CAR_Public/070731.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 31, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 149

                            Headlines


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over iPhone Battery Replacement Fee
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Awaits Final Okay of $29M MDL Settlement
BC LEASING: Limousine Franchisees Sue in N.Y. Over Alleged Fraud
BEAZER HOMES: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ga. Court
COMMENCE CORP: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges Consumer, Computer Fraud

CONAGRA FOODS: To Settle 401(k) Plan Members’ Lawsuit for $4M
CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Suits Over Recalled Peanut Butter Products
CV TECHNOLOGIES: Confirms $110M Securities Fraud Suit in Canada
FLORIDA’S CHOICE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
FORD MOTOR: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Mich. ERISA Suit

GAMEWELL-FCI: Recalls Fire Alarm System to Upgrade Software
GOODYEAR TIRE: USW Files Suit in Ohio Over VEBA’s Establishment
GPC BIOTECH: Faces Securities Suit in N.Y. Over Satraplatin
ICT TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Dismisses “Shainberg” Investor Suit
IDAHO: Suit Aims to Invalidate County’s 2007 Property Valuations

ILLINOIS: Railroad Enters $9.7M Settlement in Land Sales Suit
JAIBA CABINETS: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
JP MORGAN: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in ERISA Violations Suit
KPMG LLP: Accused of Multiple Felonies in Tex. Antitrust Lawsuit
NIKE INC: Settles Employees’ Race Bias Suit in Ill. for $7.6M

ONEIDA LTD: Amended ERISA Violations Complaint Filed in N.Y.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Motion to Transfer Copyright Suit Pending
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Dismissal of Calif. Labor Lawsuit Appealed
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Stewards Seek Rehearing of Dismissed Lawsuit
SUN-SENTINEL CO: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.

SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Face Labor Suit in San Diego Court
SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Face “Ward” Labor Suit in Calif.
SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Suit by Sav-on Assistant Managers
TXU CORP: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Tex. Suit Over Merger
US AIRWAYS: Discovery Starts in Suit Over “Lap Children” Fare

VIRTUAL IMAGING: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Four Companies Accused of Violating ERISA


                            *********


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over iPhone Battery Replacement Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer and AT&T, Inc. are facing a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois that alleges the companies fraudulently concealed an
annual fee of $85.95 that all Apple iPhone purchasers must pay for battery
replacement, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

AT&T is iPhone's exclusive carrier, and along with Apple, retails the iPhone
in their stores.

Named plaintiff Jose Trujillo says the iPhone is designed so that only
authorized agents can replace the battery, which must be mailed in, and that
batteries must be replaced after 300 charges, necessitating annual
replacements.

Mr. Trujillo claims that Apple and AT&T waited until July 5, after the iPhone
went on sale, to disclose these terms and conditions.  

Also subject to the complaint is the company’s “loaner program.”  During the
three days required to replace the batteries, by mail, “Apple provides
a ‘loaner iPhone’ for $29,” and all data stored on the phone is lost during
recharging, the complaint states.


Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801, plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all
consumers, from 2007 to the date of judgment, throughout the United States,
who purchased defendants' iPhone.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants committed a breach of the Illinois
         Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
         and all like and similar statutes throughout the United
         States;

     (b) whether defendants purposefully omitted,
         misrepresented, and/or fraudulently concealed the
         durability of the iPhone battery, the terms and
         conditions of its battery replacement program and
         "loaner" program, and the cost of the same, prior to
         purchase by plaintiff and the class;

     (c) whether defendants committed a breach of contract
         and/or breach of warranty to plaintiff and the class;
         and

     (d) whether defendants were unjustly enriched to the
         detriment of plaintiff and the class.

Plaintiff prays that the honorable court:

     -- certify the class and appoint plaintiff and plaintiff's
        counsel to represent the class;

     -- find that defendants committed a violation of the
        Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
        Act, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, breach
        of implied warranty, and were unjustly enriched;

     -- find that defendants should account for all revenues
        improperly earned, as alleged;

     -- find that defendants pay actual, compensatory, and
        punitive damages for their conduct as alleged;

     -- award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- grant such other releif as the court deems appropriate.

The suit is "Jose Trujillo et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al, Case No.
07CH19744," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Larry D. Drury
          James Rowe
          Larry D. Drury, Ltd.
          205 West Randolph, #1430
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 346-7950


ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Awaits Final Okay of $29M MDL Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet to grant final
approval to a proposed $28,000,000 settlement in a Multi-District Litigation
(MDL) proceeding that names Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. as one of the
defendants.

On Oct. 19, 2004, Gallagher was joined as a defendant in a purported class
action, originally filed in August 2004, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by OptiCare Health
Systems Inc. against various large insurance brokerage firms and commercial
insurers, “OptiCare Health Systems Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 04 CV 06954 (DC))”

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants used the contingent
commission structure of placement service agreements in a conspiracy to
deprive policyholders of "independent and unbiased brokerage services, as
well as free and open competition in the market for insurance."

Since fourth quarter 2004, nine other similar purported class actions have
been filed alleging claims similar to those alleged by the plaintiff in the
OptiCare litigation and such cases have been included in a Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) proceeding before the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

On Dec. 29, 2006 Gallagher reached an agreement to resolve all claims in the
MDL and related matters.  Gallagher admitted no wrongdoing, but chose to
conclude its involvement, rather than prolong what could have been a costly
and burdensome lawsuit.

The MDL Settlement, which is subject to court approval, provides for
Gallagher to distribute $28.0 million to current and former clients and
others that used a broker to purchase retail insurance from 1994 to 2005.  
Gallagher will also pay $8.9 million in plaintiffs' attorney fees.  

The MDL Settlement continues to be subject to final approval by the court.  
On April 17, 2007, the court granted preliminary approval of the MDL
Settlement.

The MDL Settlement continues to be subject to final approval by the court,
according to the company’s July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. -- http://www.ajg.com/-- is engaged in providing  
insurance brokerage, risk management, and related services to clients in the
U.S. and abroad.  Its principal activity is the negotiation and placement of
insurance for its clients.


BC LEASING: Limousine Franchisees Sue in N.Y. Over Alleged Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
BC Leasing, Corp., and individual partners of corporate defendants -- Rudolf
Samandarov, Group Americar Transportation LLC –- are facing a class-action
complaint filed July 25, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

Named plaintiffs Tadeusz Kowalewski, Nicholas Klimiuk, Oleg Logunovski, and
Stanislaw Puchala accuse Rudolf Samadarov of defrauding franchisees of his
limousine companies, Group Americar Transportation and BC Leasing.

