CAR_Public/070801.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 1, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 150

                            Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeals Ruling in “Strong” Payday Loan Lawsuit
AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces N.Y. Antitrust Suit Over “Arava”
BISSELL APARTMENTS: Lawyer in Mold Suit Asks Summary Judgment
CHARDEE'S RESTAURANT: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla.
COCA-COLA: Ga. Court Approves Motion to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit

C. R. BARD: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Urological Catheters
C. R. BARD: Composix Kugel Mesh Patch Suits Sent to R.I. Court
EBAY INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in Cal. Over PayPal System
FORD MOTOR: Judge Hears Arguments in $2B Explorer Profit Suit
G.D.F. INC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ill.

GERMANY FUND: Board Okays Settlement of Suit Challenging Bylaws
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Faces Suits in Canada Over Diabetes Drug
GORDON'S CLEANING: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Missouri
INSURANCE BROKERAGE: Court Stays Discovery in Antitrust Suit
K2 INC: Enters Settlement for Calif. Lawsuit Over Jarden Merger

MAINE: Judge Carter Denies Class Lawyers’ Request for $178T
MEDICAL OPTICS: Faces New Suits Over Recalled Lens Solution
NETFLIX INC: Faces Antitrust Claims in Online DVD Rental Market
NEW RIVER: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Florida
NORTHERN STATES: Oral Argument Date Yet to be Set in “Hoffman”

PET VALU: Named in Canadian Lawsuit Over Recalled Pet Food
ROHM & HAAS: Faces Ky. Suit Over Louisville Plant Contamination
SANA ENTERPRISES: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Ill.
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Still Faces Savings Plan Members’ Suit in N.J.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Fla. Lawsuit Claims Fraud in Prius Hybrid Ad
TRAVELERS COS: Minn. Court Okays “Spiziri” ERISA Suit Settlement
UNITED PARCEL: Web site for Penna. ADA Violations Suit Launched
UNITED STATES: Post Office Employees Allege Privacy Violations
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Several Federal, State Consumer Lawsuits

WILCOX FARMS: Wash. Lawsuit Alleges Fraudulent “Omega-3” Claims
XCEL ENERGY: Aug. 30 Hearing Set for Mississippi Pollution Suit
XCEL ENERGY: Gas Purchasers’ Suit in Calif. Remains Stayed
XCEL ENERGY: Motion to Junk Kans. Suit Over Gas Pricing Pending
XCEL ENERGY: Ninth Circuit Mulls Appeals in “Texas-Ohio” Lawsuit
XCEL ENERGY: Still Faces Natural Gas Purchasers' Suit in Mo.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                            *********


ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeals Ruling in “Strong” Payday Loan Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Georgia, Inc. is seeking certiorari
to appeal a decision made in the purported class action, “King and Strong v.
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Georgia, Inc., et al.,” to the
Georgia Supreme Court.

On Aug. 6, 2004, Tahisha King and James E. Strong, who were customers of
BankWest, the lending bank for whom the company, marketed, processed and
serviced payday cash advances in Georgia, filed a putative class action
against the company, William M. Webster, IV, its chief executive officer, and
other unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders."  

The suit alleges various causes of action including that the company's
Georgia subsidiary made illegal payday loans in the state in violation of
Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer
Influenced and  
Corrupt Organizations Act.  

The complaint alleges that BankWest was not the "true lender" on the advances
that were marketed, processed and serviced for BankWest in Georgia and the
company, was the "de facto" lender. The complaint seeks compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.   

The company removed the state court action to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, under the caption, "Strong v. Georgia Cash
America Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02611-WSD."  

However, the action was remanded back to the State Court of Cobb County in
December 2005.  The action is thus proceeding in state court.

The company and the other defendants denied the plaintiffs' claims and
asserted that all of the claims are subject to mandatory and binding
individual arbitration pursuant to arbitration agreements signed by each
plaintiff.  

In April 2006, the State Court of Cobb County entered a consent order, which
was jointly submitted by the parties, whereby the parties agreed and
consented to arbitration of all claims raised by plaintiffs in this action
and to stay all proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration on plaintiffs’
claims.

The plaintiffs filed a demand for arbitration seeking to arbitrate their
claims in a class action or representative status.

In March 2007, the appointed arbitrator issued an interim order holding that
payday loans are not subject to Georgia law, that federal preemption applies
and that the mere existence of a contractual prohibition on class actions
does not violate Georgia public policy.

However, the arbitrator did not believe there was sufficient evidence to
determine if the arbitration agreements were procedurally or substantively
unconscionable and ordered additional discovery on that issue.  

Both parties have filed pleadings seeking reconsideration of the interim
order.  The Company intends to continue to deny plaintiffs’ claims and resist
plaintiffs’ efforts to conduct class arbitration.

The parties are currently in dispute over the scope of the discovery requests
made by the plaintiffs, and Cash America appealed a State Court ruling on
this issue imposing sanctions against Cash America that included a State
Court ruling striking Cash America’s arbitration defense.

On July 6, 2007, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming
the State Court’s ruling.  Cash America is seeking certiorari to appeal this
decision to the Georgia Supreme Court, according to the company’s July 27,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday cash advance  
services in the U.S.


AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces N.Y. Antitrust Suit Over “Arava”
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July
26 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Named plaintiff Health Insurance Plan of New York alleges restraint of
competition to protect its drug, “Arava,” from generic competition.

The suit is “Health Insurance Plan of New York v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-06785-HB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Harold Baer.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Richard Cohen
          Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad Selinger & Cohen, P.C.
          White Plains Plaza
          One North Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Fax: (914) 997-0035
           
          Mark D. Fischer
          Mark M. Sandmann
          Jeffrey Swann
          Rawlings & Associates, P.L.L.C.
          325 West Main Street
          Louisville, KY 40201
          Phone: (502) 814-2157
          Fax: (502) 584-8580
          
          Gerald Lawrence
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
          White Plains Plaza
          One North Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Fax: (914) 997-0035
          
          - and -

          David S. Nalven
          Thomas M. Sobol
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
          One Main Street, 4th Floor
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Phone: (617) 482-3700
          Fax: (617) 482-3003
          E-mail: davidn@hbsslaw.com


BISSELL APARTMENTS: Lawyer in Mold Suit Asks Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of Bissell Apartments who are facing a suit over allegations they
failed to properly take care of their apartments asked Madison County Circuit
Judge Andy Matoesian for summary judgment, Steve Korris of St. Clair Record
reports.

The plaintiff’s claim has no legal or factual foundation, attorney Troy
Bozart said in his July 12 brief for property owner BA-2003 Limited
Partnership and property manager Independent Management Services.  He said
Kesha Manning of the Bissell Apartments in Venice failed to prove that mold
damaged her property.

Ms. Manning sued BA-2003 Limited Partnership and Independent  
Management Services, the owners of The Bissel Apartments, in  
April 2005 on behalf of herself and her two minor children and  
Claude Taylor.  The suit was brought by Mr. Darr of the Alton law firm of
Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr (Class Action  
Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006).

It specifically alleges that the apartments had mold and fungal growth
penicillium and cladosporiumo on surfaces and structures of the building that
make up the complex located at 1400 Klein  
Ave.  According to the complaint, the defendants breached a duty under
Illinois law to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of the Bissel
complex.

The defense moved to dismiss the case twice, first on argument that Ms.
Manning failed to attach a lease to her complaint, then on failure of
plaintiff to prosecute.  Each time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

In February 2006, Mr. Darr filed another amended complaint.   
Mr. Bozarth responded -- as in the second motion to dismiss -- that
plaintiffs refused to disclose the property they claimed was damaged.  

On April 7, 2006, Judge Matoesian ordered Ms. Manning to make a list of
personal property that mold damaged, but instead, Mr. Darr again moved to
amend his complaint so he could add a new party.  The judge granted that
motion.

In Ms. Manning's third amended complaint, she sued not only BA-
2003 and Independent Management Services, but also Bissell  
Apartments Limited.  Mr. Darr wrote that BA-2003 bought the property from
Bissell Apartments Limited in 2004.

Judge Matoesian denied a motion to dismiss the suit last year.

For more details, contact:

          Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr, Ltd.
          Suite 415, 307 Henry Street
          Alton, IL 62002-6326
          Phone: (618) 465-2311
          Fax: (618) 465-2318
          Web site: http://sbkdlaw.com

          Matthew Jacober, Esq.
          Jenkins & Kling, P.C.
          10 South Brentwood, Suite 200
          St. Louis, Missouri 63105 (Independent City)
          Phone: 314-721-2525  
          Telecopier: 314-721-5525


CHARDEE'S RESTAURANT: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chardee's Restaurant, LLC is facing a class action filed on July 18 in Fort
Lauderdale federal court.

Plaintiff Pierre Mazile alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Mazile v. Chardee's Restaurant, LLC et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-
61005-DTKH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley with referral to James M. Hopkins.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Stacey Hope Cohen, Esq.
         Shavitz Law Group
         1515 S Federal Highway
         Suite 404
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-447-8888
         Fax: 447-8831
         E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com


COCA-COLA: Ga. Court Approves Motion to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has dismissed a
suit alleging violation of Employees’ Retirement Income Security Act against
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc..

On Feb. 7, 2006, a purported class action was filed against the company and
several of its current and former officers and directors.

The lawsuit alleged that the company engaged in “channel stuffing” with
customers and raised certain insider trading claims.

Lawsuits virtually identical to this suit, bringing claims under the
Employees’ Retirement Income Security Act, were also filed in Georgia courts.

The various suits have been consolidated in each court by suit type.  

Amended complaints containing allegations substantially similar to the
original suits have now been filed in each suit.

The company possess strong defenses to the claims raised in these lawsuits
and have asked the courts to dismiss each of the suits.

In an order dated Feb. 7, 2007, the court granted the company’s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action in Georgia.

The court’s order was without prejudice, and the plaintiffs have re-filed
their suit and the company has again asked that the case be dismissed.

On June 19, 2007, the same court granted the company’s motion to dismiss the
related ERISA class action.  Plaintiffs in the ERISA suit were given the
right to file an amended complaint; however, the court did dismiss several
claims and defendants with prejudice.

Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. -- http://www.cokecce.com-- markets, sells,  
manufactures, and distributes non-alcoholic beverages.  It serves a market of
approximately 412 million consumers throughout North America, Great Britain,
continental France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Monaco.  


C. R. BARD: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Urological Catheters
----------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. continues to face an antitrust class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri that claims it and
several companies colluded to monopolize the market on urological catheter
products.

On Feb. 21, 2007, Southeast Missouri Hospital filed a putative class action
complaint on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated against the
company and another manufacturer.  The complaint is “Southeast Missouri
Hospital v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00031).”

The plaintiff alleges that the company and the other defendant conspired to
exclude competitors from the market and to maintain the company’s market
share by engaging in conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust
laws.  Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages.

The company reported no development in the case at its July 27, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

According to the March 6, 2007 issue of Class Action Reporter, named
defendants in the suit are:

    -- C.R. Bard, Inc.
    -- Tyco International (U.S.), Inc. and
    -- Tyco Health Care Group.

The suit was brought on behalf of all persons or entities, including
hospitals and other healthcare providers in the U.S. who directly purchased
Urological Catheters produced, promoted, sold, marketed and/or distributed by
one or more of the defendants, from Jan. 1, 2002 through the present (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2007).

Named plaintiff Southeast Missouri Hospital says the companies use
exclusionary compliance discounts, sole-source exclusive dealing contracts
and bundled discounts and rebates to restrict and eliminate competition and
charge inflated prices.

As a result of defendants' unlawful conduct, plaintiff and the class
allegedly paid prices for Urological Catheters that were artificially
inflated, and were foreclosed from the opportunity to purchase more effective
and innovatively advanced Urological Catheters.

The plaintiff wanted the court to rule on:

     (a) Whether the defendants engaged in a contract,
         combination or conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of, or allocate
         the market for Urological Catheters;

     (b) Whether the defendants and their co-conspirators were
         participants in the contracts, combinations or
         conspiracies alleged herein;

     (c) Whether the defendants and their co-conspirators
         engaged in conduct that violated Sections 1 and 2 of
         the Sherman Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Act;

     (d) Whether the defendants and their co-conspirators
         engaged in unlawful, unfair or deceptive contracts,
         combinations or conspiracies among themselves, express
         or implied, to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize
         prices of Urological Catheters sold in and/or
         distributed in the U.S.;

     (f) Whether the anticompetitive conduct of the defendants
         caused prices of Urological Catheters to be
         artificially inflated to non-competitive levels;

     (g) Whether the defendants unjustly enriched themselves as
         a result of their inequitable conduct at the expense of
         the Class members;

     (h) Whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         injunctive relief;

     (i) Whether plaintiff and other class members were injured
         by the conduct of defendants and, if so, the
         appropriate class-wide measure of damages

     (j) What is the scope of the relative market for Urological
         Catheters; and

     (k) Whether defendants have market power in the Urological
         Catheter.

Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the class, respectfully
prays:

     (1) that this action may be maintained as a class action
         pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
         Procedure, that plaintiff's counsel be appointed class
         counsel, and that reasonable notice of this action be
         given to the class;

     (2) that the acts alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to
         be unlawful restraints of trade in violation of
         Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of
         the Clayton Act;

     (3) that the class recover treble the damages determined to
         have been sustained by them, and that joint and several
         judgments be entered against defendants in favor of the
         class;

     (4) that defendants be enjoined from entering into the
         unlawful agreements discussed above;

     (5) that the class be granted the costs and expenses of
         suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided
         by law; and

     (6) that the class be granted such other and further relief
         as may be determined to be just, equitable and proper
         by the court.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1a58

The suit is "Southeast Missouri Hospital v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-00031-TCM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri under Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III.

Representing plaintiffs is:

         J. Michael Ponder, Esq.
         Cook and Barkett
         715 N. Clark Street, P.O. Box 1180
         Cape Girardeau, MO 63702-1180
         Phone: 573-335-6651
         Fax: 573-335-6182
         E-mail: mike@semotriallawyers.com


C. R. BARD: Composix Kugel Mesh Patch Suits Sent to R.I. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred on June 22, 2007
Composix lawsuits pending in federal courts nationwide into one Multidistrict
Litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  The actions been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

C. R. Bard, Inc. is facing three putative class actions that were filed or
asserted against the company with respect to its Bard Composix Kugel product
intended for ventral hernia repair, according to the company’s July 27, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.  

The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the product
beginning in December 2005.

The actions generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of
the product.  The putative class actions, none of which has been certified,
also seek:

      -- medical monitoring,
      -- compensatory damages,
      -- punitive damages,
      -- a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or
      -- attorneys’ fees.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- is engaged in the designing,  
manufacturing, packaging, distribution and sale of medical, surgical,
diagnostic and patient care devices.  The Company sells a range of products
worldwide to hospitals, individual healthcare professionals, extended care
facilities and alternate site facilities.


EBAY INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in Cal. Over PayPal System
---------------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. is facing another class-action complaint, filed July 25, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Named plaintiff Jeffrey Enebely accuses eBay of monopoly abuses -- illegally
tying payments to its PayPal system.

The suit is “Enebely v. eBay, Inc., Case No. 5:07-cv-03803-PVT,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          C. Donald Amamgbo
          Amamgbo & Associates, APC
          7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Phone: 510 615-6000
          Fax: 510 615-6024
          E-mail: Donald@Amamgbolaw.com

          - and -

          Reginald Von Terrell
          The Terrell Law Group
          223 25th Street
          Richmond, CA 94804
          Phone: 510/237-9700
          Fax: 510-237-4616
          E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com


FORD MOTOR: Judge Hears Arguments in $2B Explorer Profit Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento Superior Judge David De Alba ordered a closed door hearing for a
key testimony about an estimated $2 billion profits that plaintiff lawyers
for a class action want returned to certain purchasers of the company’s
Explorer, Hudson Sangree of Sacramento Bee reports.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer argue that Judge Alba, who is hearing the case without
a jury,  has the power to order ford to give back some $2.135 billion that
Ford illegally gained from the sale of the defective Explorers.  The
plaintiffs’ lawyers are urging Judge Alba to rule on their motion to recover
the profits once he finds that the company’s behaviors are "reprehensible and
highly profitable."

Their case relies in part on the testimony of Dr. Alan Goedde, an economist
and hired expert on damage awards, according to the report.

The judge ordered the closed door hearing after finding that a document
offered by the plaintiffs' attorneys contained information that Ford's
competitors could use against it.

                        Case Background

The class action filed by California consumers against Ford Motor Co. over
its 1991-2001 model year Explorers was brought on behalf of all people and
entities residing in California who bought, owned or leased, a new or used
1991-2001 model year Ford Explorer in California between 1990 and August 9,
2000, and who either still own their Explorer or who sold, ended their lease,
or otherwise disposed of it after August 9, 2000.

Filed in 2003, plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that defendant,
Ford Motor Co., violated California's statutory Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs say that Ford knew about a dangerous design flaw that made the
Explorer unsafe and too likely to roll over, yet concealed it, and instead
marketed and sold the Explorer as a safe vehicle.

The plaintiffs want class members to get compensation from Ford for the
excess money they say they paid for their Explorers, as well as money from
the profits Ford earned on California
Explorer sales, and other legal costs.

On April 23, 2007 class counsel requested that the court voluntarily and
permanently dismiss, with prejudice, the claims against Ford for violations
of the CLRA.

Ford continues to deny all the claims and allegations in the lawsuit.

Ford Explorer Cases on the net: http://www.explorercasuit.com  

Copies of the 2003 Complaint, the detailed notice and an updated notice are
available free of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?202a
               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?202b
               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?202c

The case is "Ford Explorer Cases, JCCP Nos. 4226 and 4270."  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Henry Rossbacher, Esq.
          The Rossbacher Firm
          611 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1650
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 895-6500
          Fax: (213) 895-6161
          E-mail: hhr@rossbacher.xhost.com
          Web site: http://www.rossbacherlaw.com


G.D.F. INC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------
G.D.F., Inc. is facing a class action filed July 17 in Chicago federal court.

Plaintiff Robert S. Johnson alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Johnson v. G.D.F., Inc. et al., Case no. 1:07-cv-03996,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge
Ronald A. Guzman.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Petrine J. Nielsen, Esq.
          Ernest T. Rossiello & Associates, P.C.
          134 North LaSalle Street
          Suite 1330
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 346-8920
          E-mail: ETRLawNielsen@aol.com

          Ernest Thomas Rossiello, Esq.
          Ernest T. Rossiello & Associates, P.C.
          134 North LaSalle Street
          Suite1330
          Chicago, IL 60602-2001
          Phone: (312) 346-8920
          E-mail: etrlaw@aol.com


GERMANY FUND: Board Okays Settlement of Suit Challenging Bylaws
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Germany Fund, Inc.’s Board of Directors approved the terms of a
settlement of the civil class action “Daniels v. The New Germany Fund, Inc.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-01890-MJG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.

Filed in 2005, the suit challenged the validity of the Fund's director
qualification bylaw, which includes a requirement of relevant experience and
country knowledge consistent with the Fund's strategy of investment in German
companies.

Pursuant to the settlement and an agreement with the shareholder group that
sought to nominate competing directors in 2005 and subsequent years, the Fund
would conduct an in-kind tender offer for 20% of the Fund's outstanding
shares of common stock at 96% of net asset value per share. Payment for
shares would be in the form of a pro rata portion of the Fund's cash and
portfolio securities.

The Fund's obligation to conduct the tender offer, as well as the other terms
of the settlement, will become effective only after formal notification of
the settlement has been sent to shareholders following preliminary approval
by the Court and the final judgment and order has thereafter been entered by
the Court. The Fund expects to commence the tender offer as soon as
practicable after the final order is upheld or no longer subject to an
appeal.

The settlement, which would dismiss the litigation without a change to the
bylaw, remains subject to approval by the District Court.

The New Germany Fund, Inc. is a non-diversified, closed-end investment
company seeking capital appreciation primarily through investment in the
Mittelstand -- an important group of small and mid-cap German companies.

The suit is “Daniels v. The New Germany Fund, Inc. et al. Case No. 1:05-cv-
01890-MJG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
under Judge Marvin J. Garbis.

Representing defendants are:

          Jeremy C. Bates
          Marc De Leeuw
          Justin J. DeCamp
          Lauren F. Gershell
          Sullivan and Cromwell LLP
          125 Broad St
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 12125584822 or 12125584219 or 12125581688
          Fax: 12125583358
          E-mail: batesj@sullcrom.com or deleeuwm@sullcrom.com
                  or decampj@sullcrom.com or
                  gershell@sullcrom.com

          Michael James DeVinne
          Venable LLP
          Two Hopkins Plz Ste 1800
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Phone: 14102447518
          Fax: 14102447742
          E-mail: mjdevinne@venable.com

          Amy S. Dolgin
          Peter Glatz Rush
          Bell Boyd and Lloyd LLC
          70 W Madison St Ste 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 13128074245 or 13128074352
          Fax: 13128278155 or 13128278005
          E-mail: adolgin@bellboyd.com or prush@bellboyd.com

          - and -

          Mark D. Gately
          Scott R. Haiber
          Hogan and Hartson LLP
          111 S Calvert St Ste 1600
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 14106592700
          Fax: 14105396981
          E-mail: mdgately@hhlaw.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Meryl W. Edelstein
          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          1230 Peachtree St NW Ste 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 14048733900
          Fax: 14048764476
          E-mail: medelstein@chitwoodlaw.com

          Gregory Edward Keller
          Chitwood Harley and Harnes LLP
          11 Grace Ave Ste 306
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: 15167736090
          Fax: 14048764476
          E-mail: gkeller@chitwoodlaw.com

          - and -

          John Bucher Isbister
          Toyja E. Kelley
          Tydings and Rosenberg LLP
          100 E Pratt St 26th Fl
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 14107529714 or 14107529700
          Fax: 14107275460
          E-mail: jisbister@tydingslaw.com or
                  tkelley@tydingslaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Faces Suits in Canada Over Diabetes Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Merchant of the Merchant Law Group filed statements of claim in
Saskatchewan and Ontario courts against the makers of Avandia, a popular Type
2 diabetes drug, the Canadian Press reports.

Avandia is prescribed for Type 2 diabetics to control blood sugar by
increasing the body's sensitivity to insulin.

Mr. Merchant's lawsuit, filed in Saskatchewan, alleges that Iris Edith Wall
began to have chest pain, shortness of breath and heart failure within two
months of beginning to take Avandia.

It alleges that within a year, she suffered at heart attack and died at age
75.

The suit alleges GlaxoSmithKline should have done more to warn consumers of
the drug's risks.

The manufacturer has argued that there is no increased risk, citing its own
analysis of studies of Avandia, also called rosiglitazone.

Also named as a defendant in the statements is the Attorney General of Canada.

Mr. Merchant can be contacted at:

          Tony Merchant
          Merchant Law Group.
          Phone: 1 866 982 7777
          E-mail: merchant@merchantlaw.com
          Website: http://www.merchantlaw.com/


GORDON'S CLEANING: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon's Cleaning Service, Inc. is facing a class action filed July 13 in St.
Louis federal court.

Plaintiff Enrique Melgar alleges non-payment of overtime work in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Melgar et al. v. Gordon's Cleaning Service, Inc., Case No. 1:07-
cv-00104-LMB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri under Judge Lewis M. Blanton.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Richard Whiffen, Esq.
          Richard Whiffen, PC
          102 S. Interstate Drive
          P.O. Box 924
          Sikeston, MO 63801
          Phone: 573-471-0600
          Fax: 573-472-1477
          E-mail: whiffenrichard@hotmail.com


INSURANCE BROKERAGE: Court Stays Discovery in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court District of New Jersey has stayed all discovery in
the matter "In Re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663,
Civil No. 04-5184 (FSH)," which named as a defendant, St. Paul Travelers
Cos., Inc., now known as The Travelers Companies, Inc.

Initially, four putative class actions are pending against a number of
insurance brokers and insurers, including the company and/or certain of its
affiliates, by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased insurance products through
one or more of the defendant brokers.

Plaintiffs allege that various insurance brokers conspired with each other
and with various insurers, including the company and/or certain of its
affiliates, to artificially inflate premiums, allocate brokerage customers
and rig bids for insurance products offered to those customers.

The complaints are captioned:

      -- "Redwood Oil Company v. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
         Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2005),"

      -- "Boros v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al.
         (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2005),"

      -- "Mulcahy v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., et al. (D.N.J.
         Feb. 23, 2005), and

      -- "Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation
         District v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al.
         (D.N.J. Feb. 23, 2005)."

To the extent they were not originally filed there, the federal class actions
were transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and have been consolidated
with other class actions under the caption, "In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation," a multidistrict litigation proceeding in that court.

On Aug. 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named plaintiffs in
the above-referenced class actions, filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint naming various brokers and insurers, including the company
and certain of its affiliates, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.

The complaint includes causes of action under the Sherman Act, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), state common law and the
laws of the various states prohibiting antitrust violations.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages and trebled
damages, permanent injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of
profits, interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 29, 2005, all defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim.  

On Feb. 13, 2006, the named plaintiffs moved to certify a nationwide class
consisting of all persons who between Aug. 26, 1994 and the date of class
certification engaged the services of a broker defendant (or related entity)
in connection with the procurement or renewal of insurance and who entered
into or renewed a contract of insurance with one or more of the insurer
defendants, including the company.  

Oral arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss were heard on July 26,
2006.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the court ruled that the complaint failed to plead
actionable claims under the Sherman Act or RICO, provided plaintiffs an
opportunity to replead those claims and reserved decision with respect to
remaining state law claims.

On Nov. 30, 2006, defendants renewed their motions to dismiss.

On April 5, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint and permitted plaintiffs
to replead.  On May 22, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On June
21, 2007, defendants renewed their motion to dismiss.  

The court has stayed discovery in the matter, 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 is "In Re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663,
Civil No. 04-5184 (FSH)," filed in the U.S.
District Court District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg.


K2 INC: Enters Settlement for Calif. Lawsuit Over Jarden Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
K2 Inc. (NYSE:KTO) and the city of Roseville Employees' Retirement System, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, agreed to a settlement in
principle of the putative shareholder class action filed in California
Superior Court for the County of San Diego concerning the sale of K2 pursuant
to a merger agreement executed on April 24, 2007 between K2 and Jarden Corp.

Jarden announced it has signed a definitive merger agreement to acquire K2,
under the terms of which, Jarden will pay $10.85 per share of K2 common stock
in cash and will issue 0.1086 of a share of Jarden common stock (subject to
adjustment as provided in the merger agreement) for each share of K2 common
stock outstanding as of the closing (Troubled Company Reporter, April 30,
2007).

The cash and Jarden stock to be issued in the transaction has a combined
value of approximately $15.50 per K2 share, based on the closing price of
Jarden common stock on the date of signing the merger agreement.  The total
enterprise value of the transaction, including the assumption or repayment of
indebtedness, is approximately $1.2 billion.  The transaction is expected to
close in the third quarter of this year.

In May, the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System filed the lawsuit
alleging, among other things, that K2's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in approving the proposed merger and that the consideration payable to
K2's shareholders in the merger is unfair and inadequate (Class Action
Reporter, May 4, 2007).

The plaintiff is asking, among other things, that the transaction
contemplated in the merger agreement be enjoined or, if the merger is
completed, that it be rescinded.

The material terms of the recent settlement include K2's agreement to make
certain disclosures regarding the transaction, which disclosures K2 has
already made in its proxy materials sent to shareholders and reports
previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The settlement also provides that K2 and Jarden will amend the merger
agreement with respect to the transaction as soon as reasonably possible in
order to reduce from $27.5 million to $24 million the termination fee payable
by K2 to Jarden under certain circumstances in the event that the merger
agreement is terminated.

The settlement includes full releases of all the defendants. The settlement
is subject to preliminary and final approval of the California Superior Court
where the case is pending. A companion case brought by Steamfitters Local 449
Pension & Retirement Security Funds will be dismissed.

Headquartered in Rye, New York, Jarden Corp. (NYSE: JAH) --
http://www.jarden.com/-- manufactures and distributes niche consumer  
products used in and around the home.  The company's primary segments include
Consumer Solutions, Branded Consumables, and Outdoor.

Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, K2 Inc. (NYSE: KTO) --
http://www.k2inc.net/-- designs manufactures and distributes sporting  
equipment, apparel and accessories.


MAINE: Judge Carter Denies Class Lawyers’ Request for $178T
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Gene Carter denied a request by attorneys in the
Knox County strip-search class action for more than $178,000 in costs and
expenses, Holly S. Anderson of knox.VillageSoup.com reports.

Instead, Judge Carter awarded attorneys representing the class $23,822.74.  
Class counsel attorneys include Dale F. Thistle, Sumner H. Lipman, William D.
Robitzek, Benjamin J. Smith, Frank P. Deprima, James Billings, Robert J.
Stolt and Tracie L. Adams.

In his order denying the attorney’s request for $178,561.41 in reimbursement,
the judge said the motion lacked supporting documentation.

The original amount requested represents 30 percent of the $3 million
settlement fund approved by the court in April of this year, according to
court documents.

The $3 million settlement calls for payouts of about $5,000 each to more than
350 people who were strip-searched illegally at the Knox County Jail over an
eight-year period (Class Action Reporter, April 26, 2007).

An estimated 7,500 to 8,000 people who were charged with nonviolent
misdemeanors and strip-searched at the Rockland jail between Nov. 19, 1996,
and Dec. 31, 2004, are eligible to join in the settlement.

                      The Rockland Lawsuit

In the original suit, Laurie Tardiff, represented by attorneys
Dale F. Thistle, Robert J. Stolt and Sumner Lipman, alleges that the
plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights were violated when she was strip-
searched by a female officer at the Rockland jail after being arrested on a
felony charge of tampering with a witness.  That charge and a charge of
violating conditions of release, a misdemeanor, later were dismissed (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2006).

Judge Carter certified the lawsuit in 2003 as a class action.  
People charged with nonviolent misdemeanors who were strip-searched at the
Rockland jail between Nov. 19, 1996, and Dec.
31, 2004 were made eligible to join the suit.

The class was decertified in September, allowing Ms. Tardiff to proceed to
trial as an individual to determine liability, but the court also requested
that the parties attempt to reach an out of court settlement.

In early Oct. 2, the parties reached a $3 million settlement under which Ms.
Tardiff was supposed to receive a $50,000 bonus payment.  The settlement was
to be presented for approval to the court on the same month.  

But before it could happen, Ms. Tardiff sent a letter to Judges Carter and
George Singal, the mediator in the settlement stating that she was backing
off, asking for $500,000 instead.  Ms. Tardiff then hired attorney William D.
Robitzek at Lewiston law firm Berman & Simmons and opted out of the class.  

Parties agreed to substitute Ms. Tardiff with a new class representative,
Dale Dare, and filed an amended settlement on
Oct. 24, 2006.

Judge Carter, however, refused to approve the amended settlement because it
did not provide two opportunities for all potential class members to opt out,
and because the language of the injunction left out a stipulation regarding
parties' rights to appeal.  

Judge Carter has found that the third final settlement agreement has met
federal law requirements, and the injunction language satisfactory.

The suit is "Dare v. Knox County, et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-00251-GC," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine under Judge Gene Carter
with referral to Judge David M.
Cohen.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Sumner H. Lipman, Esq.
          Lipman, Katz & Mckee
          P.O. Box 1051, Augusta
          ME 04332-1051
          Phone: 207-622-3711
          E-mail: slipman@lipmankatzmckee.com

          -- and --

          Dale F. Thistle, Esq.
          Law Office of Dale F. Thistle
          103 Main Street, P.O. Box 160
          Newport, ME 04953
          Phone: (207) 368-7755
          E-mail: dthistle@verizon.net

Representing the defendants are:

          Peter t. Marchesi, Esq.
          Wheeler & Arey, P.A.
          27 Temple Street, P.O. BOX 376
          Waterville, ME 04901
          Phone: 873-7771
          E-mail: pbear@wheelerlegal.com

          - and -

         John J. Wall, III, Esq.
         Monaghan Leahy, LLP
         P.O. BOX 7046 DTS
         Portland, ME 04112-7046
         Phone: 774-3906
         E-mail: jwall@monaghanleahy.com


MEDICAL OPTICS: Faces New Suits Over Recalled Lens Solution
-----------------------------------------------------------
Four more products liability lawsuits are filed against the manufacturer of
Complete MoisturePlus contact lens solution in Orange County Superior Court
in Santa Ana, California (Case nos. 07CC01330, 07CC01331, 07CC01332,
07CC01333).

The product was voluntarily recalled on May 25 at the request of the U.S.
Food & Drug Administration in the wake of data collected and reviewed by the
Centers for Disease Control linking the solution to a serious corneal
infection known as Acanthamoeba keratitis.

The new cases add to a growing number of injury and class action claims
arising out of the recall.

The lawsuits, naming vision products manufacturer Advanced Medical Optics,
Inc., and its former parent company, Allergan, were brought by:

southern California residents:

     * Dolores O. Morse, Ph.D. (Case no. 07CC01332), and
     * Kelly Segerstrom (Case no. 07CC01333), as well as

Washington residents:

     * Jacqueline Grossman (Case No. 07CC01331),
     * Krista Nelson (Case No. 07CC01330)

All of the plaintiffs allege that they contracted Acanthamoeba infections
while they were using Complete MoisturePlus to disinfect their contact
lenses.

The cases were filed by Newport Beach-based Moore Labriola LLP, which also
filed the first post-recall lawsuit against AMO on June 4 (Case no. 07 CC
01296).

The plaintiffs are also represented by Michael Schmidt of The Schmidt Firm
and Schmidt & Clark, both based in Dallas.

Acanthamoeba infections can be chronic, resistant to treatment, and often
require surgical interventions such as corneal transplantation. They not
infrequently lead to blindness.  Ms. Morse and Ms. Grossman both underwent
surgical procedures as the result of infection-related damage and have lost
the use of the affected eyes.

Ms. Segerstrom is hopeful she has gotten through the worst of her infection
thanks to intensive treatments, but still experiences vision problems. Ms.
Nelson, a 16 year-old, continues to fight her infection, which was diagnosed
last November. She is believed to be the first minor to file suit against AMO
since the recall.

“We expect the litigation to grow significantly over the next several
months,” said attorney Michael Schmidt, who added that his firm represents
numerous Acanthamoeba victims from across the Country.

Mr. Schmidt noted that many of the victims are minors. “AMO specifically
targeted teenage contact lens wearers, like Krista, in their marketing
campaigns,” said Schmidt, who noted that young people appear to be
particularly susceptible to the risks of ineffective lens disinfectants.

According to the lawsuits, studies published well before the product was
recalled showed the disinfectant in Complete MoisturePlus was vastly inferior
to hydrogen peroxide as well as other multipurpose contact lens solutions on
the market in eradicating Acanthamoeba. The plaintiffs allege that AMO was
aware of the ineffectiveness of their product but concealed that information
from consumers.

The new lawsuits come a week after AMO announced plans to re-enter the
multipurpose lens solution business. According to recent press reports, the
company says it will start distributing an “older” formulation of the
recalled product as early as August.

The product will reportedly feature revised labeling designed to improve
safety, and will instruct users to manually rub their lenses during the
cleaning process. AMO had previously represented to consumers that they could
effectively disinfect lenses without a rub step, a practice considered unsafe
by many optometrists and ophthalmologists.

Attorney Thomas Moore says his clients are concerned that consumers may be
misled by the launch of the old AMO formulation and may incorrectly presume
the solution is adequately effective against Acanthamoeba.

“The label changes are all well and good, but AMO continues to ignore the
root problem, which is the ineffectiveness of their disinfectant ingredient
under real-world conditions,” says Mr. Moore.

The solution will reportedly use the preservative polyhexamethylene
biguanide, which is the same disinfectant used in the recalled product.

“That ingredient in concentrations routinely used by AMO and Allergan has
been shown to be ineffective against Acanthamoeba in many published studies,”
Mr. Moore said, who added that if AMO wants to take a leadership position in
the contact lens solution industry, “they should develop a disinfectant that
works, and stop blaming consumers for infections which could be prevented
with effective products.”

For more information, contact:

          Robert H Hilley IV
          Schmidt & Clark, LLP
          Phone: (858) 688-0923
          E-mail: hilley@schmidtandclark.com
          Website: http://www.schmidtandclark.com


NETFLIX INC: Faces Antitrust Claims in Online DVD Rental Market
---------------------------------------------------------------
NetFlix Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 25 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California accusing it of
fraudulently concealing prior art to get two patents, allowing it to
monopolize the Internet DVD rental market, squeeze out competitors and jack
up prices, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Jose Vargas Jr. claims NetFlix sued Blockbuster to protect
its fraudulently obtained patents, illegally restraining trade, competing
unfairly and violating antitrust law.

The suit concerns two patents obtained by Netflix:

     * U.S. Patent No. 6,584,450 (Patent 450), and
     * U.S. Patent 7,024,381 (Patent 381).

The complaint alleges these patents were obtained by fraud on the U.S. Patent
Office and the fraudulent concealment of prior art. Because prior art
anticipates some and or all of the claims in Patents 450 and 381, and Netflix
knew of this prior art, but failed to disclose it to the Patent Office,
Patents 450 and 381 are invalid and thus are unenforceable.

Through its control of Patents 450 and 381, Netflix allegedly monopolized the
online DVD rental market by deterring other competitors from entering this
market.  Additionally, because of the threat of litigation and potential
liability for infringing on Patents 450 and 381, there would be more
competition and, hence better services and lower prices in the online DVD
rental market, the suit claims.

Because of Netflix's exclusion of competitors and constraint of competition,
Mr. Vargas and the other class members have paid supracompetitive online DVD
rental subscription rates to Netflix, according to the suit. To maintain,
monopoly, Netflix sued Blockbuster, Inc. for allegedly infringing on Patents
450 and 381 by operating its Blockbuster Online rental service.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Netflix Patent Applicants knew of the Prior Art
         alleged while the "450" and "381" Patent Applications
         were pending;

     (b) whether the Prior Art alleged predates and anticipates
         the claims made in Patents 450 and 381, or was
         otherwise material to the "450" and "381" Patent
         Applications;

     (c) whether the Netflix Patent Applicants formed a
         combination of capital, skill and/or acts for the
         purpose of creating restrictions and preventing
         competition in the Relevant Market;

     (d) whether the Netflix Patent Applicants intentionally
         concealed the Prior Art from the Patent Office while
         the "450" and "381" Patent Applicants were pending;

     (e) whether Netflix acquired  and used Patents 450 and 381
         to delay, deter and destroy competition in the Relevant
         Market;

     (f) whether Netflix's acquisition, maintenance and use of
         Patents 450 and 381 violates Section 2 of the Sherman
         Act;

     (g) whether Netflix's acquisition and maintenance of
         Patents 450 and 381 violates the Cartwright Act;

     (h) whether Netflix's acquisition and maintenance of
         Patents 450 and 381 is unlawful and otherwise unfair,
         thereby constitutes a violation of California's unfair
         competition law; and

     (i) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to relief,
         and the nature of such relief.

This lawsuit seeks remedies for consumers against Netflix's anticompetitive
acts, including damages (and treble damages pursuant to the Sherman Act and
the Cartwright Act), restitution, and other things injunctive relief
restraining Netflix from similar anticompetitive acts in the future pursuant
to the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 15, 26), the Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Section 16750), and the unfair competition law (Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17203).

The suit is “Vargas v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 5:07-cv-03802-RS,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Richard Seeborg.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          C. Donald Amamgbo
          Amamgbo & Associates, APC
          7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Phone: 510 615-6000
          Fax: 510 615-6024
          E-mail: Donald@Amamgbolaw.com

          Reginald Von Terrell
          The Terrell Law Group
          223 25th Street
          Richmond, CA 94804
          Phone: 510/237-9700
          Fax: 510-237-4616
          E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com


NEW RIVER: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
New River Pizza, Inc. is facing a class action filed in Fort Lauderdale
federal court over alleged violation of Federal Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Luiz Godoy and Jefferson Bueno are suing to collect unpaid wages.

The suit is “Godoy v. New River Pizza, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-61010-
WJZ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
under Judge William J. Zloch.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway
          Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com


NORTHERN STATES: Oral Argument Date Yet to be Set in “Hoffman”
--------------------------------------------------------------
No hearing date has yet been set for oral arguments in the purported consumer
class action, “Hoffman vs. Northern States Power Co.” which names Northern
States Power Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy, Inc. as a
defendant.

Filed on March 15, 2006, the complaint was brought on behalf of NSP-
Minnesota's residential customers in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota
for alleged breach of a contractual obligation to maintain and inspect the
points of connection between NSP- Minnesota's wires and customers' homes
within the meter box.

Plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota's breach results in an increased risk of fire
and that it is in violation of tariffs on file with the Minnesota Power
Utilities Commission.  

They thus seek injunctive relief and damages in an amount equal to the value
of inspections plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota was required to perform over
the past six years.  

NSP-Minnesota filed a motion for dismissal on the pleadings.  In November
2006, the court issued an order denying NSP-Minnesota's motion.

On Nov. 28, 2006, pursuant to a motion by NSP-Minnesota, the court certified
the issues raised in NSP-Minnesota's original motion as important and
doubtful.  

This certification permits NSP-Minnesota to file an appeal, and it has done
so.  Briefs have been filed, but a date for oral arguments has not yet been
set, according to the company’s July 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.  

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/-- is a  
holding company engaged in the utility business in the
U.S.


PET VALU: Named in Canadian Lawsuit Over Recalled Pet Food
----------------------------------------------------------
Pet Valu Canada Inc. has been advised that a motion is being pursued in the
Court of Queen's Bench in the Province of Saskatchewan to include Pet Valu
Canada Inc. and Pet Valu, Inc. among other defendants in a class action
involving allegations concerning the manufacture and sale of pet food
products alleged to contain tainted ingredients.

On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American-wide recall of 48
brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food in response to reported deaths
of cats and dogs in the U.S.

The nationwide recall includes popular brands such as Iams, Nutro, and
Eukanuba and private-label brands sold by retailers Wal-Mart, Safeway,
Petsmart, and others.

Veterinary professionals estimate thousands of pets across the nation will
die of kidney failure or become very sick with similar symptoms as a result
of consuming the contaminated products.

Pet Valu is in the early stages of its investigation of this potential claim.
Based upon information known to date, it believes that its overall exposure
in relation to this claim is not material. It intends to vigorously defend
itself in this matter.

Pet Valu is a specialty retailer of pet food and pet-related supplies
operating company-owned and franchised locations in Canada and the U.S.

To see complete list of recalled products: http://www.menufoods.com/recall

For more information, contact:

          Michael Fitzgerald
          Phone: (905) 946-1200, extension 3503


ROHM & HAAS: Faces Ky. Suit Over Louisville Plant Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm & Haas Co. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky captioned, “Donaway et al. v. Rohm and Haas
Co., Louisville Plant, case No. 3:06-cv-00575-JGH.”

In Nov. 9 2006, individuals alleging that their persons or properties were
invaded by particulate and air contaminants from the Louisville plant filed
the complaint.

The complaint seeks class action certification alleging that there are
hundreds of potential plaintiffs residing in neighborhoods within two miles
of the plant, according to the company’s July 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2007.

The suit is the “Donaway et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company, Louisville Plant,
case No. 3:06-cv-00575-JGH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky under Judge John G. Heyburn, II.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Mark K. Gray, Esq.
         Gray & White
         500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 1200 PNC Plaza
         Louisville, KY 40202
         Phone: 502-585-2060
         Fax: 502-581-1933
         E-mail: mkgrayatty@aol.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Hiram Ely, III, Esq.
         Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC
         3500 National City Tower, 101 South Fifth Street
         Louisville, KY 40202-3103
         Phone: 502-587-3562
         Fax: 502-540-2159
         E-mail: he@gdm.com


SANA ENTERPRISES: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------
Sana Enterprises, Inc. is facing a class action filed July 17 in Chicago
federal court.

Plaintiff Natalie Wasso alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Wasso v. Sana Enterprises, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03995,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge Joan H. Lefkow.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Petrine J. Nielsen, Esq.
          Ernest T. Rossiello & Associates, P.C.
          134 North LaSalle Street
          Suite 1330
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 346-8920
          E-mail: ETRLawNielsen@aol.com

          Ernest Thomas Rossiello, Esq.
          Ernest T. Rossiello & Associates, P.C.
          134 North LaSalle Street
          Suite1330
          Chicago, IL 60602-2001
          Phone: (312) 346-8920
          E-mail: etrlaw@aol.com


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated securities class action filed against
Schering-Plough Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

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

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

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

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

The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class.

The court certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003. Notice of
pendency of the class action was sent to members of that class in July 2007.  

Discovery is ongoing, according to the company’s July 27, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2007.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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

          - and -

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

Representing the defendant is:

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


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Still Faces Savings Plan Members’ Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. and a company executive remain defendants in a breach
of fiduciary duty suit pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The suit was filed on March 31, 2003, alleging breach of fiduciary duty
against the company, the company's Employee Savings Plan (Plan)
administrator, and Richard Jay Kogan, who resigned as chairman of the board
Nov. 13, 2002, and retired as chief executive officer, president and director
of the company
April 20, 2003.

In May 2003, the company was served with a second putative class action
complaint filed in the same court with allegations nearly identical to the
complaint filed March 31, 2003.  

On Oct. 6, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, which names as
additional defendants' seven current and former directors and other corporate
officers.  

The complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses allegedly suffered by the
Plan.  The court dismissed this complaint on June 29, 2004.  On July 16,
2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.

On Aug. 19, 2005 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed the
dismissal by the district court and the matter was remanded back to the
district court for further proceedings.

The company reported no development in the matter in its July 27, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2007.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a global  
science-based healthcare company with prescription, consumer and animal
health products.  Through internal research and collaborations with business
partners, Schering-Plough discovers, develops, manufactures and markets
advanced drug therapies.  


TOYOTA MOTOR: Fla. Lawsuit Claims Fraud in Prius Hybrid Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. are
facing a class-action complaint filed July 24 in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, claiming Toyota has misrepresented the fuel
efficiency of its Prius hybrid since 2000, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Toyota allegedly used false and deceptive advertising to sell and lease the
Prius.

Named plaintiff Derek Brett claims Toyota knew its cars did not deliver the
advertised 55 miles per gallon -- 60 mpg on the highway and 51 mpg in city
driving -- but advertised them under those claims anyway.

Mr. Brett claims the true mileage, ”as represented on the Department of
Energy’s fuel economy Web site, reveals that the true overall efficiency of
the Prius is much closer to 46 mpg (48 in the city and 45 in highway driving
conditions), and, in fact, may be lower than that.”

He claims that Toyota's advertising and marketing of the Prius includes
representations of fuel economy that the car does not achieve under normal
driving conditions.

This is a class action brought on behalf of all persons in Florida who
purchased or leased a new Toyota Prius Hybrid distributed or marketed by
Toyota from January 1, 2000 through the present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Toyota knew, or by the exercise of reasonable
         care should have known that the Prius actual fuel
         efficiency was significantly below the figures Toyota
         advertised;

     (b) whether Toyota advertised  the Prius to the class with
         materially deceptive, untrue, or misleading statements
         of fuel efficiency expressed in miles per gallon or
         cost savings;

     (c) whether Toyota made materially untrue or misleading
         statements of fact to the class concerning the fuel
         efficiency of the Prius;

     (d) whether Toyota concealed from the class and/or failed
         to disclose or omitted to state to the class material
         facts concerning the actual efficiency of the Prius;

     (e) whether Toyota knew, or by the exercise of reasonable
         care should have known, that the omissions of fact,
         non-disclosures of fact and/or materially misleading
         statements of fact made to the class about the fuel
         economy and fuel cost savings of the Prius had the
         capacity or tendency to confuse and mislead;

     (f) whether, by the misconduct as set forth in the
         complaint, Toyota engaged in unfair or unlawful
         business practices with respect to the advertising,
         marketing and sale of the Prius;

     (g) whether, as a result of Toyota's misconduct as set
         forth in the complaint, plaintiff and the class are
         entitled to damages, restitution, equitable relief and
         other relief;

     (h) whether Toyota has acted on grounds generally
         applicable to the class, making injunctive relief
         appropriate;

     (i) whether a class can be certified pursuant to Fed. R.
         Civ.P. 23(b)(3); and

     (j) whether, in addition to or in the alternative, the
         class can be certified pursuant to Fe. R. Civ. P.
         23(b)(2).

Plaintiff prays for judgment as requested above against defendants and
further prays for:

     -- an order certifying the class proposed and appointing
        plaintiff and his counsel to represent the class;

     -- restitution and/or disgorgement of amounts paid by
        plaintiff and members of the class for the purchase
        and/or lease of the Prius, together with interest from
        the date of payment;

     -- actual damages;

     -- statutorily provided damages;

     -- statutory prejudgment interest;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of this action;

     -- legal, injunctive and equitable relief under the causes
        of action stated; including enjoining defendants from
        misrepresenting the fuel efficiency and requiring
        defendants to disclose the actual efficiency of affected
        Priuses; and

     -- other further relief that the court may deem just and
        proper.

The suit is “Brett v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-00464-MMH-DNF,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, under Judge Marcia Morales Howard, with referral to Judge Douglas
N. Frazier.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alexander E. Barnett
          The Mason Law Firm, L.L.P.
          1120 Avenue of Americas, Ste 4019
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212/362-5770
          Fax: 917/591-5227
          E-mail: abarnett@masonlawdc.com

          Gary E. Mason
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio
          The Mason Law Firm, P.C.
          1225 19th St., N.W., Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202/429-2290
          Fax: 202/429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com

          Bruce Mulkey
          The Mulkey Attorneys Group, P.A.
          1039 W. Walnut, Suite 3
          Rogers, AR 72756
          Phone: 479/631-0481
          E-mail: bruce@mulkeylaw.com

          - and -

          Scott Wm. Weinstein
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          12800 University Dr - Ste 600
          PO Box 9504
          Ft Myers, FL 33906
          Phone: 239/433-6880
          Fax: 239/433-6836
          E-mail: sweinstein@forthepeople.com


TRAVELERS COS: Minn. Court Okays “Spiziri” ERISA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota approved a proposed
settlement of the matter, “Spiziri v. The St. Paul Travelers Cos., Inc., et
al. (Dec. 28, 2004),” which was filed against The Travelers Companies, Inc.,
formerly The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.

A purported beneficiary of the Company’s 401(k) savings plan commenced the
putative class action against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  

The plaintiff alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act based on the theory that defendants were allegedly aware of issues
concerning the value of SPC’s loss reserves yet failed to protect plan
participants from continued investment in Company stock.

On June 1, 2005, the Company and the other defendants in “Spiziri” moved to
dismiss the complaint.  

On Jan. 4, 2006, the parties in “Spiziri” entered into a stipulation of
settlement.  The Court approved the settlement on April 30, 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 is "Spiziri v. St Paul Travelers Cos. Inc., et al., Case No. 0:04-cv-
05096-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim with referral to Magistrate Judge
Franklin L. Noel.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 1-800-903-7130
         E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com
         Web site: http://www.whafh.com

              - and -

         Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
         Jack L. Chestnut, Esq.
         Chestnut & Cambronne
         222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700
         Mpls, MN 55402,
         Phone: 612-339-7300
         Fax: 612-336-2940
         E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
                 jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com

Representing the defendants are:

         David H. LaRocca, Esq.
         Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
         Michael J. Garvey, Esq.
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
         425 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10017-3954
         Phone: 212-455-2377, 212-455-2598 and 212-455-7358
         E-mail: dlarocca@stblaw.com
                 mchepiga@stblaw.com
                 mgarvey@stblaw.com

              - and -

         Peter W. Carter, Esq.
         Richard B. Solum, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Mpls., MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-2600
         Fax: 612-340-2868
         E-mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com
                 solum.rick@dorsey.com


UNITED PARCEL: Web site for Penna. ADA Violations Suit Launched
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott LLP launched an informational Web site --
http://www.upsemployeeclass.com/-- for the benefit of all affected of United  
Parcel Service employees and interested parties in a nationwide class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
against UPS.

The website provides class members with important information about the case,
including links to the complaints filed against UPS, the Court orders denying
UPS's motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss, and the recent July
16, 2007 order certifying the nationwide class of UPS employees.

"The UPS class action is a complex lawsuit that concerns many thousands of
employees," said lead attorney David R. Scott of Scott+Scott LLP. "Many UPS
employees have questions about the case and are unsure whether they are in
the class. This UPS-specific website addressed those questions."

Mr. Scott added that Scott+Scott will continue to update the website to
ensure class members are kept informed.

                        Case Background

Filed in 2004, the lawsuit charges UPS with systematic violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal law that protects persons with
disabilities from employment discrimination (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 13,
2004).

According to one of the allegations in the lawsuit, UPS maintains a policy,
pattern and practice of requiring employees to provide a "full" or "100
percent" medical release, without restrictions, before permitting employees
to return to work following a medical leave of absence.

The lawsuit also charges that UPS refuses to meet in good faith with its
disabled employees to determine the extent of their disabilities and what
work the employees can perform at UPS within the limits of their work
restrictions, instead conducting a sham investigation of the workers' medical
condition, which invariably results in a decision by UPS that the individual
is either too disabled to work at any job UPS has or not disabled enough to
warrant the protection of federal laws that require UPS to assist the worker
to return to work.  Either way UPS puts the employee out of a job at the
company.

Employees also contend that UPS refuses to reinstate permanently disabled
employees in a position that will accommodate their medical restrictions in
situations where reinstating them would not impose an undue hardship on the
company. Finally, the lawsuit charges UPS retaliates against workers who have
filed workers compensation or discrimination claims by refusing to let them
return to work even if a 100% release is eventually submitted, and in
violation of the workers' seniority rights under UPS' collective bargaining
agreement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin UPS from engaging in
discriminatory employment practices in violation of the ADA, as well as the
implementation of policies that provide equal employment opportunities for
persons with present, past or perceived disabilities.

Earlier, Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania certified a class of individuals who were employees
of United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS) between March 2000 and the present who
were precluded from returning to work due to medical reasons because of
alleged across-the-board policies and practices of UPS that violate the
Americans with Disabilities Act (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2007).

The suit is “Hohider v. United Parcel Service, et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00363-
JFC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Christian Bagin
          Wienand & Bagin
          312 Boulevard of the Allies, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1916
          Phone: (412) 281-1110
          Fax: 412-281-8481
          E-mail: christian@wienandandbagin.com

          Donald A. Broggi
          Arthur L. Shingler, III
          Scott + Scott
          600 B Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-4565
          E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com or
                  ashingler@scott-scott.com

          Erin G. Comite
          Anita M. Laing
          David R. Scott
          Scott & Scott
          108 Norwich Avenue
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: (860) 537-5537 or (860) 537-3818
          E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com or
                  alaing@scott-scott.com or
                  drscott@scott-scott.com

          - and -

          Judith B. Goldstein
          Kimberly M. Skaggs
          Equal Justice Foundation
          88 East Broad Street, Suite 1590
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 221-9800
          Fax: (614) 221-9810
          E-mail: jgoldstein@equaljusticefoundation.com

Representing defendant are:

          Joseph E. Culleiton
          David J. McAllister
          Joseph P. McHugh
          Perry A. Napolitano
          Reed Smith
          435 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886
          Phone: (412) 288-7216 or 288-3058 or (412) 288-3131 or
                  288-7230
          E-mail: jculleiton@reedsmith.com or
                  dmcallister@reedsmith.com or
                  jmchugh@reedsmith.com or
                  pnapolitano@reedsmith.com


UNITED STATES: Post Office Employees Allege Privacy Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a proposed class action against the United
States Postal Service (USPS) on behalf of all employees, claiming the Federal
government agency has violated terms of the Privacy Act and distributed
contact information of its employees to marketing partners.

According to the filed complaint, USPS has allowed private businesses, as
part of its Strategic Business Initiatives plan, to access and utilize
its 'employee master file' that contains private information including home
addresses of all career and non-career, full and part-time employees.

The complaint states the business initiatives plan allows private
corporations to submit bids for co-branding agreements. Under these
agreements the USPS logo is branded on various marketing materials and sent
to the private residences of USPS employees.

"It appears that USPS is sharing sensitive employee information to a wide
range of marketers, hawking everything from cell phones to credit cards,"
said Steve Berman, lead attorney and managing partner of HBSS. "Not only do
we think this sort of activity is illegal, we think it sets a very bad
example as the nation's second largest employer."

Specifically Mr. Berman cites potential violations of the U.S. Privacy Act,
which spells out very strict protections prohibiting employers from sharing
employee information within federal agencies.

According to the complaint USPS recognizes that it is subject to the
protection requirements of the Privacy Act. The postal service outlines the
Privacy Act's specifications on its Web site and in its handbook. Among those
is a mandate to protect the privacy its customers, employees, individuals and
suppliers and a requirement not to disclose personal, private information
from employee records without the employee's prior written consent -- yet it
is still happening.

The plaintiff alleges he has been subject to numerous mailings of these sorts
for approximately the past two years and says he was never made aware of
the 'opt-in' 'opt-out' programs which USPS claims are available.

"Our client is outraged that an organization he has dedicated the last 10
years of his life would be so quick to sell his personal information for a
quick buck," said Mr. Berman. "We expect a huge outpouring from postal
employees throughout the U.S. who have experienced the same thing."

The USPS is a Federal government agency that delivers mail daily to more than
300 million people at 146 million homes, businesses, and post office boxes
throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, the American Virgin Islands
and American Samoa. USPS has an annual operating budget of $73 billion which
is generated through sale of postage and money from other business ventures.

This class action seeks to recover the amounts which USPS unjustly received
through the co-branding agreements and for the use of employees' private
information to be stopped.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: +1-206-623-7292
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com

          - or -

          Mark Firmani
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: +1-206-443-9357
          E-mail: Mark@firmani.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Several Federal, State Consumer Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corp. is currently defending a number of class actions in federal
and state courts alleging breach of warranty, fraud and violation of state
consumer protection acts.

There are no allegations of any personal injury or property damage and the
complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, according to the company’s
July 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.  

Whirlpool Corp. -- http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/-- is a global manufacturer  
and marketer of home appliances.  It manufactures and markets a line of
appliances and related products, primarily for home use.  The Company's
principal products are laundry appliances, refrigerators and freezers,
cooking appliances, dishwashers, room air-conditioning equipment, and mixers
and other small household appliances.  Whirlpool also produces hermetic
compressors for refrigeration systems.  

The company manufactures in 12 countries under 14 brand names and markets
products to distributors and retailers around the world.  On March 31, 2006,
it completed its acquisition of Maytag Corp.  On Oct. 23, 2006, it completed
the sale of the Dixie-Narco vending systems business to Crane Co.  On Jan.
31, 2007, it sold the Hoover floor-care business to Techtronic Industries Co.
Ltd.  On Feb. 17, 2007, it entered into a definitive agreement to sell the
Jade commercial and residential products businesses to Middleby Corp.


WILCOX FARMS: Wash. Lawsuit Alleges Fraudulent “Omega-3” Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wilcox Farms, Inc. and three affiliates are facing a class-action complaint
filed July 25 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, accusing it of deceptively using the term “Omega-3” to inflate
the amount of the allegedly beneficial fatty acid in Wilcox eggs, and jack up
their price.

This class action challenges Wilcox Defendants’ alleged unfair, deceptive,
and improper conduct in the marketing, advertising, labeling, promotion,
distribution, supply, and/or sale of Omega-3 Eggs.

Named plaintiffs Bernadette Schneider and Jennifer Schill, by and through
their attorneys, bring this Class Action Complaint against:

          -- Wilcox Farms, Inc.;
          -- Wilcox Farm Services, LLC;
          -- Wilcox Dairy Farms, LLC; and
          -- Wilcox Egg Farms, LLC.

The complaint alleges defendants made, and they continue to make, false,
inaccurate, unfair, deceptive, misleading, and/or otherwise improper
statements, claims, affirmations of fact, and other representations regarding
Omega-3 Eggs.

In addition, Wilcox Defendants allegedly omitted and failed to disclose, and
they continue to omit and fail to disclose, material facts and other
information regarding Omega-3 Eggs in their marketing, advertising, labeling,
promotion, distribution, supply, and/or sale thereof.

As a result of the conduct described, referred to, and/or otherwise
challenged, Wilcox Defendants have allegedly violated RCW Chapter 19.86, have
breached their contracts with plaintiffs and members of the class, have been
unjustly enriched at the expense of plaintiffs and the class, and have
breached various express and implied warranties provided in connection with
Omega-3 Eggs.

In addition to violating federal and state statutes and regulations, these
and other misrepresentations are allegedly unfair, deceptive, misleading,
and/or otherwise improper because, among other things, they contribute to the
overall improper portrayal of Omega-3 Eggs as healthy and/or healthier than
regular eggs when, in reality, Omega-3 Eggs are not sufficiently healthy
and/or healthier than regular eggs to support such claims.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs seek
certification on behalf of all persons residing in the United States who have
purchased Omega-3 Eggs designed, manufactured, produced, marketed,
advertised, labeled, promoted, distributed, supplied, and/or sold by one or
more of the Wilcox Defendants and/or related entities under various names,
including but not limited to the names Omega-3 Eggs and Vita Egg (“Omega-3
Eggs”).

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Wilcox Defendants’ claim that Omega-3 Eggs
         contain “350mg of Omega-3” is uniformly unfair,
         deceptive, misleading, and/or otherwise improper;

     (b) whether Wilcox Defendants’ claim that Omega-3 Eggs
         contain “350mg of Omega-3” is uniformly unfair,
         deceptive, misleading, and/or otherwise improper
         because it fails to separately identify the amount of  
         EPA, DHA, and ALA contained in Omega-3 Eggs;

     (c) whether Wilcox Defendants’ claim that Omega-3 Eggs
         contain “350mg of Omega-3” is uniformly unfair,
         deceptive, misleading, and/or otherwise improper
         because it implies that Omega-3 Eggs contain the well-
         known and widely recognized omega-3 fatty acids found
         in certain types of fish and associated with
         cardiovascular health;

     (d) whether Wilcox Defendants’ claim that Omega-3 Eggs
         contain “350mg of Omega-3” is uniformly unfair,
         deceptive, misleading, and/or otherwise improper
         because it implies that Omega-3 Eggs provide the
         cardiovascular benefits associated with 350mg of EPA
         and DHA;

     (e) whether the omega-3 fatty acids in Omega-3 Eggs are
         derived exclusively from flax;

     (f) whether most, if not all, of the omega-3 fatty acids in
         Omega-3 Eggs are ALA;

     (g) Wilcox Defendants omitted and/or failed to disclose the
         fact that most, if not all, of the omega-3 fatty acids
         in Omega-3 Eggs are ALA;

     (h) whether Wilcox Defendants omitted and/or failed to
         disclose the amount of ALA in Omega-3 Eggs;

     (i) whether Omega-3 Eggs contain less than .5 fewer grams
         of saturated fat than regular eggs;

     (j) whether Wilcox Defendants’ claim that Omega-3 Eggs
         contain “25% less saturated fat than regular eggs” is
         uniformly unfair, deceptive, misleading, and/or
         otherwise improper because it portrays Omega-3 Eggs as
         significantly lower in saturated fat than regular eggs;

     (k) whether Wilcox Defendants’ claim that Omega-3 Eggs
         contain “25% less saturated fat than regular eggs” is
         uniformly unfair, deceptive, misleading, and/or
         otherwise improper because it portrays Omega-3 Eggs as
         healthy and/or healthier than regular eggs;

     (l) whether Wilcox Defendants unfairly, deceptively,
         misleadingly, and/or improperly portray Omega-3 Eggs as
         healthy and/or healthier than regular eggs;

     (m) whether Wilcox Defendants’ claim that Omega-3 Eggs are
         “THE HEALTHY WAY TO GO!” is uniformly unfair,
         deceptive, misleading, and/or otherwise improper
         because Omega-3 Eggs contain more than 3 grams of fat
         per serving;

     (n) whether Wilcox Defendants’ claim that Omega-3 Eggs are
         “THE HEALTHY WAY TO GO!” is uniformly unfair,
         deceptive, misleading, and/or otherwise improper
         because Omega-3 Eggs contain more than 60 milligrams of
         cholesterol per serving;

     (o) whether Wilcox Defendants’ omission and/or failure to
         disclose a statement on the label or in the labeling of
         Omega-3 Eggs stating “See nutrition information for
         cholesterol content” is uniformly unfair, deceptive,
         misleading, and/or otherwise improper;

     (p) whether Wilcox Defendants’ omission and/or failure to
         disclose a statement regarding the quantitative
         information relating to the claim that Omega-3 Eggs
         contain “25% less saturated fat than regular eggs” is
         uniformly unfair, deceptive, misleading, and/or
         otherwise improper;

     (q) whether Wilcox Defendants’ conduct described, referred
         to, and/or otherwise challenged herein amounts to
         unfair and/or deceptive acts and/or practices in the
         conduct of business or commerce within the meaning of
         RCW Chapter 19.86;

     (r) whether Wilcox Defendants’ conduct described, referred
         to, and/or otherwise challenged herein violates express
         warranty statutes;

     (s) whether Wilcox Defendants’ conduct described, referred
         to, and/or otherwise challenged herein violates implied
         warranty statutes;

     (t) whether Wilcox Defendants’ conduct described, referred
         to, and/or otherwise challenged herein amounts to a
         breach of Wilcox Defendants’ contracts with plaintiffs
         and the Class;

     (u) whether Wilcox Defendants’ conduct described, referred
         to, and/or otherwise challenged herein amounts to a
         conversion of property belonging to plaintiffs and the
         Class;

     (v) whether Wilcox Defendants were unjustly enriched at the
         expense of plaintiffs and the Class;

     (w) whether plaintiffs and the Class have sustained
         damages, and the proper measure of those damages;

     (x) whether, and in what amount, plaintiffs and members of
         the Class are entitled to recover treble damages, court
         costs, and attorneys’ fees;

Plaintiffs pray:

      -- for an order determining that this lawsuit may proceed
         as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil
         Procedure 23(b)(1)-(3) with respect to plaintiffs
         claims for damages;

      -- for an order appointing plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs
         and representatives of the Class, and designating
         plaintiffs’ attorneys as lead counsel for the Class;

      -- for an order declaring that Wilcox Defendants’ conduct
         is unlawful, and that Wilcox Defendants are liable for
         the conduct described, referred to, and/or otherwise
         challenged herein;

      -- for judgment against Wilcox Defendants for actual
         damages, including but not limited to all general,
         special, incidental, and consequential damages;

      -- for judgment against Wilcox Defendants for statutory
         damages, including but not limited to treble damages;

      -- for judgment against Wilcox Defendants for punitive
         damages, as allowed by the law(s) of the states having
         a legally sufficient connection with Wilcox Defendants
         and their conduct described, referred to, and/or
         otherwise challenged herein;

      -- for an award of attorneys’ fees;

      -- for an award of all costs and expenses incurred herein;

      -- for an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment
         interest;

      -- for an award of any other penalties allowed by law; and

      -- for such other and further relief as this Court may
         deem just and proper.

The suit is “Schneider et al. v. Wilcox Farms Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
01160-JLR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge James L. Robart.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Douglas C. McDermott
          McDermott Newman
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-749-9467
          E-mail: doug@mcdermottnewman.com


XCEL ENERGY: Aug. 30 Hearing Set for Mississippi Pollution Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 30, 2007 hearing is slated for defenses raised by Xcel Energy Inc.
and other defendants in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi over carbon dioxide emission.

On April 25, 2006, Xcel Energy received notice of the lawsuit, "Comer v. Xcel
Energy Inc. et al.," which named as defendants more than 45 oil, chemical and
utility companies, including the company.  

The suit alleges that defendants' carbon dioxide emissions "were a proximate
and direct cause of the increase in the destructive capacity of Hurricane
Katrina."  

Plaintiffs allege in support of their claim, several legal theories,
including negligence, and public and private nuisance and seek damages
related to the hurricane.  

On July 19, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its
entirety.

Oral arguments related to some of the defenses raised by the defendants,
including Xcel Energy, have been set for Aug. 30, 2007, according to the
company’s July 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.  

The suit is “Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi under Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge
Robert H. Walker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Carlos A. Zelaya, Esq.
         Maples & Kirwan, LLC
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504/569-8732
         Fax: 504/525-6932

         Stephen M. Wiles, Esq.
         Randall Allan Smith, Esq.
         Smith & Fawer
         201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
         New Orleans, LA 70170
         Phone: 504/525-2200
         Fax: 504/525-2205
         E-mail: smwiles@smithfawer.com
                 rasmith3@bellsouth.net

              - and –

         F. Gerald Maples, Esq.
         F. Gerald Maples, PA
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504/569-8732
         E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com

Representing the company are:

         John G. Corlew, Esq.
         Katherine K. Smith, Esq.
         Watkins & Eager
         P.O. Box 650
         Jackson, MS 39205-0650
         Phone: (601) 948-6470
         E-mail: jcorlew@watkinseager.com
                 ksmith@watkinseager.com


XCEL ENERGY: Gas Purchasers’ Suit in Calif. Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy, Inc., reports that the litigation, "Ever-Bloom Inc. v. Xcel
Energy Inc. and e prime et al.," remains stayed, pending the outcome of cases
on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On June 21, 2005, Ever-Bloom, Inc. filed a class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

The lawsuit names as defendants, among others, Xcel Energy and e prime.  
Filed on behalf of a purported class of gas purchasers, the suit alleges that
defendants falsely reported natural gas trades to market trade publications
in an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices in California,
purportedly in violation of the Sherman Act.  

The matter has been stayed pending the outcome of cases on appeal to the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The company reported no development on the case at its July 27, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Ever-Bloom Inc. vs. Xcel Energy Inc. and e prime et al.," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under Judge
Anthony W. Ishii with referral Judge
Dennis L. Beck.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Dennis Stewart, Esq.
         Hulett Harper Stewar, LLP
         550 West C Street, Suite 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619338-1133
         Fax: 619338-1139
         E-mail: office@hulettharper.com



XCEL ENERGY: Motion to Junk Kans. Suit Over Gas Pricing Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas has yet to rule on a
motion seeking the dismissal of the class action,
"Learjet, Inc. v. e prime and Xcel Energy et al."

The suit was filed in state court for Wyandotte County of Kansas on behalf of
all natural gas producers in Kansas on Nov. 4,
2005.

The lawsuit alleges that e prime, Inc., Xcel Energy, Inc. and other named
defendants conspired to raise the market price of natural gas in Kansas by,
among other things, inaccurately reporting price and volume information to
the market trade publications.  

On Dec. 7, 2005, the state court granted the defendants motion to remove this
matter to the U.S. District Court in Kansas. Plaintiffs have filed a motion
for remand, which was denied on Aug. 3, 2006.

Plaintiffs in this matter and in a J.P. Morgan Trust case have moved the
judicial panel on MDL for a separate MDL docket to be set up in Kansas
Federal Court.

Xcel Energy’s motion to dismiss the complaint is pending, according to the
company’s July 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.  

The suit is "Learjet, Inc., et al. v. ONEOK, Inc et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-02513-CM-JPO," filed in the U.S. District of
District of Kansas under Judge Carlos Murguia with referral to
Judge James P. O'Hara.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jennifer Gille Bacon, Esq.
         Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC
         Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, 120 West 12th Street
         Kansas City, MO 64105
         Phone: 816-421-3355
         Fax: 816-374-0509
         E-mail: jbacon@stklaw.com

              - and -

         Donald D. Barry, Esq.
         Barry Law Offices, L.L.C.
         5340 West 17th Street, P.O. Box 4816
         Topeka, KS 66604
         Phone: 785-273-3153
         Fax: 785-273-3159
         E-mail: dbarry@inlandnet.net


XCEL ENERGY: Ninth Circuit Mulls Appeals in “Texas-Ohio” Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has yet to rule on appeals
regarding the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada to
dismiss certain lawsuits against Xcel Energy, Inc., in relation to the sale
of natural gas in the U.S., according to the company’s July 27, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.  

                  Texas-Ohio Energy Litigation

On Nov. 19, 2003, a class-action complaint, "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. v.
Centerpoint Energy et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California by Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. was served on Xcel Energy
naming e prime as a defendant.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of large wholesale natural
gas purchasers, alleges that e prime falsely reported natural gas trades to
market trade publications in an effort to artificially raise natural gas
prices in California.

The Multi-District Litigation Panel has conditionally transferred the case to
U.S. District Court of the District of Nevada.

In an order entered April 8, 2005, the Nevada judge handling the case granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss based on the filed rate doctrine.  

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision to the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments on the appeal were heard on Feb.
13, 2007.

                    Fairhaven Power Litigation

On Sept. 14, 2004, a class-action complaint, "Fairhaven Power
Co. v. Encana Corp. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California by Fairhaven Power
Co. and subsequently served on Xcel Energy.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas purchasers,
alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural gas trades to market trade
publications in an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices in
California and engaged in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to
inflate prices.  

This case has been consolidated with "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. v. Centerpoint
Energy et al.," and assigned to U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on Dec. 19, 2005.  
Plaintiffs subsequently appealed and the appeal is pending.

                   Utility Savings Litigation

On Nov. 29, 2004, a class-action complaint, "Utility Savings and Refund
Services LLP v. Reliant Energy Services Inc.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California by Utility Savings and Refund
Services LLP and subsequently served on Xcel Energy.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas purchasers,
alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural gas trades to market trade
publications in an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices in
California and engaged in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to
inflate prices.

The case has been consolidated with "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. v. Centerpoint
Energy et al.," and assigned to U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on Dec. 19, 2005.  
Plaintiffs subsequently appealed and the appeal is pending.

                      Abelman Art Litigation

On Dec. 13, 2004, a class-action complaint, "Abelman Art Glass v. Ercana
Corp. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California by Abelman Art Glass and subsequently served on Xcel Energy.  

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas purchasers,
alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural gas trades to market trade
publications in an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices in
California and engaged in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to
inflate prices.

The case has been consolidated with "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. v. Centerpoint
Energy et al.," and assigned to U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on Dec. 19, 2005.  
Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals and oral arguments on the appeal were heard on
Feb. 13, 2007.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/-- is a  
holding company engaged in the utility business in the
U.S.  


XCEL ENERGY: Still Faces Natural Gas Purchasers' Suit in Mo.
------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy, Inc. is facing a purported class action alleging that it falsely
reported natural gas trades in an effort to artificially raise natural gas
prices.

The suit, “Heartland Regional Medical Center v. e prime, Xcel
Energy et al.,” was filed in March 2007 in the Circuit Court of
Buchanan County, Missouri.  

It was brought on behalf of a purported class of natural gas purchasers
alleging that defendants, including e prime and Xcel Energy, engaged in a
conspiracy and falsely reported natural gas trades in an effort to
artificially raise natural gas prices.

The complaint alleges restraint of trade, price manipulation, and violation
of Missouri's antitrust laws.  e prime and Xcel Energy deny the allegations
and, together with the other defendants, intend to seek dismissal of all
claims.

The company reported no development in the matter in its July 27, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/-- is a  
holding company engaged in the utility business in the
U.S.  


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

September 26-28, 2007
MEALEY'S NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION SUPERCONFERENCE: EMERGING ISSUES, TRIAL
SKILLS, INSURANCE, MEDICINE, BANKRUPTCY AND FINANCIAL & RISK MANAGEMENT
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *