CAR_Public/070808.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 8, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 155

                            Headlines


BADCOCKS ECONOMY: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Florida
BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Continues in Ill. ERISA Violations Suit
BAXTER INT’L: Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Ill. Lawsuits
BAXTER INT'L: Denial of Class Status to Securities Suit Appealed
BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif., N.Y.

BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in New York
BRISTOL-MYERS: Mo. Court Dismisses "Channel-Stuffing" Litigation
BRISTOL-MYERS: Air Emissions Suit Settlement Hearing Set Oct.
BUFFALO ROCK: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Alabama
CANADA: St. Joseph’s Hospital Faces Medical Negligence Lawsuit

CARGILL MEAT: Settles Lawsuit by Penn. Workers for $1.1M
CASHCALL INC: Cal. Suit Alleges Illegal Phone Call Marketing
CNL REALTY: Unit Holder Sues Execs for $140M “Profit” in Merger
COMPUCREDIT CORP: Continues to Face N.C. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
EVCI CAREER: $7.7M N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final OK

FOREVER GREEN: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Florida
FORWARD INDUSTRIES: Seeks Dismissal of Fla. Shareholder Lawsuit
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Israel
INSURANCE COS: Appeals Court Rules Favorably in Katrina Suit
IVY LAWN: Calif. Memorial Park Sued for Missing Valuables

MICROSOFT CORP: Settles Xbox Defects-Related Lawsuit in Wash.
NEBRASKA: Suit by Irrigators Near Niobrara River Dismissed
OCWEN FEDERAL: Faces Minn. Lawsuit Over Alleged RESPA Breach
PROGRESSIVE FINISHES: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Ala.
SANTULI CORP: Faces $15M FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Florida

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: U.S. Court Rejects Child Trafficking Suit
UNIVERSAL MEDIA: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Ovcon 35 Suit in D.C. Court for $6M
WILLIAMS COMMS: Shareholders Appeal OK Securities Suit Dismissal
XEROX CORP: Discovery Continues in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit

XEROX CORP: Discovery Still Ongoing in “Carlson” Securities Suit
XEROX CORP: N.Y. Judge Rejects Civil Rights Lawsuit Settlement

* Bryan Cave to Host U.K. Class Actions Presentation Aug. 23


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Paskowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Suit in Fla.


                            *********


BADCOCKS ECONOMY: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Badcocks Economy Furniture Store, Inc. is facing a class action filed July
24, 2007 in Miami federal court, according to CourtHouse News Service.

Plaintiff Rene Montero alleges denial of overtime compensation in violation
of Fair Labor Standards Act.  He is seeking $40 million in payments,
according to court filing.

The suit is “Montero v. Badcocks Economy Furniture Store, Inc., Case no. 1:07-
cv-21905-AJ,” filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Adalberto Jordan.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
         782 NW LeJeune Road
         Miami, FL 33126
         Phone: 305-448-9292
         Fax: 448-2788
         E-mail: marban@bellsouth.net


BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Continues in Ill. ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a lawsuit filed against Baxter International,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that
alleges Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations.

In October 2004, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Baxter and its current
chief executive officer and then current chief financial officer and their
predecessors for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended.  

Plaintiff alleges that these defendants, along with the Administrative and
Investment Committees of the company's 401(k) plans, breached their fiduciary
duties to the plan participants by offering Baxter common stock as an
investment option in each of the plans during the period of January 2001 to
October 2004.

Plaintiff alleges that Baxter common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during this period and seeks unspecified damages and declaratory and
equitable relief.  

In March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan participants who
elected to acquire Baxter common stock through the plans between January 2001
and the present.  

The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but has allowed Baxter to
seek an interlocutory appeal of the decision, which it has done.

Discovery has begun in this matter, 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 "Rogers v. Baxter Int'l. Inc., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-06476," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
under Judge Joan B. Gottschall.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert D. Allison, Esq.
         Robert D. Allison & Associates,  
         122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1850
         Chicago, IL 60603  
         Phone: 427-4500
         E-mail: rdalaw@ix.netcom.com

              - and -

         Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
         Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink  
         20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
         Chicago, IL 60603,  
         Phone: (312) 263-0272
         Fax: (312) 263-2942
         E-mail: mmmulder@mmbmlaw.com  

Representing the defendants is:
        
         Matthew Robert Kipp, Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
         333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 407-0700
         E-mail: mkipp@skadden.com


BAXTER INT’L: Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Ill. Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a ruling that dismisses
several purported class actions filed against Baxter International, Inc.

In July 2004, a series of four purported class action lawsuits, now
consolidated, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, in connection with the company’s restatement of its consolidated
financial statements, previously announced in July 2004, naming Baxter and
its current chief executive officer and then current chief financial officer
and their predecessors as defendants.

The lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making false and misleading statements regarding the company’s financial
results, which allegedly caused Baxter common stock to trade at inflated
levels during the period between April 2001 and July 2004.

As of December 2005, the District Court had dismissed the last of the
remaining actions.  

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s
decision on July 27, 2007.

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com-- is a global diversified  
medical products and services company with capabilities in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology that assists healthcare professionals and
their patients with the treatment of complex medical conditions, including
hemophilia, immune disorders, cancer, infectious diseases, kidney disease,
trauma and other conditions.


BAXTER INT'L: Denial of Class Status to Securities Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud lawsuit filed against Baxter International,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, are appealing a ruling that effectively ends
the status of their case as a class action.

In August 2002, six purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois naming the company and its then
chief executive officer and then chief financial officer as defendants.

These lawsuits alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making misleading statements regarding the company's financial
guidance that allegedly caused Baxter common stock to trade at inflated
levels.   

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a trial court
order granting the company's motion to dismiss the complaint and the U.S.
Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in March 2005.  

In February 2006, the trial court denied Baxter’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  

The court has twice denied Plaintiffs’ request for certification of a class
action based on the inadequacy of their class representatives but allowed
Plaintiffs a final chance to find new ones.

In October 2006, separate plaintiffs’ law firms identified new, different
proposed class representatives, but in January 2007, the trial court found
both new proposed class representatives to be inadequate, effectively ending
the suit as a class action.

Plaintiffs have appealed this decision and such appeal is pending, 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 "Asher, et al. v. Baxter Int'l. Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-
05608," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Blanche M. Manning with referral to Judge Arlander
Keys.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Steven G. Schulman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: (212) 594-5300

Representing the defendants is:
       
         Matthew Robert Kipp Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
         333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 407-0700
         E-mail: mkipp@skadden.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif., N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. faces purported class actions in California and New
York that were filed by former sales mangers of the company, 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.

                       Fung Litigation

One of these suits was filed on June 28, 2007.  The suit was filed by a
former sales manager for the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda.

It is captioned, “Kin Fung, et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al.,
Case Number RG07333147.”  It is alleging that the Company violated California
wage and hour laws by, among other things, not paying overtime compensation
to the plaintiff and a putative class of similarly situated sales employees.

                      Amendola Litigation

The other suit was filed on June 28, 2007.  Another former sales manager
brought it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit, “Beth Amendola v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., Case No. 07-
CV-6088,” is alleging that the Company violated the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act by, among other things, not paying overtime compensation to Ms.
Amendola and a putative class of similarly situated sales employees.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged in the  
discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and
sale of pharmaceuticals and other healthcare-related products.  The Company
has three segments: Pharmaceuticals, Nutritionals, and Other Health Care.  


BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. faces purported securities fraud class actions in
the U.S. District 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 June and July 2007, these putative class-action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York against the Company’s
former chief executive, Peter Dolan and current chief financial officer,
Andrew Bonfield:

     -- “Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Assoc. v. Bristol-
        Myers Squibb Co., et al., 07 CV 5867 (Judge Crotty),”  
        and

     -- “Jean Lai v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., 07
        CIV 6259”

The complaints allege violations of securities laws for allegedly failing to
disclose material information relating to efforts to settle the PLAVIX*
patent infringement litigation with Apotex.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged in the  
discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and
sale of pharmaceuticals and other healthcare-related products.  The Company
has three segments: Pharmaceuticals, Nutritionals, and Other Health Care.  


BRISTOL-MYERS: Mo. Court Dismisses "Channel-Stuffing" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. reports that a settlement reached in a purported
class action against the company over alleged improper “channel-stuffing”
agreements with D&K Health Care Resources, Inc. has resolved all claims in
the matter.

On Nov. 18, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against the company, D&K, and
several current and former D&K directors and officers on behalf of purchasers
of D&K stock between Aug.
10, 2000 and Sept. 16, 2002.

The complaint alleged the company participated in fraudulently inflating the
value of D&K stock by engaging in improper “channel-stuffing” agreements with
D&K.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss this case on Jan. 28,
2005.  In June 2006, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the
complaint.

In March 2007, the Court granted preliminary approval of a settlement between
the lead plaintiff and the D&K defendants.  At the settlement hearing held on
June 5, 2007, the Court entered a final judgment and order of dismissal, and
granted final approval of the settlement.

The settlement resolves all claims relating to the subject matter of the
action, including the dismissed claim against the Company.

The suit is "Dutton v. D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:04-
cv-00147-SNL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
the Eastern District of Missouri under Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         William S. Lerach, Esq.
         Lerach & Coughlin, LLP
         655 West Broadway, Phone: Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: billl@lcsr.com

              - and -

         Guri Ademi, Esq.
         Ademi and O'reilly, LLP
         3620 E. Layton Avenue
         Cudahy, WI 53110
         Phone: 414-482-8000
         Fax: 414-482-8001

Representing the defendants are:

         Jessica R. Buturla, Esq.
         Evan R. Chesler, Eqs.
         Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP
         825 Eighth Avenue, Worldwide Plaza
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-474-1000
         Fax: 212-474-3700
         E-mail: jbuturla@cravath.com
                 echesler@cravath.com

              - and -

         Glenn E. Davis, Esq.
         Armstrong Teasdale, LLP
         One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600
         St. Louis, MO 63102-2740
         Phone: 314-621-5070
         Fax: 314-612-2241
         E-mail: gdavis@armstrongteasdale.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: Air Emissions Suit Settlement Hearing Set Oct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 18, 2007 hearing is set for a proposed settlement of a purported
class action filed against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. in the Superior Court in
Puerto Rico.   A hearing to certify the class is scheduled for Aug. 9, 2007.

The suit was filed in February 2000 in relation to air emissions from a
government owned and operated wastewater treatment facility.

In April 2006, the Company executed an individual settlement with the
plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $0.5 million, subject to certain
conditions, including that the Court would decide to certify the case as a
class action.

The Court deferred decision on class certification pending its review of
expert reports on the facility’s operations, and ongoing efforts to reach a
global settlement.

In March 2007, the parties reached a tentative global settlement, which would
resolve all claims in the litigation. The terms of the proposed settlement
were discussed with the Court at status conferences held in May and June
2007.

A draft settlement agreement was presented to the Court at the June 15, 2007
status conference.  The parties are finalizing the terms of the settlement,
which is expected to be filed with the court in August 2007.

Under the terms of the settlement, certain measures, including capital
improvements, will be implemented at the wastewater treatment facility to
minimize the potential for odor emissions.

The defendants also agreed to pay plaintiffs $4.8 million in settlement of
all claims.  The Company’s share of the payment to plaintiffs is less than $1
million.  

A hearing to certify the class is scheduled for Aug. 9, 2007, and a hearing
to approve the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 18, 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.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged in the  
discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and
sale of pharmaceuticals and other healthcare-related products.  The Company
has three segments: Pharmaceuticals, Nutritionals, and Other Health Care.  


BUFFALO ROCK: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Rock Co. is facing a class action filed July 24, 2007 in Jasper,
Alabama federal court, according to CourtHouse News Service.

Plaintiff Will Sager alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Sager v. Buffalo Rock Co., Case No. 2:07-cv-01365-KOB,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge
Karon O Bowdre.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert J. Camp, Esq.
         The Cochran Firm
         505 North 20th Street, Suite 825
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-244-1115
         Fax: 205-244-1171
         E-mail: rcamp@cochranfirm.com


CANADA: St. Joseph’s Hospital Faces Medical Negligence Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A woman filed a lawsuit alleging medical negligence against the East Central
Health region and St. Joseph’s General Hospital in Alberta, according to AHN
News.

The plaintiff received wound care, which included stitches, at St. Joseph's
last August.  She was among some 3,000 other patients who was asked to
undergo testing to determine if she had contracted HIV or other contagious
diseases after it was revealed that the hospital had not properly sterilized
its medical instruments.

Roughly 60 percent of the 3,000 affected patients have undergone blood
testing.  None of those patients has tested positive for hepatitis, HIV or
other transmissible diseases, according to the report.

The suit alleges the hospital failed to properly sterilize its instruments,
and that East Central failed to ensure that medical instruments used at St.
Joseph's were properly sterilized.  It is seeking class-action status.

St. Joseph’s was closed to new admissions as a result of concerns over high
incidence of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus in the facility and
problems with sterilizing equipment.  It has been reopened since (Class
Action Reporter, April 23, 2007).


CARGILL MEAT: Settles Lawsuit by Penn. Workers for $1.1M
---------------------------------------------------------
Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. has reached a $1.1 million settlement in a class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania accusing the company of violating the state's Wage Payment and
Collection Law, the Towanda Daily Review, reports.

The suit was filed in March 2006 by seven people employed at Cargill's meat
processing plants in Wyalusing and Hazleton.  The plaintiff claimed they were
not paid for required pre- and post-shift work starting in March 2003.  They
also claimed they were not being paid for their time spent sharpening knives
and waiting to receive equipment they needed to perform their work on the
production line.

Cargill denied violating state or federal laws.

Judge William Nealon certified the class action against both Cargill plants
five months later.  The class consists of more than 4,100 former and current
employees from the Hazleton plant and 2,300 from the Wyalusing plant.  They
were represented by attorneys Peter Winebrake and Brian McCafferty.

In July, the company reached a $1.1 million settlement that would see current
and former employees receiving between $300 and $900, depending on the type
of job they held and how long they have worked at Cargill.  About $330,000
will go to the plaintiffs' attorneys, according to the agreement.

Judge Nealon approved the settlement agreement July 26.

The suit is “In Re Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. Wage and Hour Litigation,
Case No. 3:06-cv-00513-WJN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania under Judge William J. Nealon.

Representing defendants are:

          Alex V. Barbour
          Jeremy J. Glenn
          Jacob M. Rubinstein
          Joseph E. Tilson
          Meckler Bulger & Tilson
          123 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-474-7900 or 312-474-7873 or 312-474-7880
          E-mail: avbarb@sbcglobal.net or
                  jeremy.glenn@mbtlaw.com or
                  jake.rubinstein@mbtlaw.com or
                  joe.tilson@mbtlaw.com

          Vincent Candiello
          Post & Schell
          17 North Second Street, 12 th Floor
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Phone: 717-731-1970
          E-mail: vcandiello@postschell.com
          
          - and -

          Peter D. Winebrake
          The Winebrae Lawfirm, LLC
          715 Twining Office Center, Suite 114
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Phone: 215-884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Mary Anne O. Lucas
          O'Malley & Langan PC
          9 North Main Street
          P.O. Box 664
          Pittston, PA 18640
          Phone: 570-883-1321
          E-mail: mlucas@omalleylangan.com

          Todd J. O'Malley
          O'Malley & Langan P.C.
          Mulberry Professional Plaza
          426 Mulberry St.
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Phone: 570-344-2667
          Fax: 570-344-6199
          E-mail: tomalley@omalleylangan.com

          Joseph E. Mariotti
          Caputo, Coviello & Mariotti
          730 Main Street
          Moosic, PA 18507
          Phone: 570-342-9999
          Fax: 3461574
          E-mail: jmariotti@verizon.net

          Andrew Santillo
          Trajillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC
          226 W. Rittenhouse Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-713-9004
          E-mail: asantillo@trrlaw.com

          - and -

          Eric L. Young
          Kenney Lennon & Egan
          Suite 202, 3031C Walton Road
          Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
          Phone: 610-940-9099
          Fax: 610-940-0284
          E-mail: eyoung@kle-law.com


CASHCALL INC: Cal. Suit Alleges Illegal Phone Call Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------
Cashcall, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 3 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Named plaintiff Tricia Leckler accuses Cashcall of making illegal, automated
spam marketing calls to cell phones.

The suit is “Leckler v. Cashcall, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-04002-MEJ,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Maria-Elena James.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Douglas James Campion
          Law Ofc Douglas J Campion
          411 Camino del Rio S #301
          San Diego, CA 92108

          - and -

          Joshua K. Merkel
          Joshua B. Swigart
          Hyde and Swagart
          411 Camino Del Rio, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: 619-233-7770
          Fax: 619-330-4657
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


CNL REALTY: Unit Holder Sues Execs for $140M “Profit” in Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNL Realty Corp. and FF-TSY Holding Company II, LLC (formerly Truststreet
Properties, Inc.) are facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 2 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in relation to the
2004 merger of the companies, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

On Aug. 9, 2004, CNL Restaurants, U.S. Restaurant Properties Inc. and the CNL
Income Funds entered into a definitive merger agreement whereby CNL
Restaurants and USRP combined with the CNL Income Funds through a series of
merger transactions which resulted in the creation of the largest restaurant
real estate investment trust (REIT) in the United States.  

The merger was consummated on Feb. 25, 2005.  The merged entity took the name
Truststreet Properties Inc.

Plaintiff Sutter Capital Management, a Unit holder of CNL Income Funds,
claims co-defendants James Seneff and Robert Bourne, as directors and
executive officers of the CNL, misrepresented the deal and took some $140
million at the expense of 45,000 limited partners.

At the time of the merger, 45,000 individuals were invested in the 18 CNL
Income Funds, which were Florida limited partnerships.  These Limited
Partners, on whose behalf this action is filed, were allegedly paid grossly
inadequate consideration in the merger.  

According to the suit, the Limited Partners were entitled to at least an
additional $140 million in consideration for handling over valuable assets to
the Surviving Corporation. Instead, the Limited Partners' fiduciaries (the
general partners of the CNL Income Funds who had substantial financial
interests in CNL Restaurants) pocketed those millions of dollars for
themselves at the expense of the Limited Partners, according to the complaint.

This action is brought as a class action on behalf of the over 45,000 former
Limited Partners of the CNL Income Funds, to remedy the harms inflicted
directly against each Limited Partner by defendants in connection with the
structuring, proposing, participating in and consummating the merger.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) whether defendants breached and/or aided and abetted
         breaches of fiduciary duties owed to plaintiffs and the
         members of the class; and

     (b) whether the members of the class have sustained damages
         and, if so, the proper measure of such damages.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

     -- certifying the class as set forth in the complaint and
        designating plaintiffs as the representatives thereof
        and appointing class counsel;

     -- declaring the conduct of the defendants to be in
        violation of law as set forth in the complaint;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the other members of the class
        compensation for the damages which they have sustained
        as a result of the defendants' unlawful conduct stated;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the other members of the class
        exemplary damages from the general partner defendants;

     -- in the alternative, awarding plaintiffs and the other
        members of the class damages as quasi-direct claims;

     -- awarding plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees, experts'
        fees, interest and cost of suit.

The suit is “Robert Lewis and Sutter Capital et al. v. James M. Seneff. Jr.
et al. Case No. 6:07cv1245-22uar," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          George E. Ridge
          Richard J. Lantinberg
          Cooper, Ridge & Lantinberg, P.A.
          136 East Bay Street, Suite 301
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Phone: (904) 353-6555
          Fax: (904) 353-7550
          E-mail: gridge@attorneyjax.com or
                  rlantinberg@attorneyjax.com

          Nicholas E. Chimicles
          Kimberly M. Donaldson
          Kimberly L. Kimmel
          Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
          Onve Harvard Centre
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: (610) 642-8500
          Fax: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: nick@chimicles.com or
                  kimdonaldson@chimicles.com or
                  kimberlykimmel@chimicles.com

          Lawrence A. Sucharow
          Joseph Sternberg
          Labaton Sucharow & Rudolf LLP
          100 Park Ave.
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 907-0700
          Fax: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: lsucharow@labaton.com or
                  JSternberg@labaton.com

          Lawrence P. Kolker
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Ave
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: kolker@whafh.com

          - and -

          Harold B. Obstfeld
          Harold B. Obstfeld, P.C.
          100 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, New York 10017
          Phone: (212) 696-1212
          Fax: (212) 867-7369


COMPUCREDIT CORP: Continues to Face N.C. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Corp. and five of the company's subsidiaries continue to face a
purported class action filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County,
North Carolina, entitled, “Knox, et al. vs. First Southern Cash Advance, et
al., No. 5 CV 0445.”

The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a so-called "payday lending"
business, certain of the Company's Retail Micro-Lending and Servicing segment
subsidiaries violated various laws governing consumer finance, lending, check
cashing, trade practices and loan brokering.  

The plaintiffs further allege that the Company is the alter ego of its
subsidiaries and is liable for their actions.  The plaintiffs are seeking
damages of up to $75,000 per class member.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

CompuCredit Corp. -- http://www.compucredit.com/-- is a provider of various  
credit and related financial services and products to or associated with the
underserved (or sub-prime) consumer credit market, as well as to un-banked
consumers. CompuCredit operates through five segments: Credit Cards,
Investments in Previously Charged-Off Receivables, Retail Micro-Loans, Auto
Finance and Other.  


EVCI CAREER: $7.7M N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the
$7,725,000 settlement of the consolidated securities fraud class
action, "Glauser v. EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. et al., Case No. 7:05-
cv-10240-CM."

On Dec. 6, 2005, "Glauser v. EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp., et al.," was
filed on behalf of a class of EVCI's investors who purchased the company's
publicly traded securities between Nov. 14, 2003 and Oct. 19, 2005.

Plaintiff alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act in connection with various public statements made by the
company and seeks an order that the action may proceed as a class action and
an award of compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and the other
purported class members in an unspecified amount, together with interest and
reimbursement of costs and expenses of the litigation.

To date, five follow-on actions have been filed in the same court alleging
substantially similar claims, except that some of these follow-on actions
allege a class period from Aug. 14, 2003 to Dec. 5, 2005.

On May 9, 2006, the court ordered the actions consolidated and appointed a
lead plaintiff.  After the filing of a consolidated amended complaint on July
21, 2006, defendants made a motion to dismiss the actions that was denied by
the court on Dec. 13,
2006.

On April 12, 2007, defendants and lead plaintiff reached an agreement to
settle the litigation (Class Action Reporter, May 2, 2007).

Under the settlement agreement, defendants have agreed to pay a total of
$7,725,000 (which is earning interest), to the class.

The settlement will be funded by EVCI's insurance carriers, and will include
the dismissal of all claims without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to
EVCI or any other defendant.

No stockholders objected to, or opted out of, the proposed settlement, which
was filed with the Court on April 13, 2007.

The Court's approval was entered on August 1, 2007 and makes the settlement
final and binding on all class members.

Deadline to file claims is August 29, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, May 23,
2007).

A related stockholder derivative action was dismissed by the Court on
February 16, 2007, and the derivative plaintiff's appeal was withdrawn by
stipulation on July 25, 2007.

EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. Securities Litigation on the net:
http://www.evcisecuritiessettlement.com

The suit is "Glauser v. EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. et al., Case No.
7:05-cv-10240-CM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge Colleen McMahon.

Lead Counsel:

          Darnley D. Stewart, Esq.
          Jeffrey N. Leibell, Esq.
          Alyson C. Bruns, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 800-380-8496
          Website: http://www.blbglaw.com


FOREVER GREEN: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Forever Green Security Investigation & Valet Services, Corp. is facing a
class action filed in Miami federal court, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiff Brillet Hernandez alleges denial of overtime compensation in
violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.  He is seeking $4 million in payment.

The suit is “Hernandez v. Forever Green Security Investigation & Valet
Services, Corp. et al., Case no. 1:07-cv-21904-PAS,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Patricia A.
Seitz.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          782 NW LeJeune Road
          Miami, FL 33126
          Phone: 305-448-9292
          Fax: 448-2788
          E-mail: marban@bellsouth.net


FORWARD INDUSTRIES: Seeks Dismissal of Fla. Shareholder Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has yet to rule
on a motion that sought for the dismissal of the purported class
action, “Lynn Finkelstein v. Ball, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-21922-UU.”

A May 2007 hearing is set in a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Lynn Finkelstein & Co., Inc., on behalf of
certain of its clients as attorney-in- fact and all others similarly
situated, against Forward Industries, Inc. and certain of its executive
officers.

The company was served with the summons and the purported class action
complaint on Oct. 3, 2006.  The complaint alleges that the Company during the
purported class period July 25, 2005, to Feb. 2, 2006, made certain
misrepresentations of fact, or failed to disclose certain material facts, and
violated certain generally accepted accounting principles in the presentation
of its financial statements included in its periodic reports filed with the
Commission pursuant to the Exchange Act.

On Nov. 15, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint and on May
29, 2007, by leave of the Court filed a second amended complaint that
purports to state substantially identical claims.

The Company filed motions to dismiss these complaints in their entirety for
failure to satisfy the pleading requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The motion is currently being briefed according to the company’s Aug. 1, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Lynn Finkelstein v. Ball, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-21922-UU,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under
Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-4750
          Fax: 392-4775
          E-mail: jvianale@vianalelaw.com

              - and -

          Barbara Podell, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
          Phone: 215-875-3000
          Fax: 875-4673

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Charles Christian Kline, Esq.
          White & Case
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900
          Miami, FL 33131-2352
          Phone: 305-371-2700
          Fax: 358-5744
          E-mail: ckline@whitecase.com


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Israel
-----------------------------------------------------------
Industrial Development Bank of Israel, Ltd. faces a purported class action in
Israel that was instituted by one of its shareholders.

In October 2002, a class action was filed against the bank, the State of
Israel, as controlling shareholder; and 17 of our current and former officers
and directors, two of whom were later struck from the statement of claim.  
Mr. A. Finn, one of the bank’s shareholders, instituted this action.

The action was instituted in the name of all those who purchased our shares
between Dec. 1, 2001 and Aug. 22, 2002.  The claim alleges that the company
breached its duty to report pursuant to the Securities Law - 1968 (Israel)
and the Securities Regulations (Immediate and Periodic Reports) - 1970
(Israel).

According to the action, between Dec. 1, 2001 and Aug. 22, 2002, several
events occurred which demonstrated our severe condition.

The claim alleges that the occurrence of the events obligated us to file an
immediate report pursuant to Israeli securities regulations, and that such
report was not filed.

The claim seeks damages of NIS20 million ($4.6 million0 or in the alternate,
of NIS14 million ($3.2 million).  

The company has instructed its lawyers to file the appropriate defenses.  
Under Israeli law, the court must certify the filing of a class action.  

Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed an application for certification, which
has yet to be heard, according to the company’s Aug. 1, 2007 filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission period ended Dec. 31, 2006.


INSURANCE COS: Appeals Court Rules Favorably in Katrina Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of a U.S. appeals court in New Orleans unanimously
reversed a lower court ruling holding 13 insurers liable for property damages
when Hurricane Katrina destroyed levees in New Orleans in 2005, Erick Holm of
Bloomberg News reports.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said the insurers don’t have to pay
homeowners for the damages as their policy language clearly states flooding
damage isn't covered, whether it's caused by the failure of manmade levees or
not.

Lawyers seeking class-action status on behalf of thousands of policyholders
had sought to invalidate the exclusions because the floods were “artificially
caused.”  

Plaintiffs in the case had contended that because their properties were
flooded as a result of the levee breaches, a "man-made act," the flood
exclusions in the policies were void.

In November 2006, Judge Stanwood Duval of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana ruled that ambiguous language in the water
damage exclusions in some insurance policies left open the possibility that
the plaintiffs could have standing to recover losses under their policies.  
Judge Duval refused to dismiss the case, sending it to the Fifth Circuit
Court for a review.

On appeal, the appeals court said flood exclusions at all 13
companies “unambiguously” preclude payment “even if the plaintiffs can prove
that the levees were negligently designed, constructed or maintained.”

Defendants in the suit are:

     * Allstate Corp. of Illinois,
     * Travelers of St. Paul, Minnesota,
     * State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,
     * American International Group Inc.,
     * Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,
     * AAA Homeowners Auto Club Family Insurance Co.,
     * Aegis Security Insurance Co.,
     * American Insurance Co.,
     * Great Northern Insurance Co.,
     * Hanover Insurance Co.,
     * Lafayette Insurance Co.,
     * Unitrin Preferred Insurance Co.,
     *Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp.

The case is “In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation, No. 05-
4182,” filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New
Orleans).

Representing the plaintiffs are lawyers John Ellison, Vernon Thomas and
Matthew Schultz.


IVY LAWN: Calif. Memorial Park Sued for Missing Valuables
---------------------------------------------------------
Ivy Lawn, a Ventura, California-based memorial park, is facing a class action
in relation to alleged theft of valuables from graves in the park, Raul
Hernandez of Ventura County Star reports.

The report said that valuables placed by John Herrera in the niche of his
wife and by David and Barbara Austin in the niche of their daughter, were
stolen away.  They blame grave robbers, and allege Ivy Lawn employees told
them the valuables would be safe there, the report said.

The lawsuit said a total of five people have reported thefts from Ivy Lawn
niches to police.

Attorney Thomas Olson whose law firm Benton, Ore, Duval & Buckingham
represents Ivy Lawn said that he had not seen the lawsuit, according to the
report.


MICROSOFT CORP: Settles Xbox Defects-Related Lawsuit in Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. settled out of court a class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington over defects in its
Xbox 360, the Spong, reports.

Filed in July, California resident Kevin Ray filed the class action against
Microsoft after he -- and a bunch of other litigants -- alleged that
Microsoft refused to repair his Xbox 360.  However, Microsoft then produced
documents showing that it had received, repaired and returned Mr. Ray’s
console free of charge after they extended its warranty.

According to the report, both sides have settled on a 'Stipulation of
Dismissal with Prejudice.'  

The suit is “Ray v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-01720-MJP,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge
Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing defendants are:

          Charles B. Casper
          Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads
          123 South Broad St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19109-1030
          Phone: 215-772-1500
          Fax: 215-772-1500
          E-mail: ccasper@mmwr.com

          - and -

          Cassandra L. Kinkead
          Stephen M. Rummage
          Davis Wright Tremaine (SEA)
          1201 Third Ave, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Phone: 206-622-3150 or 206-757-8136
          Fax: 206-628-7699 or 206-757-7136 (fax)
          E-mail: cassandrakinkead@dwt.com or
                  steverummage@dwt.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Juli E. Farris
          Mark Adam Griffin
          Amy C. Williams-Derry
          Keller Rohrback
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900
          Fax: 623-3384
          E-mail: jdesper@KellerRohrback.com or
                  mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com or
                  awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

          Richard L. Kellner
          Kabateck Brown Kellner
          350 S Grand Ave., 39 FL
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-217-5000
          E-mail: rlk@kbklawyers.com


NEBRASKA: Suit by Irrigators Near Niobrara River Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Lyle Strom dismissed a class action filed by
irrigators in Holt County challenging the state’s management of the Niobrara
River, Southwest Nebraska News reports.

Gerald and Janet Keating, Frank and Jane Krejci, Daryl and
Makala Butterfield and Tim and Linda Pearson filed the suit in
U.S. District Court in North Platte in May (Class Action Reporter, May 16,
2007).
They filed the suit against Nebraska Department of Resources and Nebraska
Public Power District after being ordered to stop getting water from the
Niobrara River.  On May 1, the DNR, in alliance with NPPD, sent stop orders
to farmers and ranchers ordering them to turn off their pumps in favor of
NPPD's operation of Spencer Dam.

The suit asked the court to issue an order prohibiting the DNR
and NPPD from interfering with their water rights until they
had been given a full hearing.  It also asked the court to
require NPPD to remove the Spencer Dam and the huge amount of
silt behind it.  The suit states the silt is a pollutant under
the Clean Water Act.  That order was lifted on May 7.

The lawsuit asked for an unspecified amount of damages to
compensate the irrigators for devaluation of their land caused
by silt.
Judge Strom granted the state’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds
that the irrigators should have requested an administrative hearing to
challenge the action under state law instead of filing a lawsuit in federal
district court.
"This ruling upholds a surface water law that has been on the books and
enforced by the state since 1895,” Attorney General Bruning said.

Terry Waite, of Waite, McWha & Harvat law firm in North Platte
assisted lead attorney Frank Taylor, of Briggs and
Morgan in Minneapolis.

The suit is "Keating et al. v. Nebraska Public Power District et
al., Case No. 7:07-cv-05011-LES-FG3," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska under Judge Lyle E. Strom
with referral to F. A. Gossett.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Terrance O. Waite, Esq.
          Waite, Mcwha Law Firm
          P.O. Box 38
          North Platte, NE 69103 - 0038
          Phone: (308) 532-2202
          Fax: (308) 532-2741
          E-mail: twaite@northplattelaw.com

          Frank A. Taylor, Esq.
          Briggs, Morgan Law Firm - Minneapolis
          80 South 8th Street
          Suite 2200, IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2457
          Phone: (612) 977-8800
          Fax: (612) 977-8650

OCWEN FEDERAL: Faces Minn. Lawsuit Over Alleged RESPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Federal Bank and GSF Mortgage Corp. are facing a class-action complaint
filed Aug. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota over
alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Named plaintiff Sharon T. Glover accuses both companies of improperly
foreclosing on loans after falsely claiming that payments were made late.

Plaintiff allege defendants have engaged in a scheme of illegal, unfair,
unlawful and deceptive business practices that violate both federal and state
law in the servicing of home-secured loan transactions and in the provision
of certain related services, including debt collection and foreclosure
services. This scheme is allegedly carried out by means of a centrally-
controlled set of policies and practices and is implemented with form
documents, form notices and uniform accounting mechanisms.

It is alleged that defendants routinely seek to collect, and do collect,
various improper fees, costs and charges, including "recoverable breach
fees," unnecessary hazard insurance premiums, attorneys' fees, unexpended
foreclosure-related fees and costs, and other fees that are either not
legally due under the mortgage contract or applicable law, or that are in
excess of amounts legally due.  Together, these fees and costs are referred
to hereafter as "improper charges."

Plaintiff alleges that defendants have engaged in a regular pattern of
violations of RESPA, as amended, 12 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et. seq., with
respect to responding to requests from borrowers for account information,
provision of required notices, collection of improper charges and application
of payments.

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants' practices are misleading, deceptive
and/or unfair under state law including, without limitation, Minn. Stat.
Sections 58.13, 325D.44, and 325D.69.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all persons domiciled
in Minnesota who, on or after a date six years before the commencement of
this action incurred or were assessed any of the improper charges that are
the subject of this complaint; or have had residential mortgage loans
serviced by Ocwen whose loans were in default or treated as being in default
by Ocwen.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule:

     (a) whether the defendants have engaged in a common course
         of deceptive, misleading, or unfair conduct, including
         the acts and practices identified in the servicing of
         loans collateralized by real property and in collecting
         alleged debts in connection with these loans;

     (b) whether Ocwen has engaged in a uniform practice of
         assessing improper charges;

     (c) whether Ocwen has unfairly initiated foreclosure
         proceedings and charged erroneous related fees;

     (d) whether defendants have engaged in improper foreclosure
         activities;

     (e) whether Ocwen has systematically misapplied customer
         payments;

     (f) whether Ocwen has breached contracts with customers;

     (g) whether the defendants have been unjustly enriched;

     (h) whether the defendants have violated RESPA;

     (i) whether the defendants have violated the FDCPA;

     (j) whether the defendants have violated various Minnesota
         state consumer fraud acts as described;

     (k) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to the
         injunctive and equitable relief requested, including
         restitution and rescission of the loan agreements; and

     (l) whether plaintiff and class members have sustained
         damages, and the proper measure of damages.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to prevent recurrence of the challenged
conduct, and to assure uniform standards of future servicing of loans and
equitable relief and damages for themselves and the class generally,
including restitution and disgorgement of funds obtained by defendants in
violation of state and federal law.

The suit is “Glover v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-03584-
JRT-FLN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,
under Judge John R. Tunheim, with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Richard J. Fuller
          Seymour J Mansfield
          Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, PA
          220 S 6th St Ste 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4511
          Phone: (612) 339-4295
          Fax: (612) 339-3161
          E-mail: fuller@mansfieldtanick.com or
                  smansfield@mansfieldtanick.com


PROGRESSIVE FINISHES: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Ala.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Progressive Finishes, Inc. is facing a class action filed July 24, 2007 in
Jasper, Alabama federal court, according to CourtHouse News Service.

Plaintiff Corey Williamson alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Williamson v. Progressive Finishes, Inc.,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge Sharon
Lovelace Blackburn.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert J. Camp, Esq.
         The Cochran Firm
         505 North 20th Street, Suite 825
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-244-1115
         Fax: 205-244-1171
         E-mail: rcamp@cochranfirm.com


SANTULI CORP: Faces $15M FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Santuli Corp. is facing a class action filed July 24, 2007 in Miami federal
court, according to CourtHouse News Service.

Plaintiff Jose Barrios alleges non-payment of wages in violation of Fair
Labor Standards Act.  He is demanding $15 million in payments.

The suit is “Barrios v. Santuli Corp., Case No. 1:07-cv-21906-KMM,” filed in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge K.
Michael Moore.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          782 NW LeJeune Road
          Miami, FL 33126
          Phone: 305-448-9292
          Fax: 448-2788
          E-mail: marban@bellsouth.net


UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: U.S. Court Rejects Child Trafficking Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga refused to hear a suit that blames the
ruler of the United Arab Emirates for the enslavement of thousands of
children from South Asia and Africa who worked as camel jockeys, saying she
has no jurisdiction over it.

According to reports, she agreed with the defense that Sheikh Mohammad bin
Rashed al-Maktoum did not have sufficient contacts in Florida to justify
hearing the case in Miami.  She dismissed arguments saying a hearing in
Florida is justified by the emir’s and his brother’s businesses ownership
there.  It ran "contrary to well-settled principles of corporate law," she
said.

                        Case Background

In September 2006, Motley Rice, LLC, in association with attorney John A.
Thornton of Miami, filed suit against several Arab Sheikhs, including Sheikh
Bin Rashid Al Maktoum and Sheikh Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai,
United Arab Emirates, for the alleged abduction and human trafficking of
thousands of young boys from Asia and Africa (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
14, 2006).

According to the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District
of Florida, boys as young as two years old have been stolen from their
families, trafficked across international borders, and kept in brutal camel-
racing camps throughout the UAE, forced to train camels and perform as
jockeys.   

The suit was brought on behalf of the boys and/or the legal guardians of the
boys who were allegedly enslaved and is brought against the individual slave
owners in Dubai and the United Arab Emirates.   

Dubai's ruling family has denied the allegations of abduction and human
trafficking.  The ruling Maktoum family believes that the alleged enslaving
of thousands of young camel jockeys is "baseless."

UAE, which banned use of underage camel jockeys in July 2005, announced on
Dec. 11, 2006 that it would set aside a minimum of $9 million to expand and
extend the program through 2009.

The suit is "Minor R.M., et al. v. Bin Rashid, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-22253-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Ronald L. Motley, Esq.
         Ness Motley Loadholt Richardson & Poole
         28 Bridgeside Boulevard
         Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
         Phone: 843-216-9000

              - and -

         John Andres Thornton, Esq.
         100 SE 2 Street, Suite 2700
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-532-6851
         Fax: 538-1070
         E-mail: johnandresthornton@hotmail.com


UNIVERSAL MEDIA: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
A group of Universal Media Group employees filed a class action in Los
Angeles County Superior Court accusing the company of failing to pay overtime
as required by law, Austin Modine of The Register reports.

The UMG workers, who are employed as "IT Support Engineers," claim the
company has illegally classified them under the "white collar" exemptions for
some executives, administrative, professional, and IT employees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to skip out of paying overtime.  

The employees are seeking back wages and civil penalties.  They are suing
under the Private Attorney Act, which allows them to seek fines based on
labor law on behalf of the state of California.  Under it, they will receive
25 percent of the potential reward, while California will receive the rest.

A lawyer for the plaintiff said the workers may issue additional charges
against the company if it was found out Universal Media has illegally
distributed a release to assumed members of the lawsuit asking them to sign
away their overtime rights.

For more information, contact plaintiffs’ lawyer:

          Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, California 92614
          (Orange Co.)
          Phone: 949-260-9171
          Fax: 866-365-3051
          Web site: http://www.michaeltracylaw.com


WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Ovcon 35 Suit in D.C. Court for $6M
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will hold a fairness
hearing on November 6, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. regarding a $6 million settlement of
the suit, "Cohen v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-00401-CKK."

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom 28A, 333
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001.

The class includes all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal or
household use in the United States at any time during the period from April
22, 2004 through June 27, 2007.

Deadline to file for objections and exclusions is on September 17, 2007.

                        Case Background

Filed on March 6, 2006, the suit alleges that the Ovcon agreements violate
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the antitrust laws of 18 states and the
unjust enrichment laws of 50 states.

Thus, plaintiff sought to certify three separate classes consisting of:

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use who
         are seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement, and
         restitution under the Sherman Act;

      -- all persons in the eighteen states referenced above who
         purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use; and

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use.

The consumer plaintiff seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, restitution,
disgorgement, and costs including attorney's fees.

On April 19, 2006 the consumer plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint.  The amended complaint dropped antitrust claims in four states and
added an additional named plaintiff.

On July 28, 2006, the consumer plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification seeking to certify three classes:

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use who
         are seeking injunctive relief under the Sherman Act;

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use in
         any of the Indirect Purchaser States; and

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use in
         any of the fifty states.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the court denied without prejudice all three motions for
class certification to allow for further discovery (Class Action, Reporter,
Jan. 26, 2007).

Recently, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia authorized the
Notice Administrator of the Ovcon 35 Consumer Settlement to announce the
existence of a class action settlement for purchasers of Ovcon 35.

If the settlement is approved, the Defendants will donate a combined $6
million worth of prescription oral contraceptives throughout the United
States within a three year period.

The suit is "Cohen v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-00401-CKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John M. Mason
          The Law Offices of Robert W. Sink
          319 West Front Street
          Media, PA 19063, US
          Phone: 610-566-0800
          Fax: 610-566-4408
          E-mail: sinklawoffices@comcast.net

Representing the defendants are:

          Peter Coyne Thomas
          Simpson Thacher & Barlett, LLP
          555 11th Street, NW, Suite 725
          Washington, DC 20004, US
          Phone: (202) 220-7735
          Fax: (202) 220-7703
          E-mail: pthomas@stblaw.com

          - and -

          Karen Natalie Walker
          Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
          655 15th Street, NW, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 879-5000
          Fax: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: kwalker@kirkland.com


WILLIAMS COMMS: Shareholders Appeal OK Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Tulsa-based Williams Communications Group have appealed to
the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a recent ruling of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma to dismiss the class action "In
Re Williams Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-72-SPF-FHM," The Journal
Record reports.

The suit, originally filed in 2002, defines the class as all persons who
purchased any of the following securities of Williams Communications Group,
Inc. between July 24, 2000 and April 22, 2002, inclusive:

      -- WCG common stock;
   
      -- WCG 10.700% Senior Notes issued Sept. 6, 1999 and due  
         Sept. 1, 2007;
   
      -- WCG 10.875% Senior Notes issued Sept. 6, 1999 and due  
         Sept. 1, 2009;
   
      -- WCG 11.700% Senior Notes issued Aug. 8, 2000 and due  
         Aug. 1, 2008; or
   
      -- WCG 11.875% Senior Notes issued Aug. 8, 2000 and due  
         Aug. 1, 2010.

In the WCG subclass litigation, plaintiffs are former shareholders of WCG who
assert that certain defendants, including:

     --former officers and directors of WCG;  

     -- The Williams Companies, Inc. (WMB), WCG's former parent  
        company;  

     -- Keith E. Bailey, WMB's former chairman and chief  
        executive officer; and  

     -- Ernst & Young, LLP, WMB's and WCG's outside auditor,  

during the period between July 24, 2000 and April 22, 2002, made false and/or
misleading statements regarding, among other subjects, WCG's reported
financial condition and prospects for future success.  WCG itself is not a
named defendant in the action because it filed for bankruptcy protection on
April 22, 2002.

Specifically, plaintiffs assert that certain former executive officers of
WCG:

     * Howard E. Janzen,  
     * Scott E. Schubert,  
     * Ken Kinnear,  
     * Matthew W. Bross,  
     * Bob F. McCoy,  
     * Howard S. Kalika,  
     * John C. Bumgarner, Jr., and  
     * Frank M. Semple), as well as  
     * WMB,  
     * Bailey and  
     * E&Y,  

violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and further, that all of the defendants except
for E&Y violated Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
Defendants vigorously deny all of the plaintiffs' allegations of wrongdoing
and deny they have any liability whatsoever.

The parties disagree on both liability and damages in this case and the court
has not made any finding on either liability or damages.  The issues on which
the parties disagree include:

      -- whether statements made or facts allegedly omitted were  
         false, material or otherwise actionable under the  
         federal securities laws;  

      -- the amount by which WCG securities were allegedly   
         artificially inflated (if at all) during the class  
         period;  

      -- the extent to which external factors, such as general  
         market conditions, including the overall decline of the  
         stock market in general and the telecommunications  
         sector in particular before and during the Class  
         Period, affected the price of WCG securities at various  
         times during the class period;  

      -- the extent (if any) to which the various matters that  
         plaintiffs allege were materially false or misleading  
         affected the price of WCG securities at various times
         during the class period; and  

      -- the extent (if any) to which the various allegedly  
         adverse material facts that plaintiffs allege were
         omitted affected the trading price of WCG securities at  
         various times during the Class Period.

Plaintiffs in this lawsuit represent a class of persons and entities who
purchased WCG securities during the period between July 24, 2000 and April
22, 2002, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.  

On behalf of the class, they sought to establish liability against the
defendants and resulting damages.  

Plaintiff Alex Meruelo was appointed by the court to serve as the Lead
Plaintiff and the law firms of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman and Yourman,
Alexander & Parekh have been appointed to serve as co-lead counsel.
Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated amended complaint.

On June 12, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and certified the
action to proceed as a class action.

In July, Judge Stephen Friot of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment to the defendants which
included the former directors and officers of Tulsa-based Williams
Communications, auditing company Ernst & Young LLP and Williams Cos. Inc.,
and dismissed the suit (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2007).

In his July ruling, Judge Friot discussed the state of the telecommunications
industry at the time in question, saying that those who purchased the
company’s stock “bought into an industry meltdown of historic proportions.”

The judge said the plaintiff shareholders did not show that company
officials’ alleged misrepresentations or omissions caused the stockholders’
losses, and did not meet their burden of establishing damages.

Stockholders in Williams Communications Group have appealed to the 10th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the company did not adequately
disclose its declining financial condition.

For more details, contact:
  
          Joshua H. Vinik, Esq.
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: (212) 594-5300

          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP
          3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90066
          Phone: (310) 725-6400

          - and -

          In re Williams Securities Litigation
          c/o Analytics, Inc., Notice Administrator
          P.O. Box 2006
          Chanhassen, MN 55317-2006
          Phone: 1-866-535-1630


XEROX CORP: Discovery Continues in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the class action, "In re Xerox Corporation
Securities Litigation," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut against Xerox Corp. and other defendants.  

Initially consisting of 17 cases, the consolidated action named as defendants:

     -- the company,
     -- Barry Romeril,
     -- Paul Allaire, and
     -- G. Richard Thoman

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of the named plaintiffs and
all other purchasers of common stock of the company between Oct. 22, 1998 and
Oct. 7, 1999.

The amended consolidated complaint in the action alleges that in violation of
Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a
fraud or deceit on purchasers of the company's common stock during the class
period by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material facts relating to the defendants' alleged failure to
disclose the material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had
on the company's operations and revenues.  

The amended complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme:

      -- deceived the investing public regarding the economic
         capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations
         and the intrinsic value of the company's common
         stock;

      -- allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
         individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held
         common stock of the company while in possession of
         materially adverse, non-public information; and

      -- caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members
         of the purported class to purchase common stock of the
         company at inflated prices.  

The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in
favor of the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class against
all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result
of defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon, together with
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel fees
and expert fees.

On Sept. 28, 2001, the court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of
the complaint.  On Nov. 5, 2001, the defendants answered the complaint.  On
or about Jan. 7, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  

The company and the individual defendants filed their opposition to that
motion on June 28, 2005.  

On or about Nov. 8, 2004, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Welfare (IBEW) Fund of Local Union No. 164 filed a motion to intervene as a
named plaintiff and class representative.

Separately, on June 8, 2005, IBEW and Robert W. Roten moved to substitute as
lead plaintiffs and proposed class representatives.  

On May 12, 2006, the court denied, without prejudice to
refiling, plaintiffs' motion for class certification, IBEW's motion to
intervene and serve as named plaintiff and class representative, and IBEW and
Mr. Roten's joint motion to substitute as lead plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.

The court also ordered the parties to submit to it a notice to certain
putative class members to inform them of the circumstances surrounding the
withdrawal of several lead plaintiffs, and to advise them of the opportunity
to express their desire to serve as a representative of the putative class.

On July 25, 2006, the court so-ordered a form of notice, and plaintiffs
thereafter distributed the notice.

Thereafter, several plaintiffs filed applications to be considered lead
plaintiff.  

On Nov 13, 2006 plaintiffs filed a motion for appointment as additional lead
plaintiffs.  Defendants filed their response on Nov. 28, 2006.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the court granted the motion of certain plaintiffs and
appointed them as additional lead plaintiffs.

On Feb. 15, 2007, lead plaintiffs filed their renewed motion for class
certification.  

On July 18, 2007, the Court entered an order denying plaintiffs’ renewed
motion for class certification, without prejudice to renewal after the Court
holds a pre-filing conference to identify factual disputes the Court will be
required to resolve in ruling on the motion.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery, according to the company’s
Aug. 1, 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 Xerox Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:99-cv-02374-AWT," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson.  

Representing the for the plaintiffs are:

         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP
         10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor,
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 800.217.1522
         E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

              - and -

         Hurwitz & Sagarin
         147 North Broad St., P.O. Box 112
         Milford, CT 06460-0112,  
         Phone: 203.877.8000.

Representing the defendants are:

         Alfred U. Pavlis, Esq.
         Daly & Pavlis, LLC,
         107 John St.,
         Southport, CT 06890
         Phone: 203-255-6700
         Fax: 203-255-1953
         E-mail: apavlis@dalypavlis.com

              - and -

         Andrew N. Vollmer, Esq.
         Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering,
         2445 M St. NW
         Washington, DC 20037-1420
         Phone: 202-663-6000.


XEROX CORP: Discovery Still Ongoing in “Carlson” Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery proceedings are still ongoing in the consolidated securities class
action, "Carlson v. Xerox Corp., et al.," which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Initially consisting of 21 cases, the consolidated securities class action,
also names as defendants KPMG LLP, Paul A. Allaire, G. Richard Thoman, Anne
M. Mulcahy, Barry D. Romeril, Gregory Tayler, and Philip Fishbach.

On Sept. 11, 2002, the court entered an endorsement order granting
plaintiffs' motion to file a third consolidated amended complaint.  The
defendants' motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint was
denied, as moot.  

According to the third consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs purport to
bring this case as a class action on behalf of an expanded class consisting
of all persons and/or entities who purchased the company's common stock
and/or bonds between Feb. 17, 1998 and June 28, 2002 and who were purportedly
damaged thereby.  

The third consolidated amended complaint sets forth two claims:

     -- each of the company, KPMG, and the individual defendants
        violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and U.S.
        Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
        thereunder; and

     -- the individual defendants are also allegedly liable as  
        "controlling persons" of the company pursuant to Section
        20(a) of the 1934 Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme that
operated as a fraud and deceit on purchasers of the company's common stock
and bonds by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts relating to various of the company's
accounting and reporting practices and financial condition.  

Plaintiffs further allege that this scheme deceived the investing public
regarding the true state of the company's financial condition and caused the
plaintiffs and other members of the alleged class to purchase the company's
common stock and bonds at artificially inflated prices, and prompted a SEC
investigation that led to the April 11, 2002 settlement which, among other
things, required the company to pay a $10 penalty and restate its financials
for the years 1997-2000, including restatement of financials previously
corrected in an earlier restatement which plaintiffs contend was improper.  

The third consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other class members against all
defendants, jointly and severally, including interest thereon, together with
reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On Dec. 2, 2002, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  On July 13, 2005, the court denied the motion.  On
Oct. 31, 2005, the defendants answered the complaint.

On January 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  

On July 18, 2007, the Court entered an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification, without prejudice to renewal after the Court holds a pre-
filing conference to identify factual disputes the Court will be required to
resolve in ruling on the motion.  

Plaintiffs have filed notices of withdrawal of proposed class representatives
Sol Sachs, Leonard Nelson and Fernan Cepero.

The Court has approved plaintiffs’ notice of withdrawal of proposed class
representative Fernan Cepero.  

The parties are engaged in discovery, according to the company’s Aug. 1, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “Carlson, et al. v. Xerox Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:00-cv-
01621-AWT,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
under Judge Alvin W. Thompson.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Francis P. Karam, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
         10 East 40th St.
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414
         Fax: 212-779-3218,
         E-mail: karam@bernlieb.com

              - and -

         Eliot B. Gersten, Esq.
         Gersten & Clifford
         214 Main Street
         Hartford, CT 06106
         Phone: 860-527-7044
         Fax: 860-527-4968
         E-mail: egersten@gcrlaw.net.

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael Gruenglas, Esq.
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
         Four Times Square
         New York, NY 10036-3897
         Phone: 212-735-3000
      
              - and -

         Timothy W. Blakely, Esq.
         Cravath, Swaine & Moore
         825 8th Ave., Worldwide Plaza
         New York, NY 10019-7415
         Phone: 212-474-1000
         Fax: 212-474-3700.


XEROX CORP: N.Y. Judge Rejects Civil Rights Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A judge from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
indicated that he would not approve the current version of the proposed
settlement in the class action, “Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corp.,” according to
the company’s Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

On March 11, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York entered an order certifying a nationwide class of all black salespersons
employed by Xerox from Feb. 1, 1997 to the present under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871.  Six
black sales representatives commenced the suit on May 9, 2001.

Plaintiffs allege that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race
discrimination against them and other black sales representatives by
assigning them to less desirable sales territories, denying them promotional
opportunities, and paying them less than their white counterparts.

Although the complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought,
plaintiffs do seek, on behalf of themselves and the classes they seek to
represent, front and back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.  

Fact discovery concluded and expert reports were exchanged.  The parties
participated in private mediation in mid-May 2006.  Fact discovery was
concluded and expert reports were exchanged.  

Following three days of mediation with a private mediator, a tentative
agreement was reached.  The company said terms of the agreement were not
material to it.

On March 16, 2007, the parties submitted the settlement agreement to the
Court for preliminary approval.  

At a status conference held on June 6, 2007, the judge indicated that he
would not approve the current version of the settlement agreement.

The judge is concerned that the named plaintiffs may be receiving a
disproportionate amount of damages as compared to the other class members.  
He has directed the parties to revise this aspect of the agreement and bring
it back to him.

If preliminary approval is obtained, the agreement will then be subject to a
fairness hearing at which any objections to the agreement shall be heard.  

If the Court still finds the agreement to be acceptable, it will give its
final approval and administration of the settlement shall commence.

The suit is "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corp., Case No. 1:01-cv-
02909-JG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to
Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:
       
         Barry Alan Weprin, Esq.
         Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th floor
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: (212) 946-9312
         Fax: 212-868-1229
         E-mail: bweprin@milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendant are:

         Eugene D. Ulterino, Esq.
         Amy Laura Ventry, Esq.
         Nixon Peabody, LLP
         Phone: 585-263-1580 and (516) 832-7500
         Fax: 585-263-1600 and (516) 832-7555
         E-mail: eulterino@nixonpeabody.com
                 aventry@nixonpeabody.com


* Bryan Cave to Host U.K. Class Actions Presentation Aug. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Scarborough, partner at international law firm Bryan Cave LLP and a
U.S. trial attorney, will host a breakfast presentation on class actions at
Bryan Cave’s London office on Thursday, Aug. 23, 2007.

“The Office of Fair Trading in the U.K. has made it clear that representative
actions should be more broadly available,” Mr. Scarborough said. “The
European Parliament has said that joint actions are essential to achieve
effective implementation of European Commission anti-trust rules.

The National Association of Pension Funds has publicly encouraged its members
to pursue class-action claims.  And last year’s Companies Act creates broad
statutory rights for shareholders to act.  The legal landscape is changing in
the U.K. not just for business, but also for individuals in their pursuit of
justice.  Lawyers must be ready.”

Joined by colleagues from Bryan Cave’s London and Hamburg offices,
Scarborough will give a presentation on recent developments in European class
actions and offer his advice to corporate counsel and clients on how best to
handle collective litigation.  He has successfully acted for Mercedes-Benz
USA and U-Haul International in the competition arena, and for clients such
as Clorox Co. in the consumer arena in the U.S.

The breakfast presentation, which is open to all, will take place at 33
Cannon St., London EC4M 5TE.  The event begins at 8:30 a.m. Scarborough also
will speak on recent developments in class action litigation across Europe
and present the results of a survey on European executive views of the
potential spread of U.S.-style class actions in Europe at The Economist’s 5th
European General Counsels’ Summit in London, scheduled for Oct. 30.

Bryan Cave LLP is an international law firm with 15 offices around the world,
including London, Milan and Hamburg.

For further details or to RSVP, contact:

          Sheila Thompson
          Hanne Knudsen
          Phone: 0207 591 9610
          E-mail hannek@blj.co.uk


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Paskowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates has commenced a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of a class of all persons
who purchased or acquired securities of Health Management Associates, Inc.
between January 17, 2007 and July 30, 2007 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws,
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations regarding its allowances
for bad debts. When the truth about this matter was revealed, Health
management shares dropped substantially.

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

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Paskowitz, Esq.
          Paskowitz & Associates
          Toll free: 1-800-705-9529


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Suit in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates has commenced a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of a class of all persons
who purchased or acquired securities of Health Management Associates, Inc.
between January 17, 2007 and July 30, 2007 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations regarding the Company's
allowances for bad debts. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that
defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate Health Management's policies in
order to create the impression that the Company had its "bad debt expenses"
under control in order to borrow additional money, and to get the Health
Management Board to approve management's recapitalization plan.

On January 17, 2007, Health Management announced a major recapitalization
which was completed in March 2007 and which required the Company to borrow
$3.25 billion of new debt to refinance existing debt and pay shareholders a
special one-time per share cash dividend of $10.00. The Individual Defendants
benefited substantially from this one time dividend. Following the
announcement of the recapitalization, some insiders also sold shares.

The Company announced on July 31, 2007 that second quarter net income dropped
85 percent and the Company cut expected earnings for the full year by nearly
half. The Company blamed uncollectable receivables from uninsured patients.
On this unexpected news the price of Health Management stock dropped almost
25% to close at $8.06 on July 31, 2007, and has declined further.

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

For more information, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          Phone: 888-884-4490
          E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com
          Website: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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