The suit is “Kowalewski et al. v. Samandarov et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06706-
KMK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Kenneth M. Karas.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Marina Trubitsky
          Marina Trubitsky, Esq.
          225 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007


BEAZER HOMES: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ga. Court
---------------------------------------------------------
The “Denning v. Beazer Homes, USA, Inc., et al.” ERISA Complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia on behalf of Plaintiffs
and a class of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. 401(k) Plan, between July 28, 2005 and May 30, 2007
and whose accounts included investments in Beazer Homes common stock.

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

     -- failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan’s
        assets;
     -- failing to monitor fiduciaries;
     -- failing to provide complete and accurate information to       
        the class; and
     -- co-fiduciary liability.

The suit is docketed 1:07-cv-01401-JTC.  It was filed June 15, 2007 by
Patrick Denning, who worked for Beazer from April 1997 through the present.

It asks, among others, for a declaration that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to participants, an order compelling the defendants to make
good to the plan all losses to the plan resulting from the breaches, and
actual damages.

It names as defendants Beazer Homes USA, Inc., and directors Laurent Alpert,
Katie J. Bayne, Brian C. Beazer, Peter G. Leemputte, Ian J. McCarthy, Larry
T. Solari, Stephen P. Zelnak, Jr., and John and Jane Does 1-10.

Representing the plaintiff are:

         Michaeal I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
         Corey D. Holzer
         1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
         Atlanta GA 30338
         Phone: (770) 392 0090
         Fax: (770) 392 0029
         E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com

         Lynn Lincoln Sarko
         Isarko@kellerrohrback.com
         Derek W. Loeser
         E-mail: dloeser@kellerohrback.com
         Gary A. Gotto
         E-mail: ggotto@kellerohrback.com
         Cari Campen Laufenberg
         E-mail: claufenberg@kellerohrback.com
         Keller Rohrback LLP
         1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
         Seattle WA 98101 3052
         Phone: (206) 623 1900
         Fax: (206) 623 3384


COMMENCE CORP: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges Consumer, Computer Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commence Corp. is facing a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleging it sold a software “time bomb”, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Kalow & Springut LLP claims the company put a “time bomb” in
software it provided to thousands of businesses, including law firms, forcing
them to pay for expensive upgrades when the bomb went off on March 20, 2006,
shutting down all the Commence software.

The plaintiffs, who are intellectual property attorneys, say they spent
thousands of dollars for Commence software and thousands more on upgrades.

Kalow says the upgrade cost it $15,211, and that class members lost money
during the fix.

Plaintiff brings this as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased Commence Corp. software and were using it as of March 20, 2006.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was violated
         by defendant's acts as alleged;

     (b) whether the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act was violated
         by defendant's acts as alleged;

     (c) whether the Consumer Fraud Acts of each of the states
         where the plaintiff class members live were violated by
         defendant's acts as alleged;

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

Plaintiffs pray that:

     -- the court declare this action to be a proper class
        action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure on behalf of the class;

     -- the court enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and the
        class against defendant;

     -- that plaintiff and the other members of the class
        recover their damages against defendant in an amount to
        be determined, together with interest;

     -- that plaintiff and the other members of the class
        recover their costs of this suit. including reasonable
        attorneys' fees; and

     -- that plaintiff and the other members of the class be
        granted such other relief as the court may deem proper.

The suit is "Kalow & Springut, LLP et al. v. Commence Corp.," filed in the
U.s. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Peter S. Pearlman
          Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & nopf LLP
          Park 80 Plaza West-One
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Phone: 201-845-9600
          Fax: 201-845-9423

          - and -

          Marvin A. Miller
          Matthew E. van Tine
          Miller Law LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Phone: 312-332-3400


CONAGRA FOODS: To Settle 401(k) Plan Members’ Lawsuit for $4M
--------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods Inc. plans to pay $4 million and make certain changes to its
retirement benefit plans to settle three lawsuits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska, accusing top executives of manipulating
the Omaha-based company's earnings, Omaha World-Herald reports.

The suits are:

     -- “Bright v. Conagra Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-
        00348-LES-TDT”

     -- “Rantala v. ConAgra Foods et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-
        00349-LES-TDT”

     -- “Boyd v. Conagra Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-
        00386-LES-TDT”

Retirees filed the suit on behalf of ConAgra employees who bought the
company's stock as part of their 401(k) plans after September 18, 2003.  The
suit, which asks for unspecified damages, accuses Bruce Rohde, ConAgra
president, chief executive and chairman, as well as other executives, of
hiding information about the company's finances from the public (Class Action
Reporter, July 22, 2005).

According to the lawsuit, executives' action caused the retirees to lose
money when the value of the company's stock later fell.

Under the proposed agreement, insurance would pay most of the $4 million and
the retirement benefit plans would get the money, with details of the
allocation still being worked out, ConAgra spokeswoman Stephanie Childs said.

Other changes ConAgra would make to the benefit plans could not immediately
be made public, she said.  ConAgra denied any wrongdoing.

The settlement was subject to approval of U.S. District Court in Omaha.

The suits are before Judge Lyle E. Strom, with referral to Judge Thomas D.
Thalken.

ConAgra Foods, Inc. -- http://www.conagrafoods.com/-- is a packaged food  
company that operates in different areas of the food industry, with a focus
on the sale of branded and value-added consumer products.  The Company
operates in four segments: Consumer Foods, International Foods, Food and
Ingredients, and Trading and Merchandising.  

Representing defendants are:

          Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr.
          William F. Hargens
          McGrath, North Law Firm
          1601 Dodge Street, Suite 3700
          First National Tower
          Omaha, NE 68102-1627
          Phone: (402) 341-3070
          Fax: (402) 341-0216
          E-mail: pbrookhouser@mcgrathnorth.com or
                  whargens@mcgrathnorth.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Paulette S. Fox
          Wolf, Haldenstein Law Firm – New York
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 545-4600
          Fax: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: pfox@whafh.com

          - and -

          Joseph F. Gross, Jr.
          Timmermier, Gross Law Firm
          8712 West Dodge Road, Suite 401
          Omaha, NE 68114
          Phone: (402) 391-4600
          Fax: (402) 391-6221
          E-mail: jfgross@tgplaw.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Suits Over Recalled Peanut Butter Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, Inc. is party to a number of lawsuits, including putative
class actions and claims related to the February 2007 recall of its peanut
butter products, according to the company’s July 25, 2007 Form 10-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
May 27, 2007.

