 to $14,102,655 during
that same period. In a conference call that day, the Company's CFO attributed
the disappointing quarterly results, which were below market expectations, to
the increased cost of reinsurance.

This negative news caused the Company's share price to plunge the next day by
$8.94 -- a drop of more than 44% from the previous day's closing price of
$19.11, to close on May 4, 2007, at $11.05 per share on extremely heavy
volume of over two million shares traded.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 25, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

21st Century is an insurance holding company that engages in insurance
underwriting, distribution and claims processing, primarily in the United
States. The Company is authorized through its wholly owned subsidiaries to
underwrite homeowners' property and casualty insurance, commercial general
liability insurance, and personal automobile insurance in various states with
various lines of authority.

For more information, contact:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Website: http://www.glancylaw.com


GP BIOTECH: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP commenced a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of
all persons who purchased or acquired securities of GPC Biotech AG between
December 5, 2005 and July 24, 2007 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of
the federal securities laws, by issuing a series of materially false public
statements during the Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price
of GPC Biotech securities.

GPC Biotech had spent years attempting to successfully develop it key drug
Satraplatin, an oral drug therapy whose goal is to increase overall survival
rates, reduce pain, and produce "progression free survival" for advanced
prostate cancer patients, and needed to convince investors and collaboration
partners who were funding the Company each year that it was making
substantial progress toward Satraplatin's "early" FDA approval to obtain
continued funding.

However, unbeknownst to public investors, the Phase 3 trial that needed to be
conducted for Satraplatin was deeply flawed and employed improper methods for
measuring Satraplatin's efficacy. The defendants knew of these gross
irregularities not only because of their substantial experience in
pharmaceutical development and testing, but also because (as was revealed at
the end of the Class Period) they were specifically warned by FDA
representatives during Satraplatin's development phase that they were
deviating from accepted methodologies, and that the "endpoint" they had
selected was one with which the FDA was "unfamiliar" and had "no prior
experience." Thus Defendants knew that there was a very substantial chance
that the FDA would not approve the drug.

Defendants stayed silent about the adverse facts regarding Satraplatin and
its unapproved endpoint methodology until they were forced to address them
due to FDA disclosures. On May 15, 2007, the Company announced that the FDA
would consider approval of Satraplatin at a meeting scheduled for July 24,
2007.

On July 24, 2007, the FDA announced that its oncology panel had unanimously
recommended against the approval of Satraplatin. The committee said the FDA
had no prior experience with that type of endpoint, an issue which
was "clearly communicated" to GPC Biotech while the drug was in development.

In reaction to these unexpected revelations, GPC Biotech stock fell $7.20 on
July 25, 2007 to close at $13.16.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired GPC Biotech securities during the Class Period, December
5, 2005 and July 24, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Susan Lee
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 (Toll Free)
          E-mail: slee@abbeyspanier.com or
                  nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com


GPC BIOTECH: Roy Jacobs Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased
or acquired securities of GPC Biotech AG between Dec. 5, 2005 and July 24,
2007 inclusive.

The Complaint, brought against the Company and three of its executive
officers, alleges that Defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the
federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false public
disclosures during the Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price
of GPC Biotech securities.

GPC Biotech has spent several years attempting to successfully develop its
key drug Satraplatin, and needed to convince investors who were funding the
Company that it was making substantial progress toward Satraplatin's "early"
approval in order to obtain continued funding.

However, the required Satraplatin Phase 3 drug trial employed improper
methods for measuring whether Satraplatin was effective. The Defendants knew
this since they were experienced in pharmaceutical development and testing.
Moreover, Defendants were specifically warned by FDA representatives in
connection with the Phase 3 trial that the protocols to be used were
deviating from accepted methodologies. Thus Defendants knew that there was a
very substantial chance that the FDA would not grant any quick approval to
the drug.

Defendants did not reveal these material adverse facts regarding Satraplatin
and the unapproved methodology. Rather they were revealed by the FDA. On July
24, 2007, the FDA announced that its oncology panel had unanimously
recommended against the approval of Satraplatin. The committee said the FDA
had no prior experience with the protocols used in the Phase 3 study, which
the FDA noted had been "clearly communicated" to GPC Biotech while the drug
was in development.

In reaction to these unexpected revelations, GPC Biotech stock fell $7.20 on
July 25, 2007 to close at $13.16.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 24, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          Toll Free: 1-800-347-1236
          E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com
          Website: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *