CAR_Public/070807.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 7, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 154

                            Headlines


AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Challenge N.Y. Securities Suit Nixing
AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
AVON PRODUCTS: Still Faces Calif. Sales Representatives’ Lawsuit
AVON PRODUCTS: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y. Court
CLUB CAR: Recalls Golf Vehicles with Defective Steering Gear

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Info. Disclosure Ordered in Colossus Suit
DE BEERS: Public Notice on $290M Settlement Could be Out Oct.
DOLE FOOD: Reaches Settlements in Fla. Banana Antitrust Lawsuits
EBAY INC: Accused of Defrauding Customers in Calif. Lawsuit
ESS TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Court Approves $3.5M Securities Suit Deal

EXPEDIA INC: Faces FACTA Violations Suit in Ill. Federal Court
FIRST BANCORP: $74.25M Securities Suit Deal Gets Initial Okay
FIRST FINANCIAL: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Florida
FLORIDA ROCK: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Vulcan Deal
GEORGIA: Atlanta to Pay $7.5M in Suit Alleging FLSA Violations

GOOGLE INC: New Plaintiffs Join Trademarks Infringement Suit
HANOVER INSURANCE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Conn.
IBM CORP: Salesmen Sue in Cal. Over Overtime “Exempt” Status
IBM CORP: Calif. Court Approves $65M ERISA Lawsuit Settlement
JARDEN CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York

LENNAR CORP: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
MEDICAL INFORMATION: Court Dismisses Appeal Motion in “Hubert”
MILBERG WEISS: Former Clients Commence RICO Suit in Calif. Court
NCO FINANCIAL: Cal. Suit Alleges Fair Debt Collection Act Breach
NICOR GAS: Ill. Court Approves Plant Cleanup Suit Settlement

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Denial of Certification in Bias Suit Now Final
QUICK WEIGHT: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Minn. Court Certifies FLSA Violations Suit
REHVAC MANUFACTURING: Recalls Relief Plugs Due to Injury Hazard
SCIELE PHARMA: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Securities Fraud Lawsuit

SMITH BARNEY: Close to Settling Sex Bias Lawsuit in Calif.
UGS CORP: Accused of Denying Workers Overtime Compensation


                   New Securities Fraud Cases
        
XM SATELLITE: 8th Circuit Rules Out Arbitration in “Enderlin”
AMERICAN HOME: Cohen Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
AMERICAN HOME: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
AMERICAN HOME: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Challenge N.Y. Securities Suit Nixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against Avon
Products Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York is opposing a motion by the company to dismiss the suit.

In August 2005, the company reported the filing of class action complaints
for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.  These actions are:

     -- "Nilesh Patel v. Avon Products, Inc. et al.," and

     -- "Michael Cascio v. Avon Products, Inc. et al."         

The actions were subsequently consolidated.  A consolidated amended class
action complaint for alleged violations of the federal securities laws was
filed in December 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Master File Number 05-CV- 06803) under the caption "In re Avon
Products, Inc. Securities Litigation naming Avon, an officer and two
officer/directors."

The consolidated action, brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock between Feb. 3, 2004 and Sept. 20, 2005, seeks damages for
alleged false and misleading statements "concerning Avon's operations and
performance in China, the U.S. . . . and Mexico."

The consolidated amended complaint also asserts that during the class period
certain officers and directors sold shares of the company's common stock.  

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint, asserting, among other things, that it failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the plaintiffs have
opposed that motion.

The company provided no development in the matter in its July 31, 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 Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation,  
Case No. 1:05-cv-06803-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A.  
Kaplan.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Brian Philip Murray, Esq.
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818
         Fax: 212-682-1892
         E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com

              - and -

         Joel P. Laitman, Esq.
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: (212) 964-0046

Representing the defendants is:

         Peter C. Hein, Esq.
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: (212) 403-2000
         E-mail: PCHein@wlrk.com


AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated class action
filed against it and certain other defendants in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District Court of New York over alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In October 2005, the company reported the filing of class actions for alleged
violations of ERISA in actions entitled:

      -- "John Rogati v. Andrea Jung, et al.;" and

      -- "Carolyn Jane Perry v. Andrea Jung, et al."  

The cases were subsequently consolidated and a consolidated complaint for
alleged violations of ERISA was filed in December 2005 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption, “In re Avon
Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File Number 05-CV- 06803,” naming the
company, certain officers, its Retirement Board and others.  

The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the Avon
Products, Inc. Personal Savings Account Plan and the Avon Products, Inc.
Personal Retirement Account Plan and on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan "for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased
or held an interest in Avon   Products, Inc. . . . common stock from Feb. 20,
2004 to the present."  

The consolidated complaint asserts breaches of fiduciary duties and
prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA arising out of, inter alia,
alleged false and misleading public statements regarding the company's
business made during the class period and investments in company stock by the
Plan and Plan participants.  

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, asserting that it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, and the plaintiffs have opposed that motion.

The company provided no development in the matter in its July 31, 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 Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master  
File Number 05-CV-06803," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joel P. Laitman, Esq.
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: (212) 964-0046

              - and -

         Brian Philip Murray, Esq.
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818
         Fax: 212-682-1892
         E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com

Representing the defendants are:  

         Peter C. Hein Wachtell, Esq.
         Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: (212) 403-2000
         E-mail: PCHein@wlrk.com

              - and -

         Melissa C. Rodriguez, Esq.
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         101 Park Avenue, 37th Floor
         New York, NY 10178
         Phone: 212 309-6394
         Fax: 212 309-6273
         E-mail: mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com


AVON PRODUCTS: Still Faces Calif. Sales Representatives’ Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products Inc. continues to face a nationwide class action, “Blakemore,
et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al.,” which is pending in the Superior
Court of the state of California, Los Angeles County.  

Commenced in March 2003, the purported class action was filed on behalf of
Avon sales representatives who, "since March 24, 1999, received products from
Avon they did not order, thereafter returned the unordered products to Avon,
and did not receive credit for those returned products."   

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
restitution and injunctive relief for alleged unjust enrichment and violation
of the California Business and Professions Code.  

The company filed demurrers to the original complaint and three subsequent
amended complaints, asserting that they failed to state a cause of action.   

The Superior Court sustained the company demurrers and dismissed plaintiffs'
causes of action except for the unjust enrichment claim of one plaintiff.  

The court also struck plaintiffs' class allegations.  Plaintiffs sought
review of these decisions by the Court of Appeal of the State of California
and, in May 2005, the Court of Appeal reinstated the dismissed causes of
action and the class allegations.  

In January 2006, the company filed a motion to strike the plaintiffs'
asserted nationwide class.  In February 2006, the trial court declined to
grant the motion, but instead certified the issue to the Court of Appeal on
an interlocutory basis.  

In April 2006, the Court of Appeal denied the company's motion and instructed
the trial court to consider the issue at a subsequent point in the
proceedings.

The company provided no development in the matter in its July 31, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Blakemore et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., B174825, B175973" filed
in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County under Judge Wendell
Mortimer.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jeffrey Huron, Esq.
         Huron Law Group
         1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-284-3400
         Fax: 310-772-0037
         Web site: http://www.huronlaw.com


AVON PRODUCTS: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products Inc. continues to face a lawsuit filed by a retired employee of
Avon who, before retirement, had been on paid disability leave for
approximately 19 years.

The suit, “Kendall v. Employees' Retirement Plan of Avon Products and the
Retirement Board,” is a purported class action commenced in April 2003 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

The initial complaint alleged that the Employees' Retirement
Plan of Avon Products violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
and, as a consequence, unlawfully reduced the amount of plaintiff's pension.

Plaintiff sought a reformation of the Retirement Plan and recalculation of
benefits under the terms of the Retirement Plan, as reformed for plaintiff
and for the purported class.  

In November 2003, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging additional
Retirement Plan violations of ERISA and seeking, among other things,
elimination of a social security offset in the Retirement Plan.

The purported class includes "all Plan participants, whether active, inactive
or retired, and their beneficiaries and/or Estates, with one hour of service
on or after Jan. 1, 1976, whose accrued benefits, pensions or survivor's
benefits have been or will be calculated and paid based on the Plan's
unlawful provisions."

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion is still pending before the court.

The company provided no development in the matter in its July 31, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Avon Products, Inc. -- http://www.avoncompany.com-- is a global manufacturer  
and marketer of beauty and related products.  Its products fall into three
product categories: Beauty, which consists of cosmetics, fragrances, skin
care and toiletries (CFT); Beauty Plus, which consists of fashion jewelry,
watches, apparel and accessories, and Beyond Beauty, which consists of home
products and gift and decorative products.


CLUB CAR: Recalls Golf Vehicles with Defective Steering Gear
-------------------------------------------------------------
Club Car Inc., of Augusta, Georgia, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,900 Golf Cars, Rough Terrain
Vehicles, and Hospitality, Utility & Transport Vehicles.

The company said the steering gear assembly can fail, resulting in an
unexpected loss of steering control, posing a risk of injury to the driver
and passenger.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves various 2007 model year gasoline or electric-powered
vehicles used for transportation around golf courses, hotels, resorts,
airports and residential communities. Vehicles can be identified by the
serial number located above and to the right of the accelerator pedal.

These recalled electric-powered vehicles were manufactured in the United
States -- steering gear assemblies were manufactured in Korea -- and are
being sold at Club Car dealers nationwide between April 2007 and July 2007
for between $4,000 and $12,000.

Pictures of recalled electric-powered vehicles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07566a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07566b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07566c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07566d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07566e.jpg

Not all 2007 model year vehicles are included in this recall. Owners who have
not already been contacted by Club Car are advised to check the vehicle’s
model and serial number on the firm’s Web site or by calling Club Car to
determine if their vehicle is included in the recall. Owners should stop
using the recalled vehicles immediately. Club Car will inspect the vehicle to
determine whether a free replacement of the steering gear assembly is needed.

For further information, contact Club Car at (800) 227-0739 extension 3580
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s
Web site: http://www.clubcar.com.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Info. Disclosure Ordered in Colossus Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A Miller County (Ark.) Circuit Judge ordered State Automobile Insurance Co.
to produce documents in relation to the case, "Hensley, et al. v. Computer
Sciences Corp., et al.," it emerged in a report by Michelle Massey of
Southeast Texas Record.

The suit was filed as a putative nationwide class action on Feb. 7, 2005.  It
claimed that defendants conspired to wrongfully use the Colossus software
products licensed by the company and the other software vendors to reduce the
amount paid to the licensees' insureds for bodily injury claims.  It was
originally filed by plaintiff Georgia Hensley, individually and as a class
representative.

The suit faults the defendants for civil conspiracy, breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
fraud.

Plaintiffs sought injunctive and monetary relief of less than $75,000 for
each class member, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

On July 11, Judge Johnson ordered State Automobile Insurance Co. to produce
documents despite pleadings by company attorneys that State Automobile would
not produce documents which contained confidential information.  

Judge Johnson found that a previous protective order was sufficient
protection and that the defense may no longer withhold documents.  He ordered
that the documents should be designated "confidential" and shall be destroyed
on expiration of all appeals.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         John Goodson, Esq.
         Keil & Goodson, P.A.
         611 Pecan Street
         Texarkana, AR  
         71854
         Phone: (870)772-4113

Representing defendant State Automobile Insurance Company are:

         Mark Burgess, Esq.
         2301 Moores Lane
         P.O. Box 6297
         Texarkana, Texas 75505-6297 (Bowie Co.)
         Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com

         Jason Horton, Esq.
         Crisp, Boyd, Poff & Burgess, L.L.P.
         Moores Lane, P.O. Box 6297
         Texarkana, Texas 75505-6297
         Phone: 903-838-6123
         Fax: 903-832-8489 2301
         Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com


DE BEERS: Public Notice on $290M Settlement Could be Out Oct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A public notice regarding the distribution of a $290 million fund set up to
settle claims for five separate lawsuits settled by De Beers is expected to
be published in October 2007, according to the Jewelers Vigilance Committee.

The classes covered under the settlement include direct and indirect purchase
of diamonds and resellers of diamonds, including retailers.

Settlement documents were signed and filed with the Federal
Court in New Jersey in March 2005.  On March 31, 2006, the court granted
preliminary approval to the settlement.  

The settlement has two major components: Cash payments totaling
$295 million and broad injunctive relief prohibiting certain future conduct
by De Beers (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 1, 2007).

The funds were divided into two settlement funds:

      -- $22.5 million paid in settlement on behalf of all
         entities, other than De Beers sightholders, that
         purchased diamonds directly from De Beers and other
         diamond mining companies; and

      -- $272.5 million paid in settlement of the claims of a
         class of all "indirect" purchasers of diamonds.

The indirect purchaser class is further divided into two subclasses:

      -- resellers who purchased diamonds and diamond jewelry
         from entities other than De Beers and other rough
         diamond mining companies, and who purchased diamonds
         from sightholders and those further down the diamond
         pipeline; and

      -- consumers who purchased loose diamonds and diamond
         jewelry.

As part of the preliminary approval order, Judge Stanley
Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey assigned certain matters relating to the administration and division
of the settlement proceeds to a Special Master,
Judge Alfred Wolin, a retired federal judge.  

For more information, contact:

          Cecilia Gardner, Esq.
          E-mail: jvcquestions@aol.com


          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Berman, Devalerio, Pease & Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          425 California Street, Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2205
          Phone: (415) 433-3200 or (800) 516-9926
          Fax: (415) 433-6382
          Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com

          -- and --

          Jared B. Stamell, Esq.
          Stamell & Schager, L.L.P.
          35th Floor, One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006-1404
          Phone: (212) 566-4047
          Fax: (212) 566-4061


DOLE FOOD: Reaches Settlements in Fla. Banana Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dole Food Co. Inc. reached settlements for two consolidated class actions
filed by direct and indirect banana buyers in Florida federal court,
according to the company’s July 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 16,
2007.

A number of class actions were filed against the company and three
competitors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of entities that directly or indirectly
purchased bananas from the defendants and have now been consolidated into two
separate class actions:

     -- one by direct purchasers (customers); and
     -- another by indirect purchasers (those who purchased
        bananas from customers).

Both consolidated class actions allege that the defendants conspired to
artificially raise or maintain prices and control or restrict output of
bananas.

On May 17, 2007 and June 26, 2007, respectively, Dole entered into settlement
agreements resolving these putative consolidated class actions filed by the
direct purchasers and indirect purchasers.

These settlement agreements and their terms are subject to various court
approvals and required notices.  

Dole Food Co. Inc. -- http://www.dole.com/-- is a producer and marketer of  
fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and fresh-cut flowers, and markets a line of
packaged foods.


EBAY INC: Accused of Defrauding Customers in Calif. Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
eBay, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 2 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of San Francisco.