ConAgra Foods, Inc. -- http://www.conagrafoods.com/-- is a packaged food  
company that operates in different areas of the food industry, with a focus
on the sale of branded and value-added consumer products.  The Company
operates in four segments: Consumer Foods, International Foods, Food and
Ingredients, and Trading and Merchandising.  


CV TECHNOLOGIES: Confirms $110M Securities Fraud Suit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
CV Technologies Inc. (TSX:CVQ) confirmed that on July 20, a class action was
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and
certain officers and directors, Gordon Tallman, Harry Buddle and Jacqueline
Shan and the Company's former auditor.

The law firms of Siskinds LLP and Sutts Strosberg LLP jointly filed a $110
million class action against CV Technologies Inc. under Ontario's new
investor protection legislation, Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act
(Class Action Reporter, July 24, 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of the defendants has been served and the matters raised in the claim
are, at this stage. Leave of the Ontario Court has not been granted for the
claim to proceed as a secondary market securities class action and the claim
has not been certified as a class action at this stage.

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

For more information, contact:

          Warren Michaels
          Media Contact: CV Technologies Inc.
          Vice President, Media Relations
          Phone: (780) 432-0022
          Email: warren.michaels@cvtechnologies.com
          Website: http://www.cvtechnologies.com

          - and -

          Jane Tulloch
          Investor Contact: CV Technologies Inc.
          Director, Investor Relations
          Phone: (780) 577-3724
          Email: jane.tulloch@cvtechnologies.com
          Website: http://www.coldfx.com


FLORIDA’S CHOICE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Florida’s Choice Painting is facing a class action filed July 13 in Miami
federal court.  

Plaintiff Julio Roxas alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Rojas v. Florida's Choice Painting, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-
cv-21802-JAL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Joan A. Lenardfiled.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          300 71st Street
          Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          305-865-6766
          Fax: 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


FORD MOTOR: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Mich. ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A Consolidated Ford ERISA Complaint was filed on April 30, 2007 with the U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division on behalf of
the class of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of these
Ford-sponsored, defined-contribution plans:

     -- the Ford Motor Co. Savings and Stock Investment Plan
        for Salaried Employees; and

     -- the Ford Motor Co. Tax Efficient Savings Plan for
        Hourly Employees between April 15, 2000 and the present
        and whose accounts included investments in Ford Motor
        Co. common stock.

The suit is now Master Case No. 06-cv-11718.  It was originally filed by
Theodore Nowak and Gary Brockway.

                      Case Background
                                                 
On April 7, 2006, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan naming as defendants Ford Motor
and several of the company's current or former employees and officers.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated ERISA by failing to
prudently and loyally manage funds held in employee savings plans sponsored
by Ford.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege among other claims that the defendants
violated fiduciary duties owed to plan participants by continuing to offer
Ford Common Stock as an investment option in the savings plans.

On Dec. 22, 2006, Judge Pepe appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P. interim co-lead
counsel for the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act class action brought on behalf of the participants and
beneficiaries in the Ford Salaried Plan and the Ford Hourly
Plan who held and/or purchased Ford Motor Co. stock in their
Plan accounts between April 15, 2000 to the present (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2007).

Judge Pepe appointed Keller Rohrback together with the law firm of Schiffrin
& Barroway, LLP, as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.  The firm of Stephen F.
Wasinger, PLC was appointed as Interim Liaison Counsel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Elizabeth A. Leland, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-1900
          Fax: 206-623-3384
          E-mail: bleland@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

         -- and --

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Schiffrin, Barroway LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor
          PA 19087-5108
          Phone: 610-667-7056

Representing defendants are:

          Michelle Thurber, Esq.
          Czapski of Dickinson Wright (Detroit)
          500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000
          Detroit, MI 48226-3425
          Phone: 313-223-3500
          E-mail: mczapski@dickinsonwright.com
          
          -- and –

         Gary S. Tell, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers (Washington)
         1625 Eye St., NW, Washington
         DC 20006-4001
         Phone: 202-383-5315
         Fax: 202-383-5414


GAMEWELL-FCI: Recalls Fire Alarm System to Upgrade Software
------------------------------------------------------------
Gamewell-FCI, of Northford, Connecticut, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,100 Gamewell-FCI 600
Series SmartScan Fire Alarm Control Panels.

The company said the software in the fire alarm system could fail to
recognize when a detector needs servicing as a result of the buildup of dust,
dirt, or other environmental pollutants, which could result in the system
failing to respond in the event of a fire.

Gamewell-FCI has received no reports of the firmware failing to operate in
the event of a fire.

The software upgrade involves the Gamewell-FCI model 600 Series control panel
using System Sensor compatible line cards, SmartScan. These panels are
components of the Gamewell-FCI 600 Series fire alarm system. They provide the
signaling line circuits and display information for the system.

These recalled fire alarm system control panels were manufactured in the
United States and are being sold at authorized distributors nationwide from
October 2004 through May 2007 for between about $400 and $3,500. Authorized
distributors resold and installed the control panels for commercial end users
in facilities such as hotels and office buildings.

Picture of recalled fire alarm system control panels:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07565.jpg

Gamewell-FCI is contacting customers directly and providing a free firmware
software upgrade.

For additional information, contact Gamewell-FCI at (800) 633-1311 between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or go to http://www.gamewell-
fci.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: USW Files Suit in Ohio Over VEBA’s Establishment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio regarding the establishment
of the Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association.

The United Steelworkers, and several retirees filed the suit on July 3, 2007,
according to the company’s July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

The suit, “Redington, et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Case No. 5:07-cv-
01999-JRA,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio under Judge John R. Adams.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jori B. Naegele, Esq.
         Gary, Naegele & Theado
         446 Broadway
         Lorain, OH 44052-1797
         Phone: 440-244-4809
         Fax: 440-244-3462
         E-mail: envirolit@aol.com

              - and -

         Jeremiah A. Collins, Esq.
         Bredhoff & Kaiser
         Ste. 1000, 805 Fifteenth Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-842-2600
         Fax: 202-842-1888
         E-mail: jcollins@bredhoff.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Andrew M. Kramer, Esq.
         Jones Day
         51 Louisiana Avenue NW
         Washington, DC 20001-2113
         Phone: 202-879-3939
         Fax: 202-626-1700


GPC BIOTECH: Faces Securities Suit in N.Y. Over Satraplatin
-----------------------------------------------------------
German company GPC Biotech AG was sued in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of all persons
who purchased or acquired securities of GPC Biotech between December 5, 2005
and July 24, 2007 inclusive. Chief executive Bernd R. Seizinger, Martine
George and Marcel Rozencweig were also named as defendants.

The complaint alleges that GPC Biotech violated U.S. federal securities laws
by making false public statements relating to the prospects of its most
advanced product candidate, satraplatin, and 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" U.S. Food and Drug
Administration 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.

GPC Biotech believes the allegations in the complaint to be without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against them.

For more information, contact:

          Martin Braendle
          Germany- Director, Investor Relations & Corporate
          Communications - GPC Biotech AG
          Phone: +49(0) 89-8565-2693
          E-mail: ir@gpc-biotech.com

          - or –

          Laurie Doyle
          U.S. - Director, Investor Relations & Corporate
          Communications - GPC Biotech AG
          Phone: +1-609-524-5884
          E-mail: usinvestors@gpc-biotech.com
          Website: http://www.gpc-biotech.com


ICT TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Dismisses “Shainberg” Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York County court has dismissed a shareholders derivative class action
filed against certain officers of ICT Technologies, Inc.

The action was filed by Joshua Shainberg on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated against Vasilios Koutsobinas and Andrew
Eracleous, New York County (Index No. 601898/06) on or about May 30, 2006.

It purported to be a shareholders derivative class action by former
shareholders of the Company and alleged causes of action for negligence,
dereliction of duty and conflict of interest in.

After the action was commenced, Mr. Shainberg removed himself as the named
plaintiff and William Gent was substituted in his place.

The Court dismissed this action in its entirety with prejudice, according to
the company’s July 26, 2007 Form 10KSB Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


IDAHO: Suit Aims to Invalidate County’s 2007 Property Valuations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho attorney John Francis Magnuson filed a class action on
July 19 in the 1st District Court against Kootenai County and Assessor Mike
McDowell asking a judge to void the county’s 2007 property valuations, The
Spokesman-Review reports.

The suit was filed as a class action because the missed deadline, which the
county contends was due to new software, potentially affects every property
owner in the county.  

Mr. Magnuson said the county failed to comply with state law to get valuation
assessment notices to taxpayer no later than the "first Monday in June."

Instead of June 4, the majority of the notices were mailed by June 8 because
of last-minute glitches with a new software system that keeps the county's
property and tax records, Mr. McDowell admitted.

"We did it all in good faith," Mr. McDowell said. "There's been no harm."

The suit states the county would have to use the 2006 valuations to calculate
property tax bills for the estimated 78,000 parcels in Kootenai County.  Mr.
McDowell argues that the isn't a realistic remedy because it would create
gross inequities.  Mr. McDowell said the 2007 assessment reflects market
changes.

"We all live with a litany of statutory deadlines," Mr. Magnuson said,
according to the report. "My intention is to afford as much leeway with
deadlines as (the assessor) does the taxpayer -- which is none."

Mr. Magnuson said the county doesn't give leniency to property owners who
miss the deadline to appeal their assessments.

To contact Mr. Magnuson:

          John Francis Magnuson
          PO Box 2350
          Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816
          Phone: (208) 667-0100
          Fax: 1-208-667-0500
          E-mail: john@magnusononline.com


ILLINOIS: Railroad Enters $9.7M Settlement in Land Sales Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A $9.7 million settlement is reached in a class action filed by
Decatur attorney Darrell A. Woolums against the Illinois Central Railroad for
illegally selling abandoned lands along its railroad track.

Mr. Woolums filed the suit in 1992 in Macon County court on behalf of people
who purchased from the railroad a parcel of land along the Illinois Central
Railroad tracks south of Maroa in 1990.  Mr. Woolums, as Maroa city attorney,
concluded after reviewing offers to sell some right-of-way, that the railroad
had no legal interest in the land.

Samuels, Miller, Schroeder, Jackson & Sly LLP and the Chicago law firm
O'Rourke, Katten & Moody filed a separate lawsuit that was consolidated with
the Macon County action in 1997.  

Recently, the court found that the railroad, which is now part of the
Canadian National Railway Co., wrongly charged for the property it had
received free through a federal land grant, The Pantagraph reports.

Under the settlement, the plaintiffs will recover the original amount they
paid, as well as interest and damages.  It will be among the largest civil
awards in Macon County Circuit Court history, Mr. Woolums said.

Claims are expected to total about $5.8 million, while attorneys' fees total
$3.7 million or less, according to documents recently filed in the case.

More than 600 people and some communities will benefit from the settlement,
according to Herald & Review (Decatur, Ill.).  The city of Bloomington will
get back about $74,000; Normal, $89,000; Minonk, $90,000; El Paso, $38,250;
and Lostant, $20,000.

Only original purchasers or their heirs are entitled to file claims for
reimbursement under the settlement.  The deadline to do so is Oct. 20.  Claim
forms are available from the attorneys and can be requested by calling 429-
4325 or (312) 849-2020.

Macon County Circuit Court Judge Kathleen McCarthy is set to finally approve
the settlement on Nov. 16.


JAIBA CABINETS: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Jaiba Cabinets Inc. is facing a class action filed July 13 in Miami federal
court.  

Plaintiff Javier Pena alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Pena v. Jaiba Cabinets, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21804-WMH”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under
Judge William M. Hoeveler.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          300 71st Street
          Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          305-865-6766
          Fax: 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


JP MORGAN: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part
a motion to certify a class in "In Re J.P. Morgan Chase Cash Balance
Litigation, Case No. 06 Civ. 732 (HB)."

In a ruling issued May 30, 2007, certification was granted to the class with
respect to the notice claims, i.e. Counts IV, V and VI, where plaintiffs
allege that defendants failed to:

     -- provide notice of reduction of the rate of their future
        benefit accrual pursuant to Employee Retirement Income
        Security Act Section 204(h); and

     -- adequate Summary Plan Description as required by ERISA
        Section 102(b); and

     -- summaries of material modifications to the Plan pursuant
        to ERISA Section 102(a),

but only with respect to the class claims that stem from the JPMC Plan as of
Jan. 1, 2002 and excluding those individuals who have already received their
lump sum benefit.

Certification is granted to the class with respect to the age discrimination
claim beginning the 1st day of Jan. 1989, however, because "Hirt v. The
Equitable Ret. Plan for Employees, Managers & Agents, no. 06-cv-4757," is
currently sub judice before the 2nd Circuit and since that decision will
likely be dispositive of the age discrimination issue, the court reserved the
right to revisit this issue following that decision.

The court allowed discovery to proceed but restricted it to the age
discrimination claims to the period Jan. 1, 2002 and thereafter.  It ordered
parties to a June 2007 pretrial conference.

Appointed class representatives are Neil Aldoroty, John J. Berotti, Annette
Marie Falchetti, Terri Melli, Norman J. Schomaker and Perry Shapiro, former
employees of JP MOrgan Chase and its various Predecessor Plans.

Appointed class counsel are the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Kirby,
McInerney & Squire LLP and Keller Rohrback LLP are.

                        Case Background

The JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al. Consolidated ERISA Complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 23,
2006 on behalf of Plaintiffs and a class of all persons who were participants
in the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan and all predecessor and successor cash
balance plans, at any time after January 1, 1998 whose accrued or pension
benefits are based, in whole or in part, on the Plan’s cash balance formula.  

Predecessor cash balance plans include cash balance plans formerly maintained
by:

     * Bank One Corp.;
     * Chase Manhattan Bank;
     * Chemical Bank;
     * First USA, Inc.;
     * First Chicago NBD Corp.; and
     * Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
Defendants violated ERISA protections by:

     -- causing the rate of benefit accrual to decrease because
        of the age of or attainment of any age by participants;

     -- failing to provide adequate notice to participants of
        the impact on benefits caused by the conversion to a
        cash balance formula;

     -- failing to fully disclose Plan provisions in the Summary
        Plan Descriptions provided to participants; and

     -- failing to provide participants with the required
        Summaries of Material Modifications to the terms of the
        Plan.

On October 30, 2006, the Hon. Harold Baer, Jr. issued an opinion on
Defendants' motion to dismiss. Judge Baer denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss Count I of the complaint, the age discrimination claim, as well as
Counts IV-VI, the notice claims.  The Court dismissed Counts II-III of the
Complaint based on Plaintiffs' agreement to withdraw those claims without
prejudice pending discovery.

The opinion allows Plaintiffs to pursue their core claims against Defendants -
- namely that the JP Morgan/Chase Cash Balance Plan discriminated against
older workers, and, that JP Morgan/Chase failed to provide adequate notice
with respect to the Cash Balance Plan as required by ERISA.

On May 30, 2007, the Hon. Harold Baer, Jr. issued an opinion and order
certifying a class of plaintiffs in this litigation.  Judge Baer certified a
class of plaintiffs for the notice claims, but only with respect to the class
claims that stem from the JPMC Plan as of January 1, 2002, and excluding
those individuals who have already received their lump sum benefits.
Judge Baer also certified a class of plaintiffs with respect to the age
discrimination claim beginning January 1, 1989.
                

KPMG LLP: Accused of Multiple Felonies in Tex. Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
KPMG LLP is named in a federal antitrust class-action complaint filed July 26
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas accusing it of
committing multiple felonies to earn tens of millions of dollars fraudulently
from 1984-99 in Texas by knowingly using unlicensed accountants, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Douglas Alan Little and Little, Roberts & Co., P.C claims
KPMG:

          -- committed RICO fraud and perjury;
          -- conspired to compete unfairly and unjustly enrich
             itself;
          -- committed bank fraud and wire fraud;
          -- bribed, destroyed and concealed evidence and
             transported stolen property;
          -- repeatedly lied under oath in filings to the
             accountancy board; and
          -- that its multiple crimes were enabled “when KPMG’s
             retired Texas managing partner, Defendant Frank
             Maresh, was named to the Texas State Board of
             Public Accountancy in 1993".

Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1)(A), (b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of all persons
and entities who, at any or all times from 1984 to 1999, were properly
licensed, registered, and/or certified by the Texas State Board of Public
Accountancy to perform public accounting services in Texas, including audit,
tax, financial advice, litigation support, forensic accounting and management
advice and consulting as set out in Title 22, Texas Administrative Code
Section 501.51(e) and as defined by the Public Accountancy Act.

Plaintiff request:

     -- that the court certify an appropriate class as
        requested;

     -- the court order a trail by jury of the claims asserted,
        which plaintiffs specifically request and for which a
        jury fee has been paid;

     -- plaintiffs and class members recover all damages allowed
        by law or in equity, including without limitation all  
        fees paid to KPMG from all of the clients of KPMG's
        Texas offices during the time period from 1984 to 1999
        and all profits earned by KPMG in Texas during that
        timeframe as well as all other damages to be deemed
        consequential damages, benefit-of-the bargain damages,             
        lost profits, equitable or legal disgorgement, fee
        forfeiture, treble damages, pecuniary damages, equitable
        damages, or legal damages. Plaintiffs and class members
        also seek pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum
        rate allowed by law, all costs and expenses to bring
        this action, and attorneys' fees incurred in this action
        and any and all appeals, if any, of this action;

     -- punitive or exemplary damages to the maximum extent
        allowed by law, including in an unlimited amount, to be
        determined by the jury in this case; and

     -- such other relief, both at law and in equity, to which
        plaintiffs and class members may be entitled.

The suit is “Little et al. v. KPMG LLP et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00621-FB,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, under
Judge Fred Biery.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Amir H. Alavi
          Demetrios Anaipakos
          Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos, P.C.
          3460 One Houston Center
          1221 McKinney Street
          Houston, TX 77010
          Phone: (713) 655-1101
          Fax: 713/655-0062
          E-mail: aalavi@azalaw.com or danaipakos@azalaw.com

          John Zavitsanos
          Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos, PC
          1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460
          Houston, TX 77010
          Phone: (713)655-1101
          Fax: 713/655-0062
          E-mail: jzavitsanos@azalaw.com

          Rudy A. Garza
          Attorney at Law
          300 Convent St., Suite 2400
          San Antonio, TX 78205-3701
          Phone: (210) 225-2400
          Fax: 210/225-7402
          E-mail: rugar@sbcglobal.net

          - and -

          David E. Warden
          Yetter & Warden, L.L.P.
          909 Fannin, Suite 3600
          Houston, TX 77010
          Phone: (713) 632-8000
          Fax: 713/632-8002
          E-mail: dwarden@yetterwarden.com


NIKE INC: Settles Employees’ Race Bias Suit in Ill. for $7.6M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nike Inc. has reached a $7.6 million settlement in a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of
400 black employees of the company's Chicago Niketown store, the English
Business News reports.

Under the terms of the agreement, Nike Retail Services will pay $7.6 million
to the current and former employees to resolve the claims. The lawsuit covers
black employees who worked at the store from 1999 until now.

The lawsuit, filed in 2003, stated that the store, owned by Nike Inc.,
employed 63 stockroom workers between January 2001 and May 2003, 46 of whom
were African Americans and three were Caucasian (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
26, 2004). The suit also stated that the starting hourly wage was less than
$8 an hour.

The suit further stated that during the same time period, eight of the
33 "commissioned sales specialists" were African American and 23 were
Caucasian, the sales specialists often earned three to four times as much as
a stockroom employee.

The 15 plaintiffs, who are current and former Niketown employees, also
contend that even though many worked 40 hours a week, they were not
considered fulltime employees and therefore were denied benefits such as paid
vacation and health and dental insurance. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed
that they were subject to a racially hostile work environment. The plaintiffs
further stated that despite complaints of harassment to numerous managers,
Nike failed to respond.

Nike has denied the allegations.

Under the terms of the recent settlement, Nike also must make a host of other
changes to address diversity, such as appointing a diversity consultant to
monitor the Chicago store's compliance and a compliance officer at Nike's
headquarters in Beaverton. The company must also add an ombudsperson at the
store and conduct diversity training for all supervisors and managers there.

Nike also is required to review its human resources practice, create equal
opportunity objectives for the store and review its theft-loss policies. It
also will create a formal mentoring program for black employees.

The company and the attorney for the plaintiffs declined to comment further
on the case, the report said.

The suit is “Smith, et al. v. Nike Retail Svc Inc., Case No. 1:03-cv-09110,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge Milton I. Shadur.

Representing defendants are:

          David S. Baffa
          Sheldon Leigh Jeter
          Seyfarth Shaw LLP
          131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603-4205
          Phone: (312) 460-5000
          Fax: 312-460-7000
          E-mail: dbaffa@seyfarth.com or ljeter@seyfarth.com

          Brenda H. Feis
          Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson
          55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 346-8000

          - and -

          Martin Peter Greene
          Kevin Thomas Lee
          James L. Singleton
          Karen Elaine Tinglin
          Carl K. Turpin
          Greene & Letts
          111 West Washington, Suite 1650
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 346-1100
          Fax: 312 346-4571
          E-mail: mpgreene@greeneandletts.com or
                  ktlee@greeneandletts.com or
                  jsingleton@greeneandletts.com or
                  ckturpin@greeneandletts.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Noelle Christine Brennan
          Beth A Davis
          Ines M. Monte
          Brennan & Monte, Ltd.
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1530
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 422-0001
          E-mail: nbrennan@brennan-monte.com or
                  bdavis@brennan-monte.com or
                  imonte@brennan-monte.com

          - and -

          Randall D. Schmidt
          Mandel Legal Aid Clinic
          6020 South University Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60637
          Phone: (312) 702-9611
          E-mail: r-schmidt@uchicago.edu


ONEIDA LTD: Amended ERISA Violations Complaint Filed in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A second amended class action complaint for violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York against:

     -- Oneida Ltd. Employee Benefits Administrative Committee;
   
     -- Oneida Ltd. Management Development and Executive
        Compensation Committee;

     -- Oneida ltd. Pension and Profit Sharing Fund Investment
        Committee;

     -- company directors; and

     -- director committee.

The suit was filed by plaintiffs Milton Lilly and Donald Grogan. Plaintiffs’
claims arise from the alleged failure of Defendants, who are fiduciaries of
the Plan, to act solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries
of the Plan, and to exercise the required skill, care, prudence, and
diligence in administering the Plan and the Plan’s assets during the period
May 28, 2003 to March 20, 2006.

On information and belief, the Plan held between 1.5 million and 1.8 million
shares of Oneida common stock during the Class Period.  The Plan document
provides that the Plan should be invested primarily in Oneida stock.  
However, under ERISA, the Plan document’s provision for investment in Company
stock was controlling only to the extent that it was consistent with ERISA.

During the period from May 28, 2003 to March 20, 2006, Oneida stock became an
imprudent investment for an ERISA retirement plan. Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants allowed imprudent investment of the Plan’s assets in Oneida equity
throughout the Class Period despite the fact that they clearly knew or should
have known that such investment was imprudent due to, among other things:

      (a) the fact that Oneida’s core legacy business –
          production of flatware, dinnerware, crystal,
          glassware and metal serveware - was suffering from
          declining consumer confidence and a weak economy;

      (b) a failed business plan that combined acquisitions of
          companies outside of Oneida’s core business, coupled
          with a restructuring plan that resulted in massive
          employee layoffs;

      (c) the failure of negotiations with a private investor
          with regard to a preferred equity investment in the
          Company;

      (d) repeated disclosures that Oneida was in breach of its
          loan covenants and required waivers from it lenders,

      (e) two consecutive years of financial statements that
          included a “going concern” qualification from Oneida’s
          independent public accountants; and

      (f) the steady weakening of the Company’s financial
          position and its ultimate collapse into bankruptcy.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among others, relief from the defendants in the
form of a monetary payment to the Plan to make good to the Plan the losses to
the Plan resulting from the breaches of fiduciary duties alleged above in an
amount to be proven at trial; and injunctive and other appropriate equitable
relief to remedy the breaches alleged.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
          Britt L. Tinglum, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback LLP
          1201 Third Avenue
          Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Fax: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  btinglum@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com

         Terence Devine, Esq.
         Degraff, Foy, Kunz & Devine, LLP
         90 State Street
         Suite 1100
         Albany, New York 12207-1780
         Phone: (518) 462-5300
         Fax: (518) 436-0210
         E-mail: tdevine@degraff-foy.com
       
        Ron Kilgard, Esq.
        Gary A. Gotto, Esq.
        Keller Rohrback P.L.C.
        3101 North Central Avenue
        Suite 1400
        Phoenix, AZ 85012
        Phone: (602) 248-0088
        Fax: (602) 248-2822
        E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com
                ggotto@kellerrohrback.com


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Motion to Transfer Copyright Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. to transfer an intellectual rights
class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida remains pending.

The suit was filed on January 2006.  It alleges that the company infringed
rights in copyrighted works and other intellectual property by presenting
performances on company cruise ships without securing the necessary
licenses.   

The suit seeks payment of damages, disgorgement of profits and a permanent
injunction against future infringement.  

In April 2006, the company filed a motion to sever and transfer the case to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of  
Florida.   

The company reported no development in the matter in its July 26, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Jacobs et al. v. Carnival Corp., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00606-
DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Deborah A. Batts.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Howard J. Schwartz Porzio, Esq.
         Bromberg & Newman, P.C.
         156 West 56th St.
         New York, NY 10019-3800
         Phone: (212) 265-6888
         E-mail: hjschwartz@pbnlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:
      
         Frank W. Ryan, Esq.
         Nixon Peabody, LLP
         437 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 940-3129
         Fax: (866) 947-2289
         E-mail: fryan@nixonpeabody.com


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Dismissal of Calif. Labor Lawsuit Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action "Michael Rogers, et al. v. Royal
Caribbean Cruise Lines, et al.," are appealing the dismissal of their case to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on July 2006.  It alleges that the company failed to timely pay
crew wages and failed to pay proper crew overtime.

It seeks payment of damages, including penalty wages under 46
USC Section 10313 and equitable relief damages under the California Unfair
Competition Law.

In December 2006, the District Court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the claim and held that it should be arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration
provision in Royal
Caribbean's collective bargaining agreement.

In January 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the order to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The company reported no development in the matter in its July 26, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Michael Rogers, et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruise
Lines, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04574-SVW-E," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Stephen V.
Wilson with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph S. Farzam, Esq.
          Farzam and Associates
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1345
          Los Angleles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-226-6890
          E-mail: farzam@lawyer.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Sanford L. Bohrer, Esq.
          Holland & Knight
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-374-8500
          E-mail: sandy.bohrer@hklaw.com


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Stewards Seek Rehearing of Dismissed Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs are
seeking for a re-hearing of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit to affirm the dismissal of a purported class action against
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. and one of its cruise brands.

Filed in April 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, the suit alleges that the company's Celebrity Cruises Lines
improperly requires its cabin stewards to share guest gratuities with
assistant cabin stewards.   

The suit seeks payment of damages including penalty wages under 46 U.S.C.
Section 10113 of U.S. law and interest.

In March 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the suit.  
In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

In March 2006, the Southern District of Florida dismissed the suit and held
that the case should be arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in
Celebrity’s collective bargaining agreement.

In June 2007, following an appeal by the plaintiff to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit, the appellate court affirmed the District
Court’s order dismissing the suit.

The plaintiff has since filed with the Court of Appeals, a petition for re-
hearing enbanc, according to the company’s July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2007.

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. -- http://www.royalcaribbean.com-- is a cruise  
company with 34 cruise ships and 67,550 berths. The Company operates three
brands: Royal Caribbean International, Celebrity Cruises and Pullmantur
Cruises in the cruise vacation industry.  The cruise vacation industry
comprises the budget, contemporary, premium and luxury segments. The ships
operate on a selection of worldwide itineraries that call on approximately
200 destinations.  On Nov. 14, 2006, the Company completed the acquisition of
Pullmantur S.A., a Madrid-based cruise and tour operator.


SUN-SENTINEL CO: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sun-Sentinel Co. is facing a class action filed July 12 in West Palm Beach
Federal Court.

Plaintiff Charlemagne Louis-Charles alleges violations of the Federal Labor
Standards Act.

The suit is “Louis-Charles v. Sun-Sentinel Co., Case No. 9:07-cv-80621-KLR,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under
Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp with referral to Judge Ann E. Vitunac.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Stephen Joseph Padula, Esq.
         Hodkin Kopelowitz & Ostrow Firm PA
         350 E Las Olas Boulevard
         Suite 980
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216
         Phone: 954-525-4100
         Fax: 525-4300
         E-mail: padula@thkolaw.com


SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Face Labor Suit in San Diego Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc. remains a defendant in a suit alleging it failed to pay wages
for time worked during meal breaks by its non-exempt employees employed in
key carrier positions.

Sally Wilcox and Dennis Taber filed the complaint in California Superior
Court in and for the County of San Diego in August 2004. It was later
certified as a class action.

The lawsuit further alleges that Albertson's failed to provide itemized wage
statements as required by California law and that Albertson's failed to
timely pay wages of terminated or resigned employees as required by
California law.  

It further alleges a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

The lawsuit seeks recovery of all wages, compensation and/or penalties owed
the members of the class certified, including compensation of one hour of pay
for rest or meal period violations and wages for all time worked while
employees were clocked out for meal periods or required to remain on the
premises during meal periods.

It further seeks to recover all past due compensation and penalties for
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and to pay all wages due
at time of termination for members of the class certified with interest from
Aug. 6, 2000 to time of trial.  The Company is vigorously defending this
lawsuit

The company reported no development in the matter in its July 26, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 16, 2007.

Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a United States grocery  
channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store
formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and
limited assortment food stores.  The Company’s business is classified into
two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services.


SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Face “Ward” Labor Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. remains a defendant in the purported class action, “Joanne Kay
Ward et al. v. Albertsons, Inc. et al.,” which was filed in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court in
California.

The suit -- filed on Oct 13, 2000 -- alleges that the company and its
subsidiaries, Lucky Stores and Sav-on Drug Stores, paid terminated employees
their final paychecks in an untimely manner.  The suit seeks statutory
penalties.

On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class action.  The Company is
vigorously defending this lawsuit

The company reported no development in the matter in its July 26, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 16, 2007.

Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a United States grocery  
channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store
formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and
limited assortment food stores.  The Company’s business is classified into
two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services.  


SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Suit by Sav-on Assistant Managers
------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc. remains a defendant in a class action filed by Sav-on Drug
Stores, Inc. assistant store managers in the Superior Court for the County of
Los Angeles, California.

In April 2000, a class action complaint, “Gardner, et al. v.
American Stores Co., et al.,” was filed in the Superior Court for the County
of Los Angeles, California.

New Albertson's, Inc. consist of the core supermarket businesses formerly
owned by Albertson's, Inc. operating under Sav-On banners among others.

Assistant managers seeking recovery of overtime based on plaintiffs’
allegation that they were improperly classified as exempt under California
law, filed the suit.  

In May 2001, the court certified a class with respect to Sav-on Drug Stores
assistant managers.  The Company is vigorously defending this lawsuit

The company reported no development in the matter in its July 26, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 16, 2007.

Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a United States grocery  
channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store
formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and
limited assortment food stores.  The Company’s business is classified into
two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services.  The Retail food
operations include results of food stores owned and results of sales to
limited assortment food stores licensed by the Company.  Supply chain
services operations include results of sales to affiliated food stores, mass
merchants and other customers, and logistics arrangements. As of Feb. 24,
2007, the Company conducted its retail operations through 2,478 stores,
including 858 licensed limited assortment stores.  As of Feb. 24, 2007, the
Company served as the primary grocery supplier to approximately 2,200 stores,
in addition to its own regional banner store network, as well as serving as
secondary grocery supplier to approximately 400 stores.


TXU CORP: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Tex. Suit Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Investors buying electric utility TXU Corp. have entered into an agreement to
settle a consolidated merger-related class action pending in the 44th
District Court, Dallas County, Texas, the AP WorldStream reports.

Under the deal, TXU would not pay anything to the plaintiffs. But the buyers
agreed that TXU would pay $925 million instead of $1 billion if it broke off
the deal, and they made other changes in the proxy statement sent to
shareholders.

The company entered an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25, 2007,
under which an investor group led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas
Pacific Group would acquire TXU Corp. (Merger Agreement) (Class Action
Reporter, June 11, 2007).

In February and March 2007 eight lawsuits were filed in state district court
in Dallas County, Texas by putative shareholders against the directors of TXU
Corp., TXU Corp., two private equity firms, and certain financial entities,
asserting claims on behalf of owners of shares of TXU common stock as well as
seeking to certify a class action on behalf of allegedly similarly situated
shareholders.

The lawsuits, which have been consolidated into one action in the 44th
District Court, Dallas County, Texas, contend that the directors of TXU Corp.
violated various fiduciary duties owed plaintiffs and other shareholders in
connection with the execution of the Merger Agreement and that the two
private equity firms and certain financial entities aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger Agreement
until such time as a procedure or process is adopted to obtain the highest
possible price for shareholders, as well as a request that the Court direct
the officers and directors of TXU Corp. to exercise their fiduciary duties in
order to obtain a transaction in the best interest of TXU Corp. shareholders.

The consolidated suit includes claims that the directors failed to take steps
to properly value or maximize the value of TXU Corp. and breached their
duties of loyalty, good faith, candor and independence owed to TXU Corp.
shareholders.

The Merger Agreement allowed TXU Corp. to solicit other proposals from third
parties until April 16, 2007 and is subject to the approval of TXU Corp.’s
shareholders.

The consolidated suit purports to assert claims by shareholders directly
against the directors.  

TXU Corp. believes that Texas law does not recognize such a cause of action.  
Consequently, TXU Corp. and its directors have filed a Motion to Dismiss,
which is pending before the Court.

If approved by the courts, the settlement would remove a hurdle to the deal,
which faces a Sept. 7 vote of TXU shareholders.

The agreement between KKR-TPG investors, TXU and some of the plaintiffs would
result in dismissing all the merger-related lawsuits if the courts approve.

TXU Corp. -- http://www.txucorp.com-- is a Dallas-based energy company,  
which manages a portfolio of energy businesses in Texas. TXU Corp. is a
holding company conducting its operations principally through its TXU Energy
Company LLC (TXU Energy Company), TXU Electric Delivery Company (TXU Electric
Delivery) and TXU Generation Development Company LLC (TXU DevCo)
subsidiaries. The Company has two operating segments: TXU Energy Holdings and
TXU Electric Delivery.

TXU Energy Holdings includes the activities of TXU Energy Company and TXU
DevCo., and also includes the activities of a lease trust holding certain
natural gas-fueled combustion turbines. TXU Electric Delivery includes the
activities of TXU Electric Delivery, and its wholly owned bankruptcy-remote
financing subsidiary. Corporate and Other represents the remaining nonsegment
operations consisting primarily of discontinued operations, general corporate
expenses, interest on debt at the TXU Corp. level and activities involving
mineral interest holdings.


US AIRWAYS: Discovery Starts in Suit Over “Lap Children” Fare
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed against US Airways
Group, Inc. by passengers Daphne Renard and Todd Robins in San Francisco
Superior Court on Feb. 9, 2007.

The complaint alleges that U.S. Airways breached its contract of carriage by
charging additional fares and fees, after the purchase of tickets on the
usairways.com website, for passengers under two years of age who travel
as “lap children,” meaning that the child does not occupy his or her own seat
but travels instead on the lap of an accompanying adult.

The named plaintiffs allege that they purchased international tickets through
the website for themselves and a lap child.  

Plaintiffs allege that after initially receiving an electronic confirmation
that there would be no charge for the lap child, they were later charged an
additional $242.50.  

The complaint alleges a class period from Feb. 9, 2002 to the present.  

The company was served with an amended complaint in early March that
continued the same allegations, but dropped plaintiff’s wife as a class
representative.

On May 1, 2007, US Airways filed an Answer to the complaint and also asked
the court for a “complex case” designation, which the court granted on May
11, 2007.

The case is now in the discovery phase, according to the company’s July 26,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

US Airways Group, Inc. -- http://www.usairways.com-- serves as the holding  
company for its direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, US Airways,
Inc. (US Airways) and America West Airlines, Inc. (AWA).


VIRTUAL IMAGING: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Virtual Imaging Services Inc. is facing a class action filed July 13 in Miami
federal court.

Plaintiff Jose Luis Rodriguez alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The suit is “Rodriguez v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21803-UU” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida under judge Ursula Ungaro.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          300 71st Street
          Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Phone: 305-865-6766
          Fax: 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Four Companies Accused of Violating ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Mutual Pension Plan ERISA Complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 12, 2007 on
behalf of Plaintiffs and a class of all persons who were participants in the
WaMu Pension Plan and predecessor and successor plans, at any time after
January 1, 1987 whose accrued or pension benefits are based, in whole or in
part, on the Plan’s cash balance formula.  

Predecessor plans include cash balance plans formerly maintained by:

     * Great Western Financial Corp.;
     * H.F. Ahmanson & Company;
     * Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB; and
     * Pacific First Bank.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants violated
ERISA protections by:

     -- causing the rate of benefit accrual to decrease because
        of the age of or attainment of any age by participants;

     -- failing to provide adequate notice to participants of
        the impact on benefits caused by the conversion to a
        cash balance formula;

     -- failing to fully disclose Plan provisions in the Summary
        Plan Descriptions provided to participants; and

     -- failing to provide participants with the required
        Summaries of Material Modifications to the terms of the
        Plan.

The suit was filed by Gary Buus, Sidney John Flor, Audrey Schulman and
Margaret Weber against the Wamu Pension Plan and the Washington Mutual
Pension Plan Administration Committee.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
         Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
         Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
         Karin B. Swope, Esq.
         1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
         Seattle WA 98101
         Phone: (206) 623-1900
         Fax: (206) 623 3384
         E-mail: dloeser@kellerohrback.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  * * *