CAR_Public/070802.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, August 2, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 151

                            Headlines


24 HOUR: Settles Lawsuit by Members Over Nonrefundable Dues
40/40 CLUB: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Work
ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Oct. Hearing Set for N.Y. Suit Settlement
CAR MAKERS: Faces Fla. Suit Over Defective Passenger Airbags
COMCAST CORP: Court Refuses to Hear Appeal in “At Home” Case

COMCAST CORP: Seeks Consolidation of Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa.
CORNING INC: Hearing Date Yet to be Set in Ill. Pollution Suit
EBAY INC: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Suit Over Paypal System
EBAY INC: Subsidiary Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
FIRST VIRTUAL: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Sept. 18

HALLIBURTON CO: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Texas
HAMMONDVILLE PARTNERS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla.
HOLLINGER INC: Settles Securities Lawsuits in Canada, U.S.
KANSAS CITY: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Fuel Surcharges
L-1 IDENTITY: Asks Mass. Court to Approve Securities Suit Deal

LONG HAULERS: 11 Companies Accused of Fixing Fuel “Surcharge”
MICROSOFT CORP: Ariz. Gov’t. Alleges Antitrust Law Violations
MIDWEST AIR: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Nixed AirTran Offer
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Multiple Railroads Antitrust Lawsuits
OLYMPIC SECURITY: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Oregon

OMNICOM GROUP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
PEPSICO INC: N.Y. Lawsuit Alleges “Aquafina” is Just Tap Water
PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Settles N.J. Securities Suit for $28.5M
RADIOSHACK CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Tex.
RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Approval of Ill. FLSA Suits Settlements

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Mich. Over “Defective” Camcorders
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Served with Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
WESTBROOK MOTORS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Florida
YOUTHLAND ACADEMY: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Ohio


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN HOME: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


24 HOUR: Settles Lawsuit by Members Over Nonrefundable Dues
------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Superior Court has approved a class action settlement
between 24 Hour Fitness and approximately 1.8 million current and former
monthly members concerning dues charged to members after they asked to cancel
their contracts.

The plaintiffs alleged that 24 Hour Fitness' cancellation notice provision
and collection of nonrefundable last month's dues under the terms of
contracts signed before 2006 violated California law.

24 Hour Fitness asserts that it has treated its members fairly and that its
membership agreements are favorable to members and entirely lawful.

Under the settlement approved by the Court, class members are entitled to
choose settlement benefits, depending on their situation, including partial
refunds, free personal training or membership upgrades, contract
modifications, and transferable 30 and 45 day Club Access Passes.

"The Court recognized that this settlement provides benefits to all class
members and is a fair compromise," said Michael von Loewenfeldt of San
Francisco's Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, the lawyers representing the Class.

"24 Hour Fitness values its members and we strive to offer the best fitness
experience in the industry," said Tony Wells, Senior Vice President Corporate
Communications for 24 Hour Fitness. "We are responsive to our members'
concerns and we have settled this case so we can continue to focus on our
overall goal of helping people make fitness a way of life."

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Michael von Loewenfeldt
          Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
          Phone: 415-357-8909
          E-mail: mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com

Representing defendant is:

          Michael E. Delehunt
          Foley & Lardner LLP
          Phone: 415-434-4484
          E-mail: mdelehunt@foley.com


40/40 CLUB: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Work
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rapper Shawn Carter a.k.a. Jay-Z is seeking to dismiss a labor-related class
action filed by a former waitress at his 40/40 club, UPI Entertainment News
reports.

Lawyers for Mr. Carter argued that the Grammy Award winner and his partner,
Juan Perez, were shareholders and had "no role in payroll whatsoever" at the
40/40 Club, the New York Post said.
Daily operations of the nightspot were left to its management, they said.

On May 22, Celeste Williams filed the suit in Manhattan federal court against
40/40 club owned by rapper Shawn Carter a.k.a. Jay-Z in W. 25th St. in New
York (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2007).

She is seeking class-action status for the suit on behalf of bartenders,
table clearers and waiters.  She claims the club doesn't pay minimum wage and
takes a portion of their tips.

Named defendants are: Shawn Carter, Twenty Ones dba The 40/40 Club, club co-
owner Juan Perez and Desiree Gonzales.

"It may be plaintiffs named these individuals as defendants solely because
Shawn Carter is a public figure and plaintiffs hoped to draw publicity to
extract a quick settlement," lawyers for Carter and the club said in court
papers filed Monday.

Ms. Williams is seeking unspecified damages in her suit on behalf of more
than 100 staffers.

The suit is “Williams v. Twenty Ones, Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
03978-LAP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York, under Judge Loretta A. Preska.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum
          Charles Edward Joseph
          Joseph and Herzfeld
          757 3rd Avenue, 25th Fl
          NY, NY 10017
          Phone: (212)688-5640x2548
          Fax: (212)688-5639 or 212-688-2548
          E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com or maimon@jhllp.com

          - and -

          Richard Jennings Burch
          Bruckner Burch PLLC
          1000 Louisiana, Ste 1300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713)-877-8788
          Fax: (713)-877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

Representing defendants are:

          Andrew Paul Marks
          Sara Danielle Sheinkin
          Littler Mendelson, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-583-9600 or (212)-583-2689
          Fax: 212-832-2719 (fax)
          E-mail: ssheinkin@littler.com or amarks@littler.com


ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Oct. Hearing Set for N.Y. Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York will hold a
fairness hearing on Oct. 2, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for proposed $13.65 million
settlement of the consolidated securities class action “In re Acclaim
Entertainment, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.2, 03-CV-1270
(E.D.N.Y.) (JS) (ETB).”

The hearing will be held before Judge Joanna Seybert in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, Long Island Courthouse, 100
Federal Plaza, Central Islip, N.Y. 11722-4438.  

The deadline for the submitting objections and request for exclusion is on
Sept. 10, 2007.  Proof of claims must be submitted on or before Nov. 18,
2007.

                         Case Background

The consolidated suit specifically names as defendants the Company and:

      -- Gregory Fischbach,

      -- Edmond Sanctis,

      -- James Scoroposki, and

      -- Gerard F. Agoglia

The Consolidated Complaint alleges a class period from October
14, 1999 through January 13, 2003. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that
the Company engaged in a variety of wrongful practices, which rendered
statements made by the Company and its financial statements to be false and
misleading (Class Action Reporter, July 6, 2004).  

Among other purported wrongful practices, the Consolidated Complaint alleges
that Acclaim engaged in "channel stuffing," a practice by which Acclaim
allegedly:

      -- delivered excess inventory to its distributors to meet
         or exceed analysts' earnings expectations and inflate
         its sales results;

      -- entered into "conditional sales agreements" whereby
         Acclaim's customers allegedly were induced to accept
         delivery of Acclaim products prior to a quarter-end
         reporting period on the condition that Acclaim would
         accept the return of any unsold product after the
         quarter-end, and

      -- falsified sales reports and manipulated the timing and
         recognition of price concessions and discounts granted
         to its retail customers.

The Consolidated Complaint further alleges that the Company engaged in
improper accounting practices, including the improper recognition of sales
revenue; manipulation of reserves associated with concessions, chargebacks
and/or sales discounts granted to customers; and the improper reporting of
software development costs.  

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that as a result of these practices
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a)
of the 1934 Act. The Consolidated Complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.

For more details, contact:

         Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. Securities Litigation   
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
         Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 9121
         Dublin, OH 43017-4121
         Phone: (888) 282-1241
         Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com


CAR MAKERS: Faces Fla. Suit Over Defective Passenger Airbags
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sheldon J. Schlesinger, P.A. has filed a class action in
Broward County Circuit Court against Lexus U.S.A. Inc., Toyota Motor Sales
U.S.A. Inc., and others, claiming that Lexus failed to correct problems with
the front passenger air bag system in thousands of 2007 Lexus ES350
automobiles.

Attorney Scott P. Schlesinger filed the lawsuit on behalf of Arnold Rosen of
Boca Raton and a number of other Lexus ES350 owners.

The suit claims that the sensor under the front passenger seat of all ES350s
does not work properly in some situations, and may fail to trigger the right
front airbag in the event of a collision.  It further alleges that Lexus has
refused to correct the problem. "The defendants have indicated that they do
not have a solution for the defect," the suit said.

"By equipping their vehicles with the defective airbag occupant
classification sensor systems, defendants have breached their expressed and
implied warranties in violation of Florida law," Schlesinger said in his
suit. "The defendants continue to sell and lease the defective vehicles
despite their awareness of the defect and the dangers posed by that defect."

Involved are "tens of thousands of vehicles manufactured by the defendants,
which are leased and sold throughout Florida and come equipped with dangerous
and defective airbag systems," the suit claims.

At issue is the ES350's airbag system, and specifically the systems' airbag
occupant classification sensor.

"All of the defective vehicles are equipped with a weight sensor system
beneath the front passenger seat," according to the suit. "The purpose of the
sensor is to gauge the weight of the person in that seat."

When the sensor detects the presence of a passenger, the suit claims, it arms
the passenger airbag. But the suit alleges the ES350's sensors are defective
and often do not detect the presence of a passenger.

Mr. Rosen leases two of the 2007 ES350s, and both contain airbag systems that
do not register the presence of passengers, according to the suit. At one
point, Mr. Rosen's Lexus dealer took one of his cars in for service and
inspection, and gave him another ES350 to drive. That car, too, had an airbag
system that failed to recognize the presence of right front passengers.

The suit also claims that ES350 owners from around the country have
complained about the airbag system, and some of them have filed complaints
with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. A number of those
complaints were included as exhibits in the suit.

The suit wants Lexus to re-call and re-purchase the ES350s at their full
cost; wants full refunds for those people who have leased their vehicles;
wants the cars re-fitted with functioning airbag systems; and also asked for
compensatory damages for all costs and loss of value.

Besides Lexus and Toyota, defendants include J.M. Auto Inc., doing business
as J.M. Lexus; Southeast Toyota Distributors LLC; and J.M. Family Enterprises.

For more information, contact:

          Scott P. Schlesinger
          Sheldon J. Schlesinger, P.A.  
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida
          Phone: (954) 467-8800
          Fax: (954) 523-4803
          Website: http://www.schlesingerlaw.com


COMCAST CORP: Court Refuses to Hear Appeal in “At Home” Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for further appeal in a
litigation resulting from Comcast Corp.’s alleged conduct with respect to its
investment in, and distribution relationship with, At Home Corp.

At Home was a provider of high-speed Internet services that filed for
bankruptcy protection in September 2001.

Class actions against the company, AT&T Corp. (the former controlling
shareholder of At Home and also a former distributor of the At Home service)
and others were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleging securities law violations and common law fraud in
connection with disclosures made by At Home in 2001.

The court later dismissed all claims, which plaintiffs appealed. The Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ appeal and a subsequent
petition for rehearing.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ appeal
from the decision dismissing the Section 16(b) claims, and the U.S. Supreme
Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition for a further appeal, 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.

Pennsylvania-based Comcast Corp. -- http://www.comcast.com-- is a cable  
operator in the U.S. and offers a variety of consumer entertainment and
communication products and services.


COMCAST CORP: Seeks Consolidation of Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp. wants two purported antitrust class actions originally filed in
the U.S. District Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania to be consolidated.

The potential class in the Massachusetts case is the company’s subscriber
base in the “Boston Cluster” area, and the potential class in the
Pennsylvania case is its subscriber base in the “Philadelphia and Chicago
Clusters,” as those terms are defined in the complaints.

In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain subscriber exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful “horizontal
market restraints” in those areas and seek damages pursuant to antitrust
statutes, including treble damages.

The company’s motion to dismiss the Pennsylvania case on the pleadings was
denied and a class of “Philadelphia Cluster” subscribers was certified.

Plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class for the “Chicago Cluster.”

The company has moved to dismiss the Massachusetts case, which was recently
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and plaintiffs are
seeking to consolidate it with the Pennsylvania case, 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.

Pennsylvania-based Comcast Corp. -- http://www.comcast.com-- is a cable  
operator in the U.S. and offers a variety of consumer entertainment and
communication products and services.


CORNING INC: Hearing Date Yet to be Set in Ill. Pollution Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A March 2007 trial for the claim of the last remaining defendants in the
class action, “Ann Muniz v. Rexnord Corp.,” has been suspended and has yet to
be rescheduled, 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 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

In August 2005, Corning was named as a fourth party defendant in the class
action, which claims an unspecified amount of damages and asserting various
personal injury and property damage claims against a number of corporate
defendants.   

These claims allegedly arise from the release of solvents from the operations
of several manufacturers at the Ellsworth Industrial Park into soil and
ground water.   

As of June 2006, the district court allowed two cross-claims for contribution
against Corning and two third-party complaints for contribution against
Corning.   

The summary judgment motions of Corning and three companies asserting
contribution claims against Corning are fully briefed and await a ruling by
the court.   

On July 10, 2006, plaintiffs settled with a number of defendants and third-
party defendants for $15.75 million, and the settling defendants mediated
allocation.

In November 2006, Corning settled with three of the third-party defendants
for a total of approximately $99,000.

The March 2007 trial date of the claim of the remaining third-party defendant
was suspended and has not been rescheduled.

The suit is "Muniz, et al. v. Rexnord Corp, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02405,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge John W. Darrah.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Myron Milton Cherry, Esq.
         Myron M. Cherry & Associates
         30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: (312) 372-2100
         E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com

Representing the company is:

         Brent Ian Clark, Esq.
         Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
         131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
         Chicago, IL 60603-4205
         Phone: (312) 346-8000
         E-mail: bclark@seyfarth.com


EBAY INC: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Suit Over Paypal System
------------------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action that
alleges the company, through its wholly owned subsidiary PayPal, used illegal
tie-in and steering practices to improperly “monopolize” the forms of payment
that sellers can use on eBay.   

Initially, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas on March 2007.  In it plaintiff alleges claims under
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as related state law claims.  
That suit sought treble damages and an injunction.

In April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (No. 07-CV-01882-RS), and
dismissed the Texas action.

In June 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class action
complaint, 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 eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-
JF,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Michael Andrew McShane, Esq.
         Audet & Partners LLP
         221 Main Street, Suite 1460
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-568-2555
         Fax: 415-568-2556
         E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
         Phone: (415) 984-8947
         E-mail: tbrown@omm.com


EBAY INC: Subsidiary Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The StubHub subsidiary of eBay Inc. faces a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

The suit, “Liliana Vasquez-Torres v. Stubhub Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
01328-PSG-SS,” was filed on February 2007.  It is a purported class action
alleging that StubHub violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act
by allegedly printing receipts containing more than the last five digits of a
credit card number or the expiration date.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys fees,
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 “Liliana Vasquez-Torres v. Stubhub Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
01328-PSG-SS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Philip S. Gutierrez with referral to Judge Suzanne H.
Segal.

Representing the plaintiff is:
  
         Robert S. Ackley, Esq.
         Herbert Hafif Law Offices
         269 W. Bonita Ave.
         Claremont, CA 91711-4784
         Phone: 909-624-1671

Representing the defendant is:

         Peter M. Adams, Esq.
         Cooley Godward Kronish
         4401 Eastgate Mall
         San Diego, CA 92121-9109
         Phone: 858-550-6000
         E-mail: padams@cooley.com


FIRST VIRTUAL: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Sept. 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California York will
hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 18, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed
settlement of the matter, “First Virtual Communications, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-3585.”

The hearing will be held before Judge Martin J. Jenkins in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Courtroom no. 11, 19th Floor,
450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102.

The deadline for submitting objections and request for exclusion is Sept. 4,
2007.  Proof of claims must be submitted on or before Nov. 15, 2007.

                        Case Background

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
March 29,2004 to Aug. 23, 2004.  It is pending against the Company, and
certain of its officers and directors (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2004).

According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.  

The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a 'pump and dump' scheme
that enabled Company insiders to profit at the expense of class members by
selling over a million shares of their personally held First Virtual
securities at artificially inflated prices.

Specifically, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
about the Company's financial condition and sales of its real-time rich media
communications software and services and specialized networking hardware
equipment worldwide, and a contract to provide the U.S. Air Force with the
Company's proprietary Click to MeetTM web communications infrastructure and
solutions.

For more details, contact:

         Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
         Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C.
         Phone: (860) 493-6293
         E-mail: jnobel@snlaw.net
         Web site: http://www.snlaw.net/


HALLIBURTON CO: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Co. continues to face a securities fraud suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

In June 2002, a class action was filed against the company in federal court
on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during approximately May 1998
until approximately May 2002.  The suit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the accounting change and disclosures
involved in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.   

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated its revenue
from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not reasonably estimable or
probable of collection.  In the weeks that followed, approximately 20 similar
class actions were filed against the company.   

Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur Andersen LLP, the
company's independent accountants for the period covered by the lawsuits, and
several of the company's present or former officers and directors: David J.
Lesar, Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore, Jr.

The class actions were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class
action complaint "Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al.," was
filed and served upon the company in April 2003.  

In early May 2003, the company announced that it entered into a written
memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms upon which the Moore
class action would be settled.    

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the Moore class action filed a motion
for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court.   

In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the
second amended consolidated complaint includes claims arising out of the 1998
acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the
company failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure
(the Dresser claims).   

The Dresser claims were included in the settlement discussions leading up to
the signing of the memorandum of understanding and were among the claims the
parties intended to have resolved by the terms of the proposed settlement of
the consolidated Moore class action and the derivative action.  The
memorandum of understanding called for Halliburton to pay $6 million, which
would be funded by insurance proceeds.  

In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the
settlement.  Following the transfer of the case to another district judge and
a final hearing on the fairness of the settlement, the court entered an order
in September 2004 holding that evidence of the settlement's fairness was
inadequate, denying the motion for final approval of the settlement in the
Moore class action, and ordering the parties, among others, to mediate.   

After the court's denial of the motion to approve the settlement, the company
withdrew from the settlement, as it believes that it is entitled to do by its
terms.  The mediation was held in January 2005, but was declared by the
mediator to be at an impasse with no settlement having been reached.   

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and a new lead
plaintiff, directed that they file a third consolidated amended complaint,
and that the company file motion to dismiss.     The court held oral
arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the
motion under advisement.   

On March 14, 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion
to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the
motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting the plaintiffs
to re-plead those claims to correct deficiencies in their earlier
complaint.   

With respect to those issues regarding which the court denied the motion, the
company requested that the court certify its order for interlocutory
appeal.    

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended consolidated
complaint.  The company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been repled.  

A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court
ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than
the company’s CEO.  

The court ordered that the case proceed against the company’s CEO and
Halliburton.  In response to a motion by the lead plaintiff, on Feb. 26, 2007
the court ordered the removal and replacement of their co-lead counsel.

Plaintiffs may submit written discovery requests to Halliburton.   However,
no party is allowed to conduct a deposition in this case until the court
rules on the Motions to Dismiss filed by individual defendants on May 9, 2006.

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.

The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc., et al. v.
Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610/667-7056

         Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
         Stanley Mandel & Iola
         3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
         Dallas, TX 75205
         Phone: 214/443-4301
         Fax: 214/443-0358
         E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com

              - and -

         Thomas Burt, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212/545-4600

Representing the company is:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/227-7720
         Fax: 713/227-9404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com


HAMMONDVILLE PARTNERS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hammondville Partners, LLC is facing a class action filed in Fort Lauderdale
federal court on July 20, 2007.

Plaintiff Tabutha Ezell alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violations.

The suit is “Ezell v. Hammondville Partners, LLC. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-
61015-PCH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Paul C. Huck with referral to Judge Andrea M. Simonton.

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


HOLLINGER INC: Settles Securities Lawsuits in Canada, U.S.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sun-Times Media Group, Inc., formerly Hollinger Inc., entered into an
agreement to settle securities class actions pending against it and a number
of its former directors and officers in the U.S. and Canada, and an agreement
to settle litigation over its directors and officers insurance coverage.

The securities class action settlement will resolve the claims asserted
against the Company, a number of its former directors and officers, certain
affiliated companies, and the Company's auditor, KPMG LLP.

Sun-Times Media is facing a consolidated class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled “In re Hollinger
International Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834,” and similar actions
that have been initiated in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada.

The Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, Kenneth Mozingo, and Washington
Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement Fund initiated purported class actions
against the company in February and April 2004, asserting claims under
federal and Illinois securities laws and claims of breach of fiduciary duty
and aiding and abetting in breaches of fiduciary duty.

On July 9, 2004, the court consolidated the three actions for pretrial
purposes.  The consolidated action is "In re Hollinger
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834," (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2,
2006).

On Sept. 7, 2004, a group allegedly comprised of those who purchased stock in
one or more of the defendant corporations initiated purported class actions
by issuing Statements of Claim in Saskatchewan and Ontario, Canada (Class
Action Reporter, July 17, 2007).

Those actions assert, among other things, that from 1999 to 2003 the
defendants breached U.S. federal, state, and/or Canadian law by allegedly
making misleading disclosures and omissions regarding certain "non-
competition" payments and the payment of allegedly excessive management fees.


The recent settlement agreements, which are subject to court approval in the
U.S. and Canada, will be funded entirely by $30 million in proceeds from the
Company's insurance policies.  It includes no admission of liability by the
Company or any of the settling defendants and the Company continues to deny
any such liability or damages.

In addition, the Company's insurers will deposit $24.5 million in insurance
proceeds into an escrow account to fund defense costs the Company incurred in
the securities class action and other litigation or other claimed loss.

The insurance carriers will then be released from any other claims for the
July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2003 policy period. The Company and other parties
will then seek a judicial determination regarding how to allocate the $24.5
million in insurance proceeds among the insureds who assert claims to the
proceeds.

The Company and Hollinger Inc. have had negotiations concerning how any such
proceeds awarded to them should be allocated between the two companies. If
they cannot reach an agreement on that issue, they have agreed to resolve it
through binding arbitration.

The securities class action settlement is conditioned upon prior approval of
the insurance settlement, and the insurance settlement agreement is
conditioned upon subsequent approval of the class action settlement. The
parties are in the process of seeking these approvals in the appropriate
courts in the United States and Canada.

For more information, contact:

          Tammy Chase
          Sun-Times Media Group, Inc.
          Phone: 312-321-3230
          E-mail: tchase@suntimes.com


KANSAS CITY: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Fuel Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., a subsidiary of the Kansas City
Southern, has been included along with other major U.S. railroads in a number
of putative class actions alleging that the individual railroads violated the
U.S. antitrust laws, 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 other railroads included are CSX Transportation, Inc., BNSF Railway Co.,
Union Pacific Railroad Co., and Norfolk Southern Railway Co.  In some cases
the Association of American Railroads has been named as a party.

The allegation relates to fuel surcharge rates in connection with unregulated
shipments in the U.S.  

The first of these lawsuits was filed on or about May 14, 2007 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  As of July 18, 2007, 19
additional, virtually identical, lawsuits have been filed in numerous federal
courts.

A motion is presently pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to transfer all of these lawsuits to a single district court for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Because plaintiffs and defendants agree that multidistrict treatment of the
lawsuits is appropriate, the company anticipates that the JPML motion will be
granted.

However, because the JPML has not yet ruled, the transferee court has not yet
been identified.

Each of the lawsuits is at an early stage, and none have entered the
discovery phase of litigation.

None of the lawsuits have made a claim for a specified amount of damages,
although each seeks to recover compensatory and treble damages on behalf of a
nationwide class of shippers, along with attorneys’ fees and costs.

Kansas City Southern -- http://www.kcsouthern.com/-- is a holding company  
with principal operations in rail transportation. The Company, through its
subsidiary and affiliates, is engaged in the domestic and international rail
operations in North America that are focused on the north/south freight
corridor connecting key commercial and industrial markets in the central
United States with major industrial cities in Mexico.

The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, the Company’s principal subsidiary,
is a U.S. railroad that serves a 10-state region in the Midwest and Southeast
regions of the United States and has the shortest north/south rail route
between Kansas City, Missouri and several key ports along the Gulf of Mexico
in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.


L-1 IDENTITY: Asks Mass. Court to Approve Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. and counsel for the plaintiff class in the
matter "In re: Viisage Technology Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 05-10438-MLW," have filed a joint motion for preliminary
approval of a settlement in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Between March and April 2005, eight putative class actions were filed against:

     * L-1 (formerly known as Viisage Technology Inc);
     * Mr. Bernard C. Bailey;
     * Mr. William K. Aulet, former chief financial officer; and    
     * Mr. Denis K. Berube; and
     * other members of the Board of Directors of Viisage
       Technology, Inc.

These lawsuits have been consolidated into one action under, "In Re Viisage
Technology Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-10438-MLW.

The so-called Turnberry Group has been designated as lead plaintiff and its
counsel has been designated as lead counsel.

The amended consolidated complaint, which was filed in February
2006 alleges violations of the federal securities laws by Viisage and certain
officers and directors arising out of purported misstatements and omissions
in Viisage's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings related to
certain litigation involving the Georgia drivers' license contract and
related to the Viisage's reported material weaknesses in internal controls
over financial reporting, which allegedly artificially inflated the price of
the company's stock during the period May 12, 2004 through March 2, 2005.

In April 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In
February 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
dismissed most claims in the consolidated securities fraud class action
(Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2007).

The judge dismissed all claims related to the Georgia drivers' license
contract and permitted the case to proceed on claims associated with
purported internal control weaknesses over financial reporting.

The recent settlement, which is subject to among other things preliminary and
final Court approval, would resolve all the remaining claims in the
litigation. Without admitting any liability or wrongdoing of any kind, the
Company has agreed to authorize payment to the plaintiff class of $2.3
million.  This settlement payment would be funded by the Company's insurer.

Because the litigation is a class action, the settlement is subject to the
preliminary approval of the Court as well as the Court's final approval after
notice of the terms of the settlement has been provided to all class members.
Timing of the approval process is dependent on the Court's calendar. Relevant
purchasers of Viisage stock have a right to opt out of the class, class
members may object to the terms of the settlement, and final consummation of
settlement must await the entry of final judgment approving the settlement as
fair to all class members.

However, such settlements are not uncommonly approved without material
modification, and barring any unusual developments, the Company expects that
this approval process will be completed before the end of the calendar year
2007.

The suit is "In re: Viisage Technology Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 05-10438-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

         Alan L. Kovacs, Esq.
         Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs
         2001 Beacon Street, Suite 106
         Boston, MA 02135
         Phone: 617-964-1177
         Fax: 617-332-1223
         E-mail: alankovacs@yahoo.com

              - and -

         Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
         Leslie R. Stern, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-542-8300
         Fax: 617-542-1194 and 617-542-1154
         E-mail: jblock@bermanesq.com
                 lstern@bermanesq.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Mitchell H. Kaplan, Esq.
         Choate, Hall & Stewart
         Two International Place
         100-150 Oliver Street
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-248-5000
         Fax: 617-248-4000
         E-mail: mkaplan@choate.com


LONG HAULERS: 11 Companies Accused of Fixing Fuel “Surcharge”
-------------------------------------------------------------
Long haulers are accused of fixing fuel “surcharges” in a class-action
complaint filed July 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

          -- Arkansas Best Corp.,
          -- Averitt Express,
          -- Con-Way, Inc.,
          -- FedEx Corp.,
          -- JEVIC Transportation, Inc.,
          -- Sun Capita Partners IV, LLC,
          -- New England Motor Freight, Inc.,
          -- R+I Carriers, Inc.,
          -- SAIA, Inc.,
          -- United Parcel Service, Inc., and
          -- YRC Worldwide, Inc.

Named plaintiff Water Tech claims accuses defendants of conspiring to
fix “fuel surcharges” on truck shipments of less than a truckload (LTL), so
that the “surcharges” often exceed the entire cost of the fuel.

LTL services are used by plaintiffs and members of the class as a means to
transport freight within North America by ground. Plaintiffs estimate, based
on articles in trucking industry trade journals, total domestic TLT industry
revenue ranged from $25 to $35 billion annually during the class period.

The suit claims the conspiracy affects domestic U.S. shipments of less than a
truckload, weighing between 300 and 10,000 lbs. It claims the profitable, and
illegal, conspiracy has been widely reported in trade publications.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchase LTL service directly to defendants or their unnamed co-conspirators
from July 30, 2003 through the conclusion of the trial in this matter.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize fuel surcharges imposed
         for LTL services sold in the United States;

     (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy;

     (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this
         complaint and the nature and character of the acts
         performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in
         furtherance of the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section of the
         Sherman Act;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused
         injury to the business and property plaintiffs and
         other members of the classes;

     (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         LTL services sold in the United States during the class
         period; and

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and other members of the damages class.

Plaintiffs pray that:

     -- the court determines that this action may be maintained
        as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure;

     -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts
        done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their co-
        conspirators, b adjudged to have been in violation of
        Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of the
        damages class against defendants for three times the
        amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the
        damages class as allowed by law, together with the costs
        of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- defendants and their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to ac on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner:

        (i) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract,
            combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging
            in any other contract, combination or conspiracy
            having a similar purpose or effect, and from
            adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
            device having a similar purpose or effect; and

       (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the manufacture,
            distribution or sale of any product except to the
            extent necessary in connection with a bona fide
            sales transaction between the parties to such
            communications; and

     -- plaintiffs and members of the class have such other,
        further and different relief as the case may require and
        the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

The suit is "Water Tech et al. v. Arkansas Best Corp., et al. Case No. 07 CV
1389 BEN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Patrick J. Coughlin
          Christopher M. Burke
          Gregory s. Weston
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423
          E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com or chrisb@lerachlaw.com or
                  gweston@lerachlaw.com

          Larry W. Gabriel
          Daniel Mulligan
          Jenkins Mulligan & Gabriel, LLP
          78065 Main Street, Suite 202
          La Quinta, CA 92253
          Phone: 760-777-1500
          Fax: 760-777-1350

          - and -

          Allan Steyer
          Jeffrey H. Lowenthal
          D. Scott Macrae
          Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP
          One California Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-421-3400
          Fax: 415-421-2234


MICROSOFT CORP: Ariz. Gov’t. Alleges Antitrust Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. is facing a class action filed July 24 in the Superior Court
of the State of Arizona accusing it of abusing its monopoly in the PC
software market, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff, Daisy Mountain Fire District claims Microsoft systematically
and knowingly violated court orders and agreements to overcharge Arizona
government entities, to eliminate competition and preclude entry into the
software market of superior products, such as those made by Digital Research
Inc., IBM and Be, Inc.

“Microsoft also directed its exclusionary conduct at complementary software
products, often of a type known as middleware. Although middleware targets
did not directly compete with Microsoft’s operating system, Microsoft
understood that they had the potential to become direct competitors and/or to
greatly strengthen the competitive position of actual or potential
competitors.”

This action concerns Microsoft's alleged anticompetitive and monopolistic
practice, specifically those acts or practices that it intended to use, did
use, and continues to use to prevent and destroy competition and acquire
and/or maintain monopoly power and raise prices to supra-competitive levels
in the U.S., including in Arizona, in the following product markets:

     (a) the sale and/or licensing of Intel-compatible personal
         computer operating system software;

     (b) the sale and/or licensing of Intel-compatible personal
         computer word processing applications software; and

     (c) the sale and/or licensing of Intel-compatible personal
         computer spreadsheet applications software.

Plaintiff brings this action as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of any Arizona state or local
government, or any of its subdivisions (agencies, bureaus, departments,
divisions, offices, etc), or any entity that derives at least 66% of its
funding from one or more of the aforementioned entities, including without
limitation public schools who acquired indirectly from Microsoft a license in
the U.S. for Microsoft single-user operating system software, including
upgrades, compatible with X86 personal computers at any time during the class
period.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) whether Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive conduct
         which renders it liable to members of each class under
         Arizona's antitrust laws;

     (b) whether Microsoft possesses monopoly power within the
         relevant geographic and product markets;

     (c) whether Microsoft acquired or maintained monopoly power
         within the relevant geographic and product markets
         through anticompetitive and/or unlawful activity; and

     (d) whether Microsoft's unlawful conduct has caused legally
         cognizable injury to plaintiff and class members by
         unlawfully increasing, maintaining or stabilizing above
         competitive levels the prices that plaintiff and the
         class members have paid for Microsoft covered Products.

Plaintiff prays:

     -- that the court declare, adjudge and decree this action
        to be a proper class action pursuant to Arizona Rule of
        Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the class;

     -- that plaintiff and the class recover their actual
        damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, that
        they have sustained and will have sustained as a result
        of the antitrust violations alleged;

     -- that plaintiff and the class recover their reasonable
        attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and

     -- that plaintiff and the class b granted such other and
        further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Daisy Mountain Fire District et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No.
CV 2007-013118," filed in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and
for Maricopa County.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Ron Kilgard
          Gary A. Gotto
          Mark D. Samson
          Keller rohrback, PLC
          3101 North Central Ave., Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85012

          Louis DeRoon III
          DeRoon & Seyffer
          2929 N. 44th St. Suite 330
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          
          - and -

          Lynn L. Sarko
          Mark A. Griffin
          Raymond J. Farrow
          Keller Rohrback LLP
          1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle., WA 98101


MIDWEST AIR: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Nixed AirTran Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Air Group, Inc., and members of the Company’s board of directors
filed a motion seeking the dismissal of the purported class action, “Market
Street Securities v. Midwest Air Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-C-0345.”

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin on April 12, 2007, purports to have been filed by a shareholder of
the Company who seeks to maintain the suit as a class action on behalf of all
holders of Company Common Stock.  

The complaint asserts claims arising out of the Company’s rejection of
AirTran’s offer to acquire the Company and alleges that the Board breached
its duties of care and good faith owed to the Company’s shareholders by
rejecting AirTran’s initial and revised unsolicited exchange offers.  

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief to prevent the Company from enforcing its shareholder rights plan and
damages and other monetary relief.  

Pending before the Court are the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
injunction, which was filed on May 17, 2007, and the motion of the Company
and the directors to dismiss the complaint, which was filed on May 22, 2007.  

The suit is “Market Street Securities Inc. v. Midwest Air Group Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00345-JPS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin under Judge J P Stadtmueller.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jill S. Abrams, Esq.
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis LLP
         212 E. 39th St.,
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-889-3700
         Fax: 212-684-5191

              - and -

         Christopher J. Ahrens, Esq.
         Previant Goldberg Uelmen Gratz Miller & Brueggeman SC
         1555 N. River Center Dr. – Ste. 202
         PO Box 12993
         Milwaukee, WI 53212
         Phone: 414-271-4500
         Fax: 414-271-6308
         E-mail: cja@previant.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael B. Apfeld, Esq.
         Godfrey & Kahn SC
         780 N. Water St.,
         Milwaukee, WI 53202-3590
         Phone: 414-273-3500
         Fax: 414-273-5198
         E-mail: mbapfeld@gklaw.com

              - and -

         Walter C. Carlson
         Sidley Austin LLP
         1 S Dearborn St.
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-853-7000
         Fax: 312-853-7036


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Multiple Railroads Antitrust Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. and other railroads face 20 antitrust class actions in
various federal courts regarding fuel surcharges.   

These actions are expected to be consolidated in one court by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 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.

Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com-- controls a freight  
railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co., which is primarily engaged in the
rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products and finished
goods primarily in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via interchange with
rail carriers, to and from the rest of the United States and parts of
Canada.  NS also transports overseas freight through several Atlantic and
Gulf Coast ports.  The Company provides logistics services and offers an
intermodal network in the eastern half of the U.S.  NS’ non-carrier
subsidiaries engage principally in the acquisition, leasing and management of
coal, oil, gas and minerals; the development of commercial real estate;
telecommunications, and the leasing or sale of rail property and equipment.


OLYMPIC SECURITY: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------
Olympic Security Services, Inc. is facing a class action filed July 16 in
Eugene, Oregon federal court.

Plaintiffs Brandon Rutherford, Dean Herbert Lettenmaier, Jr., and Sandra
Rutherford alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Rutherford et al. v. Olympic Security Services, Inc., Case No.
6:07-cv-06173-TC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon under Judge Thomas M. Coffin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kevin T. Lafky, Esq.
         Lafky & Lafky
         429 Court Street, NE
         Salem, OR 97301
         Phone: (503) 585-2450
         Fax: (503) 585-0205
         E-mail: klafky@lafky.com

         Larry L. Linder, Esq.
         Lafky & Lafky
         429 Court Street, NE
         Salem, OR 97301
         Phone: (503) 585-2450
         Fax:(503) 585-0205 (fax)
         E-mail: llinder@lafky.com

         Jon H. Weiner, Esq.
         429 Court Street, NE
         Salem, OR 97301
         Phone: (503) 399-7001
         Fax: (503) 399-0745
         E-mail: jonhweiner@aol.com


OMNICOM GROUP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicom Group Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against it and certain senior executives in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Beginning on June 13, 2002, several putative class actions were filed.  The
actions have since been consolidated under the caption, “In re Omnicom Group
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-4483 (RCC),” on behalf of a proposed
class of purchasers of our common stock between Feb. 20, 2001 and June 11,
2002.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that our public
filings and other public statements during that period contained false and
misleading statements or omitted to state material information relating to:

      -- the company’s calculation of the organic growth
         component of period-to-period revenue growth,

      -- the company’s valuation of and accounting for certain
         internet investments made by its Communicade Group,
         which it contributed to Seneca Investments LLC in 2001,
         and

      -- the existence and amount of certain contingent future
         obligations in respect of acquisitions.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages plus costs
and attorneys’ fees.  Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and on March
28, 2005, the court dismissed portions (1st) and (3rd) of the complaint
detailed above.

The court’s decision denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the remainder
of the complaint did not address the ultimate merits of the case, but only
the sufficiency of the pleading.

Defendants have answered the complaint.  Discovery concluded in the second
quarter of 2007.

On April 30, 2007, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for class
certification, certifying the class proposed by plaintiffs.

On June 15, 2007, the Court set a schedule for briefing of defendants’ motion
to exclude one of plaintiff’s experts and defendants’ motion for summary
judgment.

Briefing and hearings on those motions are scheduled to be completed in the
third quarter of 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 "In Re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John
Keenan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Max W. Berger, Esq.
          Douglas M. McKeige, Esq.
          Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P.
          Phone: (212) 554-1400 and (212) 554-1481

          - and -

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100 and 631-367-1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com and
                  srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          David Harold Braff, Esq.
          Stacey Rubin Friedman
          Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-558-4705 and 212-558-4000
          Fax: 212-558-3333 and 212-558-3588
          E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com and
                  friedmans@sullcrom.com


PEPSICO INC: N.Y. Lawsuit Alleges “Aquafina” is Just Tap Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pepsico, Inc., The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. and Pepsi Bottling Ventures LLC
are facing a class-action complaint filed July 30 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Named plaintiff Brian Fielman claims Pepsico deceived the public by failing
to inform that that Aquafina bottled water is just tap water, not mountain
spring water, as the label implies.

Whether through intentional, reckless, or negligent action, defendants
allegedly marketed and sold Aquafina notwithstanding the fact that its
content was undisclosed, mislabel, misleading. As a result, consumers lie
plaintiff herein purchased Aquafina not knowing the water's true source and
accordingly have suffered harms sounding in their claims set forth for:

     (a) violations of Uniform Deceptive Acts and Practices
         statutes (sometimes also referred to as "Consumer
         Protection Statutes");

     (b) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and

     (c) unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
on behalf of all individuals in the United States who purchased Aquafina from
the date of its introduction through the present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) whether the water marketed and sold as Aquafina was
         bottled from sources of what is generally known as "tap
         water";

     (b) whether defendants withheld information from and/or
         omitted to inform consumers of Aquafina labels that the
         water marketed and sold as Aquafina was bottled from
         sources of what is generally known as "tap water";

     (c) whether defendants' withholding of information and/or
         failure to inform consumers as to the true source of
         the water marketed and sold as Aquafina resulted from
         negligent, reckless or intentional behavior;

     (d) whether defendants' affirmatively promoted the water
         marketed and sold as Aquafina as being better fit for
         human consumption because of the "perfect" or more
         "pure" nature of the water's source;

     (e) whether defendnats' conduct respecting Aquafina
         violated New York GBL Section 349, and the state
         consumer protection and/or uniform deceptive acts and
         practices statutes in effect in the various States;

     (f) whether defendant's conduct breached the implied
         warranty of merchantability; and

     (g) whether defendants' omissions in the labeling of
         Aquafina so as to conceal the true nature of the source
         of the water marketed and sold under the brand name
         Aquafina caused defendants to be unjustly enriched when
         the totality of the circumstances are considered.

Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants as follows:

     -- for an order certifying the class and any appropriate
        subclasses thereof under the appropriate provisions of
        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and appointing
        plaintiff and his counsel to represent such classes and
        subclasses as appropriate under Rule 23(g);

     -- for the declaratory and equitable relief requested;

     -- for compensatory, equitable and/or restitutionary
        damages according to proof and for all applicable
        statutory damages under New York GBL Section 349 et seq.
        and under the consumer protection legislation of the
        other states and the District of Columbia;

     -- for an award of attorney's fees and costs;

     -- for prejudgment interest and the costs of suit;

     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        just and proper.

The suit is “Fielman v. PepsiCo, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:07-cv-06815-CLB,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Charles L. Brieant.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Andrew Palmer Bell
          Locks Law Firm PLLC
          110 East 55th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-838-3333
          Fax: 212-838-3735
          E-mail: abell@lockslawny.com

          Jeffrey Alan Klafter
          Klafter & Olsen LLP
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
          White Plains, NY 10602
          Phone: (914) 997-5656
          Fax: (914) 997-5656
          E-mail: jak@klafterolsen.com

          - and -

          Seth Richard Lesser
          Locks Law Firm PLLC
          110 East 55th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-838-3333
          Fax: 212-838-3735
          E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com


PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Settles N.J. Securities Suit for $28.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
PharmaNet Development Group Inc., formerly SFBC International Inc., entered
into a $28.5 million agreement to settle a 2005 shareholder securities class
action.

Beginning in late December 2005, a number of class actions have been filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that SFBC and certain
of its current and former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The company was served notice of these lawsuits in early January 2006.  The
suits allege that the defendants misrepresented the company's business
conditions, prospects and financial results and failed to disclose the
company's allegedly improper and reckless business practices, such as
improper recruiting practices and mismanagement of clinical trials.

They purport to have been brought by one of two proposed classes: those who
purchased the company's common stock from Aug. 4, 2003 through Dec. 15, 2005
or from Feb. 17, 2004 through Dec. 15, 2005.

On June 21, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation transferred
all of the suits for pre-trial proceedings in the District of New Jersey
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2006).

The recent settlement agreement involved no admission of "liability" by the
Company or any of its current and former directors, officers, and employees
named in the lawsuit. The settlement is subject to court approval and other
customary conditions.

"We are pleased to have reached this significant milestone towards the
conclusion of the securities class action litigation. We look forward to
having this matter behind us as we continue to focus on the future
opportunities for our business," commented Jeffrey P. McMullen, president and
chief executive officer.

The Company will record an $8.9 million charge associated with the settlement
and other related litigation in the second quarter ended June 30, 2007; of
which the Company may elect to pay the class up to $4.0 million in stock.

The suit is “Michael et al. SFBC International, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00165-
SRC-CCC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
under Judge Stanley R. Chesler, with referral to Judge Claire C. Cecchi.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Joseph J. DePalma
          Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5003
          Phone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com

Representing defendants are:

          Patrick Charles English
          Dines & English, LLC
          685 Van Houten Avenue
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Phone: (973) 778-7575
          E-mail: dinesandenglish@aol.com

          - and -

          Stephen Patrick Warren
          Holland & Knight, LLP
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 374-8500
          E-mail: stephen.warren@hklaw.com


RADIOSHACK CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corp. and certain of its former and current directors and officers
continue to face two putative class actions that were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March 16, 2007, and
March 27, 2007, respectively.

The suits are:

       -- "Damore v. RadioShack et al.," and
       -- "Hawana v. RadioShack et al."

These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
RadioShack's common stock between Jan. 14, 2003, and June 7, 2006.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company failed to
disclose material adverse facts about its financial well-being, business
relationships, and prospects.

The complaints seek, among other things, a declaration that the actions are a
proper class action, as well as awards for damages and interest, reasonable
costs and expenses (including attorneys' and experts' fees).

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

The first identified complaint is "Richard Damore, et al. v.
RadioShack Corporation, et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA, 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

              - and -

         Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, LLP
         3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
         Dallas, TX 75204
         Phone: 214-744-3000
         Fax: 214-744-3015
         E-mail: info@provostumphrey.com


RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Approval of Ill. FLSA Suits Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has yet to
approve a settlement of a purported class action filed against Radioshack
Corp., which is alleging that the company misclassified certain RadioShack
store managers as exempt from overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act or similar state laws.

The company has reached a tentative settlement with counsel for the
plaintiffs in "Alphonse L. Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corp."  The suit was
filed on Oct. 31, 2002.

It also reached a settlement in four other wage-hour lawsuits pending against
it.  This global settlement would result in a payment by the company of
approximately $8.8 million, in the aggregate, to resolve all five of the
pending lawsuits.

Of this amount, a charge of $8.5 million was recognized during the quarter
ended June 30, 2006, with the balance recognized during the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2006.  The respective courts will need to approve the tentative
settlement.

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

The suit is "Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corp., Case No. 02 C  
7884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Timothy J. Touhy, Esq.
         Daniel K. Touhy, Esq.
         James B. Zouras, Esq.
         Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
         Touhy & Touhy, Ltd.
         161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210
         Chicago, Illinois 60601
         Phone: (877) 372-2209
         Fax: (312) 456-3838
         E-mail: lawyers@touhylaw.com
         Web site: http://www.radioshackclassaction.com

              - and -

         Peter M. Callahan, Esq.
         Robert W. Thompson, Esq.
         Lee A. Sherman, Esq.
         Callahan, McCune & Willis
         111 Fashion Lane
         Tustin, California 92780
         Phone: (714) 730-5700
         Fax: (714) 730-1642
         E-mail: classaction@cmwlaw.net

Representing the company are:  

         Edward W. Bergmann, Esq.
         Justin M. Crawford, Esq.
         Brian J. Hipp, Esq.
         Seyfarth Shaw
         55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200
         Chicago, Illinois 60603
         Phone: (312) 346-8000
         Fax: (312) 269-8869

              - and -

         Robert S. Brewer, Jr., Esq.
         Ross H. Hyslop, Esq.,
         Robert A. Cocchia, Esq.
         McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP
         750 B Street, Suite 3300
         San Diego, California 92101
         Phone: (619) 595-5400
         Fax: (619) 595-5450
         E-mail: rsattorneys@mckennalong.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Mich. Over “Defective” Camcorders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
July 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
accusing it of making and selling camcorders with a defective image sensor
device known as CCD that causes the camera to fail.

Named plaintiff Russ Siegel alleges that despite scores of consumer
complaints regarding the premature failure and defective nature of the
products containing the defective CCD imager, Samsung has done nothing to
provide a remedy or to accurately disclose the problem to its current and
future customers and consumers.

Rather, Samsung has concealed information about the defect while making
misrepresentations in an attempt to conceal the problem. At the same time,
SEA has charged or attempts to charge consumers $150 or more for "fixing"
this known defect.

Plaintiff asserts claims based on the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA)
and similar statutes applicable in other states, inter alia for false and
misleading advertising, for Breach of Samsung's express and/or implied
warranty, for Fraud in the Inducement and for Unjust Enrichment.

Plaintiff brings this action as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased, not for resale, a Samsung Digital Camcorder Model SCD27, Model
SCD23 and any other model that uses the same faulty CCD imager.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) whether the CCD imager used in the camcorders fail at
         an unacceptably high rate;

     (b) whether the CCD imager used in the camcorders is
         inherently defective;

     (c) whether the CCD imager used in the camcorders is not of
         merchantable quality;

     (d) whether SEA made false and/or misleading statements of
         fact to the class and the public concerning the defects
         that are inherent in the CCD imager used in the
         camcorders;

     (e) whether SEA concealed material facts concerning the
         defective nature of the CD imager used in the
         camcorders;

     (f) whether SEA knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that
         its statement of fact to the class and the public about
         the performance and reliability of the CCD imager used
         in the camcorders;

     (g) whether SEA learned from consumers that the CCD imager
         and module were failing at an unacceptable rate and
         then failed to provide a remedy to consumers regarding
         the failure and failed to disclose the failures to
         consumers;

     (h) whether by its misconduct SEA engage in unfair and/or
         unlawful business practices with respect to the
         advertising, marketing and sale of the camcorders;

     (i) whether by its misconduct, SEA engaged in unfair,
         deceptive, untrue and/or misleading advertising of the
         camcorders;

     (j) whether SEA breached its expressed warranty to the
         class for the camcorders;

     (k) whether SEA's conduct violated the Michigan Consumer
         Protection Act and/or other similar applicable statutes
         in other states;

     (l) whether, as a result of SEA's misconduct, the named
         plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages,
         restitution, equitable relief and/or other relief and
         the amount and nature of such relief.

Plaintiff seeks actual and/or compensatory damages, restitution, equitable
relief, including injunctive relief, actual damages, disgorgement or profits,
punitive damages, treble damages, interest costs and attorneys' fees, and all
other relief available to the class.

The suit is “Siegel v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
13135-PDB-RSW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, under Judge Paul D. Borman, with referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Brian H. Herschfus
          Wood, Kull
          37000 Grand River Avenue, Suite 290
          Farmington Hills, MI 48335
          Phone: 248-476-2006
          E-mail: bhh@woodkull.com

          - and -

          Stuart Sandweiss
          Sandweiss Law Center
          18930 W. Ten Mile Road, Suite 2000
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Phone: 248-559-2400
          E-mail: stuart@sandweiss.net


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Served with Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------
Universal American Financial Corp. reviewed a purported class action filed by
Elizabeth A. Conolly, Thomas McCormack, Shelley Z. Zhang, Green Meadows
Partners, James Stellato and Rocco Sorrentino in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Westchester against:

          -- Universal American Financial Corp.,
          -- Richard A. Barasch,
          -- Lee Equity Partners LLC,
          -- Perry Capital LLC,
          -- Union Square Partners Management LLC,
          -- Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe,
          -- Barry Averill,
          -- Bradley E. Cooper,
          -- Mark M. Harmeling,
          -- Bertram Harnett,
          -- Linda H. Lamel,
          -- Eric W. Leathers,
          -- Patrick J. McLaughlin, and
          -- Robert A. Spass, and Robert F. Wright,

On Oct. 24, 2006, the company received an acquisition proposal from members
of management led by:

     -- Richard A. Barasch, chairman and chief executive  
        officer; and  

     -- private equity firms:

        * Capital Z Partners, Ltd.,
        * Lee Equity Partners, LLC,  
        * Perry Capital, LLC, and  
        * Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe X, L.P.  

to acquire all of the company's publicly held common stock for  
$18.15 per share in cash (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 11, 2006).

The complaint alleges that:

     (i) the defendants who are directors of the Company
         allegedly breached fiduciary duties they owed to
         Universal American's shareholders in connection with
         Universal American entering into its previously
         announced merger agreement to acquire MemberHealth,
         Inc. and concurrent agreements with certain equity
         investors for such equity investors to acquire
         securities in Universal American, and the defendants
         who are equity investors purportedly aided and abetted
         that breach; and

    (ii) the defendants who are directors of the Company
         allegedly breached their duty of candor to Universal
         American's shareholders by failing to disclose material
         information concerning the Transactions.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of the transactions and damages in an amount to be determined.

Universal American has reviewed the complaint and believes that the lawsuit
is without merit, and intends to defend against the claims vigorously.

The suit is "Elizabeth A. Conolly, et al v. Universal American Financial
Corporation et al., Case No.13422-07,” filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Westchester.


WESTBROOK MOTORS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westbrook Motors, Inc. is facing a class action filed in Miami federal court
on July 19.

Plaintiff Juan Carlos Villamizar alleges violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The suit is “Villamizar v. Westbrook Motors, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-21861-
UU,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Reynaldo Velazquez, Esq.
         Velazquez Law Firm PA
         100 Almeria Avenue
         Suite 340
         Coral Gables, FL 33134
         Phone: 305-529-0005
         Fax: 305-529-0058
         E-mail: rey@velazquezlawfirm.com


YOUTHLAND ACADEMY: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Youthland Academy Inc. is facing a class action filed July 19 in Cincinnati
federal court.

Plaintiff Qiana Bradley alleges violations of Federal Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Bradley v. Youthland Academy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00553-
SJD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
under Judge Susan J. Dlott.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Elmer Morton Goldman, Esq.
         6659 Villager Place
         Mason, OH 45040
         Phone: 513/398-6786
         Fax: 513/398-6786
         E-mail: elmergoldman@aol.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN HOME: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that a class
action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of American Home
Mortgage Investment Corp. between July 26, 2006 and July 27, 2007, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges American Home Mortgage and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to
disclose that:

     (i) the Company was experiencing an increasing level of
         loan delinquencies which was depressing its earnings;

    (ii) that the Company was experiencing increasing
         difficulties in selling its loans and, therefore, was
         required to decrease prices, thereby reducing margins
         and profits; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
         overstating its financial results by failing to write-
         down the value of certain of the loans in its portfolio
         as these loans had declined substantially in value.

Then, on June 28, 2007, American Home Mortgage issued a press release
announcing that it will take "substantial charges for credit-related expenses
in the second quarter." The Company reported that the increase in losses was
related to its practice of extending a three month timely payment warranty
that the Company granted to loan buyers who purchased stated income loans. In
response to this announcement, the price of American Home Mortgage stock
declined from $20.91 per share to $18.38 per share on extremely heavy trading
volume.

Then, on July 27, 2007, after the close of the market, American Home Mortgage
issued a press release announcing that its Board of Directors had determined
to delay paying its dividend. In response to this announcement, on July 30,
2007, the NYSE halted trading in American Home Mortgage stock before the
market opened.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the
behalf of purchasers of the securities of American Home Mortgage between July
26, 2006 and July 27, 2007, inclusive.

American Home Mortgage is a real estate investment trust (REIT), which
engages in the investment and origination of residential mortgage loans in
the United States. The Company primarily originates and sells securitized
adjustable-rate mortgage loans, as well as engages in the sale of mortgage
loans to institutional investors and servicing mortgage loans owned by
others.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com
          Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/americanhome


                            *********


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  * * *