Named plaintiff Michelle Mazur alleges eBay lets Hot Jewelry Auctions.com --
dba Jewelry Overstock Auctions dba Paramount Auctions -- defraud consumers by
shill bidding, despite eBay’s promise to screen out such scams.

The suit is “Mazur v. eBay, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-03967-JCS,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          John Balestriere
          Balestriere PLLC
          225 Broadway, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-374-5400
          Fax: 212-208-2613 (fax)

          - and -  
          
          Matthew A. Siroka
          Law Office of Matthew A Siroka
          600 Townsend Street, Suite 329E
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Phone: 415-522-1105
          Fax: 415-522-1506
          E-mail: mas@defendergroup.com


ESS TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Court Approves $3.5M Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California entered a final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice,
approving a settlement between the parties and dismissing the shareholder
class action against ESS Technology, Inc., and certain of its present and
former officers and directors.

On Aug. 12, 2002, following the company's downward revision of revenue and
earnings guidance for the third fiscal quarter of
2002, a series of putative federal class actions were filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.   

Complaints alleged that the company and certain of its present and former
officers and directors made misleading statements regarding the company's
business and failed to disclose certain allegedly material facts during an
alleged class period of Jan. 3, 2002 through Aug. 12, 2002, in violation of
federal securities laws.  

These actions were consolidated and are proceeding under the caption, "In re
ESS Technology Securities Litigation."   

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class.  They
later amended their consolidated complaint on Nov.
3, 2003, which the company then moved to dismiss on Dec. 18,
2003.  

On Dec. 1, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part the company's
motion to dismiss, and struck from the complaint allegations arising prior to
Feb. 27, 2002.

On Dec. 22, 2004, based on the court's order, the company moved to strike
from the complaint all remaining claims and allegations arising prior to Aug.
10, 2002.  

On Feb. 22, 2005, the court granted the company's motion in part and struck
all remaining claims and allegations arising prior to
Aug. 1, 2002 from the complaint.  

In an order filed on Feb. 8, 2006, the court certified a plaintiff class of
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
publicly traded securities during the period beginning Aug. 1, 2002, through
and including
Aug. 12, 2002.

On March 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend their
operative complaint, which the Court denied on May 30, 2006.  Trial was
tentatively set for January 2008.  

On Nov. 12, 2006, the parties attended a mediation at which they agreed to
settle the litigation for $3.5 million (to be paid by defendants’ insurance
carriers), subject to appropriate documentation by the parties and approval
by the Court.

On April 30, 2007 a Stipulation of Settlement and Release was filed with the
Court. On May 8, 2007, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving a
proposed $3.5 million settlement (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2007).

On July 27, 2007, Judge Whyte entered a final judgment and order of dismissal
with prejudice approving a settlement between the parties and dismissing the
shareholder class action.

If no appeal is filed with the court within 30 days following the entry of
the order and final judgment, the settlement will become final and binding.
The company and other defendants have denied any and all allegations of
wrongdoing in connection with this matter, but believe that given the
uncertainties, costs, burden and inconvenience associated with litigation,
the settlement is in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.
The entire settlement amount and any additional expenses will be covered by
the company's directors and officers insurance policy.

The suit is "In re ESS Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 02-CV-4497," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge
Howard R. Lloyd.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415/288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Meredith N. Landy, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers
         2765 Sand Hill Road
         Menlo Park, CA 94025-7019
         Phone: 650.473.2600
         Fax: 650.473.2601
         E-mail: mlandy@omm.com


EXPEDIA INC: Faces FACTA Violations Suit in Ill. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Online travel agency Expedia Inc., d/b/a Hotels.com, is facing a class action
claiming it printed more than five digits of customers’ credit card numbers
in violation of Fair and Accurate Transaction Act.

Williamson County resident Natalie Sutton filed the suit in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on July 31.  She seeks punitive
and statutory damages, as well as attorneys' fees, costs and a permanent
injunction enjoining Expedia from continuing with the practice.

"Despite knowing and being repeatedly informed about FACTA and the importance
of truncating credit card and debit card numbers and preventing the printing
of expiration dates on receipts, and despite having had more than three years
to comply with FACTA's requirements, Defendant willfully violated and
continues to violate FACTA's requirements...," the complaint states.

The suit claims that there are "at minimum" hundreds of members of the
proposed class.

The suit is “Sutton v. Expedia Inc. et al., Case no. 3:07-cv-00547-GPM-DGW,”
before G. Patrick Murphy with referral to Donald G. Wilkerson.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Randy Patchett, Esq.
         Patchett Law Office
         104 West Calvert
         P.O. Box 1176
         Marion, IL 62959
         Phone: 618-997-1984
         Fax: 618-998-1495
         E-mail: patchettlawoffice@ll.net


FIRST BANCORP: $74.25M Securities Suit Deal Gets Initial Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico issued a preliminary
order approving the stipulation of settlement filed in connection with a
$74.25 million proposed settlement of a class action brought on behalf of
First BanCorp's shareholders.

The effectiveness of a final order to be issued by the Court is subject to:

    -- the payment of $61 million to be deposited by First
       BanCorp in a settlement fund within fifteen calendar days
       of the date of issuance of the preliminary order; and

    -- the mailing of a notice to shareholders that describes
       the general terms of the settlement.

Initially, the company and certain of its officers and directors and former
officer and directors were named as defendants in five separate securities
class actions filed between Oct. 31, 2005 and Dec. 5, 2005, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

All securities class actions have been consolidated into one case, "In Re:
First BanCorp Securities Litigations" before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico.

Early this year, First BanCorp reached an agreement in principle to settle
all claims with lead plaintiffs in a shareholder class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Class Action Reporter,
March 6, 2007).

Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to notice being provided
to the class and final approval by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Puerto Rico, First BanCorp will pay the plaintiffs $74,250,000.

The court hearing for the final order of approval of the settlement has been
set for October 15, 2007. First BanCorp intends to comply with the $61
million payment requirement within the timeframe set forth in the terms of
the settlement. The remaining amount of $13,250,000 will be paid before
December 31, 2007.

"With this preliminary order on the settlement of the class action lawsuit,
First BanCorp is well on its way to accomplishing another major milestone,
which brings us that much closer to eliminating the potential risk of a long,
expensive and protracted litigation with the financial risks associated with
litigation," commented Luis M. Beauchamp, Chief Executive Officer of First
BanCorp.

The payments in settlement of the class action will have no impact on
earnings and capital of the Corporation in 2007. As reflected in the
Corporation's previously filed financial statements for 2005, the Corporation
accrued $74.25 million in 2005 for the potential settlement of the class
action lawsuit.

The Corporation expects to seek recovery of a total of approximately $14.75
million from its insurance companies and from former executives of the
Corporation. Since agreements with the insurance carriers have not been
executed, the Corporation cannot provide assurances that the monies from the
insurance carriers will be received.

The suit is "In Re: First BanCorp Securities Litigations, Case No. 3:05-cv-
02148-GAG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
under Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles S. Hey-Maestre
          De Jesus, Hey & Vargas Law Office
          1060 Borinquena St.
          Santa Rita Bldg., Suite C-8
          San Juan, PR 00925
          Phone: 787-758-8950
          Fax: 787-758-8911
          E-mail: fedcases@djhv-derechopr.com

          Glenn Carl James-Hernandez
          James Law Offices
          PMB 501, 1353 Rd. 19
          Guaynabo, PR 00966-2700
          Phone: 787-763-2888
          Fax: 787-763-2881
          E-mail: jameslawoffices@centennialpr.net

          Andres W. Lopez
          Andres W. Lopez Law Office
          207 Del Parque St., Third Floor
          San Juan, PR 00912
          Phone: 787-406-9075
          Fax: 787-641-4544
          E-mail: andreswlopez@yahoo.com

          - and -

          PHV Kevin McGee
          Zwerling, Schachter & Swerling, LLP
          595 South Federal Highway, Suite 600
          Boca Raton, FL 33432, US
          Phone: 561-544-2500
          Fax: 561-544-2501
          E-mail: kmcgee@zsz.com

Representing the defendants are:

          PHV Joseph S. Allerhand
          Weil, Gotshal & Manges
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153, US
          Phone: (212) 310-8945
          Fax: (212) 310-8007
          E-mail: joseph.allerhand@weil.com

          - and -

          Eyck O. Lugo-Rivera
          Martinez Odell & Calabria
          P.O. Box 190998
          San Juan, PR 00919-0998
          Phone: 787-274-2903
          Fax: 787-764-5664
          E-mail: elugo@mocpr.com


FIRST FINANCIAL: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Financial Employee Leasing, Inc. is facing a class action filed July
18, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District Court of Florida.

Plaintiff John Pierce alleges non-payment of wages in violation of Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The suit is “Pierce v. First Financial Employee Leasing, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00451-JES-SPC,” under Judge John E. Steele with referral to Judge
Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Phone: 407/420-1414
          Fax: 407/423-7928
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


FLORIDA ROCK: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Vulcan Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Rock Industries, Inc., and the members of its board of directors
continue to face a purported shareholder class-action complaint filed in the
Duval County Circuit Court on March 6, 2007 with regards to a merger
agreement wherein Vulcan Materials Co. would acquire the company.  

The suit, "Dillinger v. Florida Rock, et al., Case No. 16-20007-
CA-001906," seeks to enjoin the merger and alleges, among other things, that
the directors have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the company's
shareholders by attempting to sell the company to Vulcan for an inadequate
price.

The company provided no material development in the matter in its July 31,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Florida Rock Industries, Inc. -- http://www.flarock.com/-- operates in three  
segments: construction aggregates, concrete products, and cement and calcium
products.


GEORGIA: Atlanta to Pay $7.5M in Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta is poised to pay $7.5 million to settle a class action filed by
hundreds of police officers alleging they weren’t paid for overtime between
2001 and 2004, The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports.

The City Council is slated to vote on the payment at its Aug. 20 meeting.

The lawsuit claims that police were not paid properly for off-hours work,
like responding to phone calls from district attorneys or investigators,
according to the report.  

It was filed in 2004 in the U.S. District Court in Atlanta with police Sgt.
Scott Kreher, president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers,
Local 623, as lead plaintiff.  The lawsuit contended the city violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and claimed the officers were owed money for
overtime in the previous three years.

Atlanta Police Department Spokesperson Judy Pal said the problem was due to
poor record-keeping of employees’ time at work, but the process is now being
done electronically to eliminate future problems.

The suit is before U.S. District Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.

For more information, contact city attorney Beth Chandler.


GOOGLE INC: New Plaintiffs Join Trademarks Infringement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Football Association Premier League and Bourne Co. announced that several
additional parties will be joining the fight for content protection against
YouTube/Google alleging wide-scale copyright infringement.

The parties include:

          -- the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA),
             the largest music publishing association in the
             U.S. with over 600 members;

          -- renowned investigative journalist Robert Tur;

          -- the U.K.'s Rugby Football League;

          -- the Finnish Football League Association;

          -- X-Ray Dog Music, composers and producers of high-
             end music for popular movie and TV trailers;

          -- Knockout Entertainment Limited (Secondsout.com) and
             Seminole Warriors Boxing, which have separately
             promoted some of the most anticipated boxing
             matches over the past several years; and

          -- the author Daniel Quinn.

Premier League and Bourne also announced that the two law firms representing
them in the proposed class action -- Proskauer Rose LLP and Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP -- have been appointed Class counsel on an
interim basis by the Judge presiding over the case.

In May, the Football Association Premier League Limited, the premier league
of English soccer, and independent music publisher Bourne Co. filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
stop the alleged unauthorized and uncompensated use of their creative and
other copyrighted works and those of all other similarly situated copyright
holders on the YouTube.com website (Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2007).

The lawsuit names as defendants:

     -- YouTube, Inc.;
  
     -- YouTube LLC; as well as

     -- YouTube's corporate parent, Google, Inc.

According to the complaint, "Defendants are pursuing a deliberate strategy of
engaging in, permitting, encouraging, and facilitating massive copyright
infringement on the YouTube website" in order to build traffic to the site.

The complaint alleges that the YouTube defendants have long been aware of
this pattern of massive infringement yet purposefully refrain from employing
readily available measures to curb it because the defendants understand that
the popularity of ouTube.com (and its value as a platform for other uses)
derive primarily from the ability of website visitors to access, view, and
otherwise exploit copyrighted materials without having to pay the owners of
those materials.

The complaint further alleges that it was this very business model that
persuaded defendant Google to pay $1.65 billion to purchase YouTube in
November 2006, and that Google has endorsed and directed YouTube's infringing
conduct since becoming its corporate parent.

According to Dan Johnson, Premier League spokesman, "We are pleased to see so
many other copyright holders joining us in what we are trying to achieve. The
clear and growing message to YouTube and Google is simple: their callous and
opportunistic business model is contrary to right, contrary to law, and must
and will be stopped."

Mr. Johnson continued, "We are also delighted that our counsel, Proskauer and
Bernstein Litowitz, have been appointed counsel for the Class on an interim
basis. The appointment demonstrates the Court's confidence in these counsel,
which will help us to proceed against YouTube and Google in a cohesive and
unified manner."

Proskauer and Bernstein Litowitz have represented Premier League and Bourne
since the inception of the case against YouTube and Google. They were
appointed interim Class counsel by the Honorable Louis L. Stanton in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 27, 2007. The
Court found the appointment "appropriate and desirable in the interests of
the putative class and the efficient management of discovery and other
procedures in this and related actions" and that the two law firms
would "fairly and adequately represent those interests and conduct those
proceedings."

Bourne Co. similarly "expressed pleasure that the NMPA has joined in this
litigation", adding, "We are proud to see our fellow music publishers forming
a united front to protect the rights of all copyright holders. This unity of
purpose is a cornerstone of the NMPA's structure."

The YouTube Class Action on the net: http://www.youtubeclassaction.com/

The suit is "The Football Association Premier League Limited, et al. v.
YouTube, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Louis M. Solomon, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Phone: (212) 969-3000

          - and -

          Max W. Berger, Esq.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 554-1400


HANOVER INSURANCE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Insurance Group Inc. is facing a class action filed July 19, 2007 in
U.S. District Court of Connecticut.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Lumia alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Lumia v. Hanover Ins. Group Inc., Case No. 3:2007cv01094,” under
Judge Judge Alan H. Nevas.


IBM CORP: Salesmen Sue in Cal. Over Overtime “Exempt” Status
------------------------------------------------------------
IBM is facing a lawsuit filed by three salesmen claiming they were not paid
for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and did not receive mandatory
rest and meal breaks, Paul McDougall of iTNews reports.

Plaintiffs John Bennet, Bill Graham and Peter Stanger claim in the suit
that "Sales representatives were paid principally on a salary basis,
receiving commissions on their sales, irrespective of the hours actually
worked, and were unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime
compensation."  They said IBM sales specialists aren't managers and should
not be classified as exempt.  

They are seeking class-action status for the case and an order for IBM to
create a fund from which to compensate workers owed back pay.  The suit was
filed July 20, 2007.

The suit is “Bennett, et al. v. International Business Machines, Case No.
2:07-cv-01485-GEB-EFB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California under Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. with referral to
Judge Edmund F. Brennan.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
         Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz & Kessler, LLP
         2125 Oak Grove Road
         Suite 120
         Walnut Creek, CA 94598
         Phone: 925-945-0770-239
         Fax: 925-945-8792
         E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com


IBM CORP: Calif. Court Approves $65M ERISA Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final
approval to the $65 million settlement in a purported class action against
International Business Machines Corp. alleging that the company violated Fair
Labor Standards Act.

On Jan. 24, 2006, a putative class action was filed against IBM in federal
court in San Francisco on behalf of technical support workers whose primary
responsibilities are or were to install and maintain computer software and
hardware.

The complaint was subsequently amended on March 13, 2006.  The First Amended
Complaint, among other things, adds four additional named plaintiffs and
modifies the definition of the workers purportedly included in the class.  

The suit, "Rosenburg, et al., v. IBM," alleges the company failed to pay
overtime wages pursuant to FLSA and state law, and asserts violations of
various state wage requirements, including recordkeeping and meal-break
provisions.

The suit also asserts certain violations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.  Relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401(k) and
pension plan credits, interest and attorneys' fees.

On July 12, 2007, the District Court granted final approval to a class-wide
settlement whereby IBM will pay $65 million plus certain interest for claims
asserted by class members, plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and administrative
costs.

The suit is "Rosenburg et al. v. International Business Machines
Corp., Case No. 3:06-cv-00430-PJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         James M. Finberg, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         Phone: 415-956-1000

         Todd F. Jackson, Esq.
         Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson, P.C.
         Phone: 510-839-6824

              - and -

         Steven G. Zieff, Esq.
         Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP
         Phone: 415-434-9800 or 800-869-0165

Representing the company is:

         Donna M. Mezias, Esq.
         Jones Day
         555 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-875-5822
         Fax: 415-875-5700
         E-mail: dmezias@jonesday.com


JARDEN CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jarden Corp. remains a defendant in an amended consolidated securities fraud
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company’s July 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

In January and February 2006, purported class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and
certain company officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The actions are filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock
during the period from June 29, 2005 through Jan. 12, 2006.  June 29, 2005 is
the date the company announced the signing of the agreement to acquire The
Holmes Group, Inc.

Joint lead plaintiffs were appointed on June 9, 2006.  No class has been
certified in the actions.  The lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint on Aug. 25, 2006, against the company, Jarden Consumer Solutions
and certain officers of the company.  

The suit is alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by
reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made by the
company relating to the expected benefits of the THG Acquisition.  

The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20,
2006.  Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on Feb. 2, 2007.  

On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying Defendants’ motion to
dismiss.

On July 3, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order
denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss.  The Court has not issued a decision
on the Motion for Reconsideration.  

Defendants answered the amended consolidated complaint on July 10, 2007.

The first identified complaint is “Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden
Corporation, et al., Case No. 06-CV-00722, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

         Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 212.279.5050
         Fax: 212.279.3655
         E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com

         Federman & Sherwood
         120 North Robinson, Suite 2720
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         E-mail: wfederman@aol.com

         Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C.
         60 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212.838.3221
         E-mail: gray@cjgraylaw.com

              - and ­

         Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
         World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Ste. 2525
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 410.332.0030
         Fax: pivenlaw@erols.com


LENNAR CORP: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
Lennar Corp. is facing a class action filed July 23, 2007 in the Florida
Southern District Court.

Plaintiff Jeff Guadalupe alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Guadalupe v. Lennar Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-14213,” under Judge
Donald L. Graham with referral to Frank J. Lynch, Jr.

Representing the plaintiff 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


MEDICAL INFORMATION: Court Dismisses Appeal Motion in “Hubert”
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied a former
Meditech employee’s motion for permission to appeal a denial of certification
to a suit filed against Medical Information Technology, Inc.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Michael Hubert, a former Meditech employee, filed a
complaint against the Medical Information Technology  
Profit Sharing Plan, A. Neil Pappalardo, its Trustee and company  
Director, and the other five company Directors, Lawrence A.  
Polimeno, Roland L. Driscoll, Edward B. Roberts, Morton E.  
Ruderman and L.P. Dan Valente.

The complaint is purportedly brought on Plaintiff's own behalf and on behalf
of a purported class consisting of "all participants in the [Plan] who have
received any distribution since Jan. 1, 1998 and who did not receive the fair
value of their benefits."  The complaint alleges that:  

     -- the Trustee and Directors are fiduciaries of the
        Plan in valuing Meditech's common stock for purposes of  
        redemption and payment of a participant's benefits  
        under the Plan;  

     -- the Directors, in connection with an annual  
        contribution of the company's common stock to the Plan,  
        have undervalued the company's common stock and have  
        not paid retiring or terminating participants in the  
        Plan the fair value of their interests in the Plan;  

     -- Meditech's founders and controlling shareholders,  
        including some of the Directors, have been buyers of  
        Meditech common stock and have benefited from the low  
        price established by Mr. Pappalardo and approved  
        without adequate care by the other Directors;  

     -- Mr. Pappalardo is not independent and that neither
        he nor the other Directors have relied upon an  
        independent appraiser;  

     -- by failing to fairly value the benefits due each  
        employee participating in the Plan upon his or her
        termination, that all of the defendants violated their  
        fiduciary duties to the participants of the Plan and  
        that as a result Plaintiff and members of the purported  
        class are due benefits from the Plan; and  

     -- the Directors violated fiduciary duties to the
        participants of the Plan in violation of the Employee  
        Retirement Income Security Act.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action, a judgment against the
defendants, a permanent injunction ordering the Plan to consult an outside
appraiser in valuing the plan's assets, removal of Mr. Pappalardo as the Plan
Trustee, and damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 20, 2006, the judge dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims
brought against the individual defendants.   

The remaining claim is an ERISA benefits claim against the plan, the plan's
trustee, and the company.  The judge did not rule on   the plaintiff's
request for the complaint to be a class action.

During March 2007 the court denied the plaintiff's motion for the complaint
to be certified as a class action.  Subsequently the plaintiff requested
reconsideration of the decision, which was also denied.

The plaintiff then sought permission to appeal the decision in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit.  In July 2007 this was also denied,
according to the company’s July 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

The suit is "Hubert v. Medical Information Technology Profit Sharing Plan, et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv-10269-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under  
Judge Rya W. Zobel.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Michael A. Collora, Esq.
         Dwyer & Collora, LLP
         Federal Reserve Bldg., 600 Atlantic Ave., 12th Floor,
         Boston, MA 02210
         Phone: 617-371-1002
         Fax: 617-371-1037
         E-mail: mcollora@dwyercollora.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Kevin P. Martin, Esq.
         Goodwin Proctor, LLP
         Phone: 617-570-1000
         Fax: 617-523-1231
         E-mail: Kmartin@goodwinprocter.com


MILBERG WEISS: Former Clients Commence RICO Suit in Calif. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of companies represented by Milberg Weiss Bershad Schulman LLP
have filed a class action alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act violations against:

     * Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP,       
     * three principals, and
     * Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins

Individual defendants are Melvyn Weiss, David Bershad and Steven Schulman,
according to a report by The CourtHouse News Service.

Named plaintiff Linda Marshall represents shareholders of Safeskin Inc.,
which was represented in Los Angeles Federal Court by Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach in “Stanley v. Safeskin.”  Co-plaintiff Bernie Apotheker
represents shareholders of Schein Pharmaceuticals, represented by Milberg
Weiss in federal litigation in New Jersey.

Plaintiffs seek disgorgement and damages for the alleged “improper... fees
for handling and settlement of the cases involved in this complaint,” and
misconduct, including “causing their clients to make false and misleading
statements under oath ...and filing false and misleading declarations,
certificates, and other documents signed under penalty of perjury.”

They seek treble damages for fraud, bribery, breach of duty and other claims
stemming from their alleged payoffs to plaintiffs in class-action and
derivative lawsuits since 1981.

The plaintiffs’ counsel is:

          Beatie and Osborn LLP
          34th floor, 521 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10175
          Phone Number: 212-888-9000
          Toll-Free Number: 1-800-891-6305
          Fax Number: 212-888-9664
          E-mail: clientrelations@bandolaw.com


NCO FINANCIAL: Cal. Suit Alleges Fair Debt Collection Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
NCO Financial System, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 2 in
U.S. District Court in San Diego, alleging violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act.

Named plaintiff Theodore Edward O'Neal, Sr. accuses NCO Financial of
illegally calling cell phones with an automatic telephone dialing system.

The suit is “O'Neal v. NCO Financial System, Inc., Case No. 5:07-cv-03970-
RS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge Richard Seeborg.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Fred W. Schwinn
          Consumer Law Center, Inc.
          12 South First Street, Suite 1014
          San Jose, CA 95113-2403
          Phone: 408-294-6100
          Fax: 408-294-6190
          E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com


NICOR GAS: Ill. Court Approves Plant Cleanup Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois approved a settlement reached in
class actions filed against Nicor Gas Co. and others that claim ongoing
cleanup of a former manufactured gas plant site in Oak Park, Illinois is
inadequate.

In December 2001, a purported class action was filed against Exelon Corp.,
Commonwealth Edison Co. and the company.  Since then, additional lawsuits
have been filed related to this same former manufactured gas plant site.   

These lawsuits seek, in part, unspecified damages for property damage,
nuisance, and various personal injuries that allegedly resulted from exposure
to contaminants allegedly emanating from the site, and punitive damages.

An agreement in principle to settle the purported class action was reached in
the first quarter of 2006 at which time a $2.3 million reserve for this
matter was recorded by the company.

The trial court approved the settlement and the lawsuit was dismissed during
the second quarter of 2007, according to the company’s July 31, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

Naperville, Illinois-based Nicor Inc.-- http://www.nicor.com--is a holding  
company.  Gas distribution is Nicor's primary business.  The company's
principal subsidiaries are Northern  
Illinois Gas Co. (Nicor Gas Co., Nicor Gas), a distributor of natural gas,
and Tropical Shipping, a transporter of containerized freight in the Bahamas
and the Caribbean region. Nicor also owns several energy-related ventures,
including Nicor Services and Nicor Solutions, which provide energy-related
products and services to retail markets, and Nicor Enerchange, a wholesale
natural gas marketing company.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Denial of Certification in Bias Suit Now Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
A decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas to
deny a motion seeking to certify a class in a racial and age discrimination
lawsuit filed against Pilgrim's Pride, Inc. has now become final.

On Dec. 31, 2003, the company, together with ConAgra Poultry Co., was served
with a purported class action complaint filed by Angela Goodwin, Gloria
Willis, Johnny Gill, Greg Hamilton, Nathan Robinson, Eddie Gusby, Pat Curry,
on behalf of persons similarly situated.  

The suit alleges racial and age discrimination at one of the facilities the
company acquired from ConAgra.  Two of the named plaintiffs, Greg Hamilton
and Gloria Willis, were voluntarily dismissed from this action.

On May 15, 2007, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification
and as the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their appeal to the Eight Circuit
Court of Appeals, the Court’s ruling denying class certification stands as a
final judgment.

The suit is "Goodwin, et al. v. Conagra Poultry Co., et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-
01187-HFB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas under Judge Harry F. Barnes.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Carolyn B. Witherspoon, Esq.
         Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, P.C.
         500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 200
         Little Rock, AR 72201
         Phone: (501) 371-9999
         Fax: (501) 371-0035
         E-mail: cspoon@cgwg.com

         Rickey H. Hicks, Esq.
         Hicks Law Firm, Attorney at Law
         523 South Louisiana, Suite M100
         Little Rock, AR 72201
         Phone: 501-372-1310
         Fax: 501-372-1477
         E-mail: hickslawoffice@yahoo.com

         Lloyd W. Kitchens, III, Esq.
         Welch and Kitchens, LLC
         One Riverfront Place, Suite 413
         Little Rock, AR 72901
         Phone: (501) 978-3030
         Fax: (501) 978-3050
         E-mail: tkitchens@welchandkitchens.com
         mwelch@welchandkitchens.com

         Robert Pressman, Esq.
         22 Locust Avenue
         Lexington, MA 02421,
         Phone: (781) 862-1955

         Allen P. Roberts, Esq.
         Attorney at Law
         P.O. Box 280,
         Camden, AR 71701
         Phone: (870) 836-5310
         Fax: (870) 836-9662
         E-mail: allenroberts@cablelynx.com

              - and -  

         John W. Walker, Esq.
         John W. Walker, P.A.
         1723 Broadway
         Little Rock, AR 72206
         Phone: 501-374-3758
         Fax: 501-374-4187
         E-mail: johnwalkeratty@aol.com

Representing the company are:

         Adam T. Dougherty, Esq.
         Kimberly F. Rich, Esq.
         Mark D. Taylor, Esq.
         Baker & McKenzie
         2001 Ross Avenue, 2300 Trammell Crow Center
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Phone: (214) 978-3000
         Fax: (214) 978-3099
         E-mail: adam.t.dougherty@bakernet.com
         kimberly.f.rich@bakernet.com
         mark.d.taylor@bakernet.com


QUICK WEIGHT: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------
Quick Weight Loss Centers, Inc. is facing a class action filed July 24, 2007
in Florida Southern District Court.

Plaintiffs Evelyn Acklin and Oswaldo Gomez allege denial of overtime
compensation in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Acklin et al. v. Quick Weight Loss Centers, Inc.,” under Judge
Kenneth A. Marra.

Representing the defendant is:

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          Krinzman, Huss & Lubetsky
          Mellon Financial Center, Suite 2915
          1111 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-854-9700
          Fax: 305-854-0508
          E-mail: me@khllaw.com

          Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Florin Roebig PA
          One Boca Place Suite 324A
          2255 Glades Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          U.S.
          Phone: 561-989-5414
          Fax: 989-5416
          E-mail: wmf@florinroebig.com

          -- and --

         Joseph James Huss, Esq.
         Krinzman Huss & Lubetsky
         1111 Brickell Avenue
         Suite 2915
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-854-9700
         Fax: 854-0508
         E-mail: jjh@khllaw.com


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Minn. Court Certifies FLSA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
has conditionally certified the suit, "Burch et al. v. Qwest Communications
International, Inc. et al," the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.

In August 30, 2006, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP filed a Complaint on
behalf of current and former Call Center Sales Consultants and Sales and
Service Consultants working in Minnesota against Qwest Communications
International Inc., Qwest Communications Corporation, and Qwest Corp.

These current and former employees seek compensation for minimum wages and
overtime wages as well as other damages related to violations of the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.

In the original complaint, the class was defined as persons employed in
Minnesota "either as Sales and Service Consultants or Sales Consultants in
Qwest's Small Business Call Center."  As the case progressed, individuals who
worked at both Small Business and Consumer Call Centers outside of Minnesota
joined the case by filing consent forms.

Nichols Kaster & Anderson asked the Court for permission to expand the
collective class to include all Sales and Service Consultants or Sales
Consultants working at Qwest's call centers nationwide.  The Judge granted
the motion and the Amended Complaint was filed on April 10, 2007.

Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP also recently filed a motion asking the Court
to conditionally certify the case as a nationwide collective action and to
grant it Court authorization to send notice about the lawsuit to all Sales
and Service Consultants and Sales Consultants in the Small Business and
Consumer Call Centers nationwide (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2007).

The recent judge’s certification order authorizes the Minneapolis law firm
Nichols Kaster & Anderson to notify all current and former Qwest call center
employees since Aug. 30, 2003, of their potential eligibility to join the
claim.

"Plaintiffs have established a colorable basis that they are victims of a
single, nationwide policy by Qwest to illegally withhold overtime pay," Judge
Davis wrote.

The suit is Case 0:06-cv-03523-MJD-AJB filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.

Representing plaintiff Matthew Burch are:

          James H. Kaster, Esq.
          Sarah M. Fleegel, Esq.
          Sofia B. Andersson, Esq.
          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242
          Phone: 612-256-3200
          Toll-free: 877-448-0492
          Fax: 612-215-6870


REHVAC MANUFACTURING: Recalls Relief Plugs Due to Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rehvac Manufacturing Co., of San Antonio, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 4,700 relief plugs
used on Nitrous Oxide Systems and HVAC Service Tools.

The company said the safety relief plug can allow pressure to build in the
cylinder of an HVAC pressure testing tool or Nitrous Oxide system. If the
cylinder is overfilled and overheated it can burst, posing an injury hazard
to consumers.

The firm has received one report of a cylinder that was overheated and
overfilled and burst. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the 3000 psi safety plugs used in the cylinders of
Nitrous Oxide systems and in HVAC pressure testing tools. The Nitrous Oxide
systems are used as gas boosters for motor vehicles. The plugs are nickel-
plated. The number “3000” is stamped on the face of the plug.

These recalled relief plugs were manufactured in the United States and are
being sold at HVAC and Nitrous Oxide systems suppliers and retailers
nationwide. The safety plugs for the HVAC pressure testing tools were sold
from January 2007 through June 2007 and the safety plugs for the Nitrous
Oxide cylinders were sold from August 2006 through June 2007. Each was sold
for about $5.

Picture of the recalled relief plugs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07263.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the cylinders that contain
the recalled plugs and place them in a cool location. Consumers should
contact Rehvac for a free replacement plug.

For additional information, call Rehvac at (800) 856-5668 between 9 a.m. and
6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit http://www.oemregs.com.


SCIELE PHARMA: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sciele Pharma, Inc., f/k/a First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp., is seeking the
dismissal of a second amended complaint in a securities fraud suit filed
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The company, certain former and current officers and directors are defendants
in a consolidated securities lawsuit filed on Aug. 22, 2002 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Plaintiffs in the class action alleged in general terms that the company
violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(a) of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and that
the company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

In an amended complaint, plaintiffs claim that the company issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market in connection with
the company's public offering on April 24, 2002 and thereafter relating to
alleged "channel stuffing" activities.

The amended complaint also alleged controlling person liability on behalf of
certain of the company's officers under Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs seek
an unspecified amount of compensatory damages.

On Sept. 29, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia dismissed, without prejudice, the class action.  

Although the lawsuit was dismissed, the court granted the plaintiffs the
right to refile provided that the plaintiffs pay all of the defendant's fees
and costs associated with filing the motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint as permitted, but instead
filed a motion asking the District Court to reconsider its Sept. 29, 2004
order and lift the condition that they must pay defendants' fees and costs
before further amendment.  

On June 22, 2005, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion and gave them
another opportunity to amend if they pay defendants' fees and costs.  

Once again, plaintiffs chose not to file a second amended complaint.  
Instead, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit.

On Sept. 18, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s
determination that the Amended Complaint was a “shotgun pleading” that did
not satisfy the pleading requirements under the federal rules.   

The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with the remedy ordered by the
District Court.  Instead of dismissing the Amended Complaint with a right to
further amend if Plaintiffs paid Defendants’ fees and costs, the Court of
Appeals held that the District Court should have ordered Plaintiffs to
replead under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).  

The Court of Appeals also held that Plaintiffs’ claims under the Securities
Act of 1933 must meet the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9(b) because those claims sound in fraud.  

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s orders and
remanded with instructions to order a repleading.  

On April 20, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On June 29,
2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint,
which currently is pending, according to the company’s July 30, 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 First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-02332-JOF," on appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
J. Owen Forrester.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         David Andrew Bain, Esq.
         Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
         1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900
         E-mail: dab@classlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         John Patterson Brumbaugh, Esq.
         King & Spalding
         191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763
         Phone: 404-572-5100
         E-mail: pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com


SMITH BARNEY: Close to Settling Sex Bias Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. and female financial advisors at Smith Barney, the retail
brokerage arm of Citigroup, "reached substantive agreements on the monetary
terms” of a settlement of a gender bias lawsuit originally filed against the
company in 2005, Reuters.uk reports citing a court filing.

The parties asked for more time to finish talks on the "programmatic relief"
necessary to settle the case, the report said.

Late last year, five female financial advisors filed an amended class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, charging
sex discrimination at Smith Barney.  The filing amends a class action
complaint filed in March 2005 by adding additional plaintiffs from Southern
California and Florida, and amplifies the allegations in the original class
action complaint.

The original plaintiffs -- Renee Fassbender-Amochaev, Deborah Orlando and
Kathryn N. Varner, and two new plaintiffs, Ivy So and Lisa Strange Weatherby -
- claim they were discriminated against with respect to their compensation at
Smith Barney.  

Specifically, the women allege that Smith Barney:  

     -- systemically discriminates against women in allocating  
        business opportunities;

     -- discriminates in the account distribution process,  
        routinely assigning smaller and less valuable accounts  
        to female brokers, including those who outperform their  
        male counterparts, than to male brokers;

     -- fails to provide women with the same level of sales  
        support, administrative support, and other support as it  
        provides to men; and

     -- maintains a corporate culture hostile to female  
        professionals.

Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Smith Barney on the net:
  
        http://www.genderlawsuitagainstsmithbarney.com.  

The suit is "Amochaev et al. v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,  
Case No. 3:05-cv-01298-PJH," filed in the U.S. District court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, with
referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         3319 West End Avenue, Suite 600
         Nashville, TN 37203-1074
         Phone: 615-313-9000
         E-mail: ealexander@lchb.com
   
         Lisa M. Bornstein, Esq.
         Sandi Farrell, Esq.
         Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
         Anna M. Pohl, Esq.
         Mehri & Skalet PLLC
         1250 Connecticut  
         Avenue, Suite 300
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: 202-822-5100
         Fax: 202-822-4997
         E-mail: lbornstein@findjustice.com or
                 cmehri@findjustice.com

         -- and ­

         Piper Hoffman, Esq.
         Adam T. Klein, Esq.
         Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
         Outten & Golden LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         Fax: 212-977-4005  
         E-mail: ph@outtengolden.com
                 jms@outtengolden.com


Representing defendants are:

         Jay Cohen, Esq.
         Beth Susan Frank, Esq.
         Brad S. Karp, Esq.
         Audra Jan Soloway, Esq.
         Daniel John Toal, Esq.
         Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP
         1285 Avenue of Americas
         New York, NY 10019-6064
         Phone: 212-373-3000
         Fax: 212-373-2399  
         E-mail: jaycohen@paulweiss.com
                 bfrank@paulweiss.com
                 asoloway@paulweiss.com
                 dtoal@paulweiss.com

         -- and --
         Malcolm A. Heinicke, Esq.
         Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
         560 Mission Street, 27th Floor, San Francisco
         CA 94105-2907
         Phone: 415-512-4000
         Fax: 415-512-4077
         E-mail: heinickema@mto.com


UGS CORP: Accused of Denying Workers Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Schubert & Reed LLP filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against UGS
Corp., a division of Siemens AG (NYSE:SI), accusing the company of cheating
its workers out of pay for overtime worked and meal and rest breaks.

The lawsuit charges that UGS unlawfully classifies its technical writers as
exempt from California labor law compensation requirements. Schubert & Reed
partner Robert Schubert stated that, because of UGS's alleged practice of
misclassifying its workers as exempt from the wage and hour laws, "UGS
technical writers put in long hours and helped UGS bring in over a billion in
revenues last year, but they were not compensated for those long hours."

Mr. Schubert explained, "Workers are entitled to overtime pay unless they
fall under a specific legal exemption, such as computer programmers who
develop software. The plaintiff and class members in this lawsuit are
technical writers, who are specifically excluded from California's computer
programmers exemption. Not only do they not qualify for the computer
programmer exemption, but they do not qualify for any other exemption under
California's wage and hour laws. Last year, UGS had revenues of more than $1
billion. UGS's technical writers deserve to be paid for their efforts to make
UGS successful."

The lawsuit seeks back wages for unpaid overtime, plus punitive damages and
interest. In addition, the suit seeks compensation in the amount of one
hour's pay for each day that the workers were not provided a meal break and
an additional hour's pay for each day that the workers were not provided a
rest break, as well as interest and penalties owed.

According to Mr. Schubert, in addition to UGS's employees, there are many
thousands of additional technical writers working for other California
employers who are improperly classifying these employees as exempt. This
landmark litigation against UGS marks only the tip of the iceberg.

UGS is a computer software company specializing in 3D and Product Lifecycle
Management (PLM) software. In 2007, UGS was purchased by Siemens AG.

For more information, contact:

          Miranda P. Kolbe,
          Schubert & Reed LLP
          Phone: 415-788-4220
          Fax: 415-788-0161
          E-mail: mkolbe@schubert-reed.com


XM SATELLITE: 8th Circuit Rules Out Arbitration in “Enderlin”
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit ruled that the trial
court must decide on objections to the arbitration in the matter, “Matthew
Enderlin v. XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Inc.”

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas on Jan. 10, 2006 on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all XM
subscribers.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in a deceptive trade practice
under Arkansas and other state laws by representing that its music channels
are commercial-free.

The Company has filed an answer to the complaint and instituted arbitration
with the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the compulsory
arbitration clause in its customer service agreement.

The arbitration has been stayed pending judicial determination of Mr.
Enderlin’s objections to the arbitration.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held on April 17, 2007 that
those objections are to be decided by the trial court, not the arbitrator,
according to the company’s July 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.  

The suit is "Enderlin v. XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., Case
No. 4:06-cv-00032-GTE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas under Judge G. Thomas Eisele.

Representing plaintiffs are:

      James Allen Carney, Jr., Esq.
      Steven Eugene Cauley, Esq.
      Tiffany M. Wyatt Oldham
      Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, LLP
      Post Office Box 25438
      Little Rock, AR 72221-5438
      Phone: (501) 312-8500
      E-mail: acarney@cauleybowman.com
              toldham@cauleybowman.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN HOME: Cohen Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has filed a lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
its client and on behalf of other similarly situated purchasers of American
Home Mortgage Investment Corporation common stock between April 26, 2006
through and including July 30, 2007.

The complaint charges American Home Mortgage and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). It is alleged that defendants
omitted or misrepresented material adverse facts about the Company's
financial condition, business prospects, and revenue expectations during the
Class Period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued numerous materially false and misleading statements which caused
American Home Mortgage's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices.
As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose that:

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

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

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

According to the complaint, on June 27, 2007, after the market closed,
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. On the next trading day, July 30, 2007, before
the marked opened, the NYSE halted trading in American Home Mortgage stock.
In response to these events and announcements, the Company's stock declined
from $10.47 on July 30, 2007 to close at $1.04 on July 31, 2007 on unusually
high trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 1, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

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:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Dana Frusco
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
          Email: stoll@cmht.com or dfrusco@cmht.com


AMERICAN HOME: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of American Home Mortgage
Investment Corp. between July 26, 2006 and July 27, 2007.

The lawsuit alleges that American Home Mortgage and its Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer violated the federal securities and
defrauded investors by failing to disclose AHM's inadequate reserves for
delinquent loan repurchases. By failing to properly disclose that AHM was
operating without adequate reserves in relation to its portfolio of loan
products, as well as AHM's failed plan to repurchase delinquent loans, AHM
materially misrepresented to investors the true facts concerning its
financial performance and prospects. AHM has since announced that it will lay
off most of its employees and shut down almost all of its operations.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 1, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Mark C. Gardy
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337          
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
          Website: http://www.gardylaw.com


AMERICAN HOME: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, LLP filed on Aug. 2 a class action against American Home
Mortgage Investment Corp. (NYSE:AHM) and certain officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The action is
on behalf of American Home Mortgage common stock purchasers during the period
July 26, 2006, through July 27, 2007, inclusive, for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements
and material omissions regarding the Company's business and operations and
that, as a result, the price of the Company's securities was inflated during
the Class Period, thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's quarterly financial results
and profits, in active concealment of the true extent of the growing level of
loan delinquencies and resulting adverse impact on the quality of the
Company's collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), earnings and profits.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that defendants actively concealed the
growing inability of American Home Mortgage to make timely payments on its
CDOs and to securitize its loans, caused in part by the declining quality of
its loan portfolio; and that the Company failed to incur necessary asset
impairment charges, to adjust downward the value of its loan portfolio.

According to the allegations, rather than disclose the truth of these
matters, defendants were upbeat in the assessment of the Company's
performance. As late as June 28, 2007, as facts regarding substantial impacts
to the Company's discontinued products and loan portfolio began to leak out,
the Company stated that it could rely on its "substantial reserves" to
contain any foreseeable losses and that it was expected that "total
stockholder's equity will actually be higher at the end of the second quarter
compared to the first quarter of 2007." On the startling news of June 28,
2007, the price of American Home Mortgage stock tumbled 12.1%, closing at
$18.38 per share.

Following this, on July 27, 2007, the Company announced that it would suspend
payment of its coveted quarterly dividend, admitting that it was aware
of "major write-downs of its loan and security portfolios." The shocking news
awaited a resumption of trading in the stock -- once trading was resumed on
July 31, 2007, the price of American Home Mortgage stock plunged $9.43 or
90%, closing at $1.04 per share, on heavy volume of over 31.3 million shares,
for an overall loss of more than $1.7 billion in total market value.

For more information, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
          Website: http://www.scott-scott.com

                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *