CAR_Public/070809.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, August 9, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 156

                            Headlines


7-DAY MKTG: “Healthiest Man Alive” Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
21ST CENTURY: Mutual Fund Sues Over Losses from Restatement
ADVANCE AMERICA: Accused of Predatory Lending in Mo. Lawsuit
AMERICAN HOME: Freddie Mac Lodges Tex. Lawsuit Over $800M Loans
CDW CORP: Proxy Violation Claims Added in Suit Over Madison Sale

CRYSTAL FORD: Sued Over Alleged Fraud in Warranty Service Plan
E.I. DUPONT: Canada Teflon Suit Status Ruling Expected in 2007
E.I. DUPONT: Faces PFOA Contamination Lawsuits in W.Va., N.J.
E.I. DUPONT: Iowa Court to Rule on Teflon Suits’ Status in 2008
ELLSWORTH COOPERATIVE: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Wis.

ENRON CORP: UC Seeks Inputs on How to Return $7.2B to Investors
FIELDS INFINITI: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Units Still Face Lawsuits Over Tenant Reports
FLORIDA: Judge Cooper Dismisses Lawsuit Over “Save Our Homes”
GENERAL MOTORS: Accused of Hiding Defects in Saturn L-Series

HANNA ANDERSSON: Recalls Sandal Clogs with Strap that can Tear
HERCULES INC: Court Mulls Appeal on “Agent Orange” Suits’ Nixing
HERCULES INC: Ruling on Georgia Gulf Pollution Suit Deal Pending
HERCULES INC: Pa. Court Gives Final Approval to ERISA Settlement
HERCULES INC: 2nd Circuit Hears Appeal on Dioxin Suit Dismissal

MMS MORTGAGE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
MODINE MANUFACTURING: Continues to Face Pa. Personal Injury Suit
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Appeals Class Certification in Injury Suit
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Bid for Narrower Class in “Butland” Allowed
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Ill. Court Sends ERISA Breach Suit to Iowa

PUBLIC SERVICE: Seeks Dismissal of Transition Bond Charge Suit
RYERSON INC: Faces Suits in Ill. Over Rhombus Merger Plan
SPRINGS WINDOW: Recalls Window Blinds to Repair Pull Cord
STURDIVENT FOODS: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
TRANE: Recalls Air Filtration Systems Posing Fire Hazard

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Sued for Denying Insureds’ Injury Claims
UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
VIRGINIA: Suit Against Charlottesville Police Seeks Class Status


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

21ST CENTURY: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
AMERICAN HOME: Shalov Stone Bonner Files Securities Fraud Suit
GPC BIOTECH: Shalov Stone Bonner Files Securities Fraud Suit
GREENFIELD ONLINE: Schiffrin Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TXU CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Tex. Lawsuit Over $45B LBO


                            *********


7-DAY MKTG: “Healthiest Man Alive” Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A man who claims to be the “healthiest man alive” -- Paris DeAguero aka
Anthony DeAguero -- is facing a class-action complaint filed in California
Superior Court, accusing him of defrauding consumers, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The complaint also names as defendants Laura DeAguero aka Laura Busler and
the DeAgueros’ business, 7 Day Marketing.

According to the complaint, Mr. DeAguero claims his product, 7-Day Miracle
Cleanse, cures skin cancer and breast cancer.  As a marketing campaign, he
bills himself as “The Health Man,” who is “considered by many to be the
healthiest man alive,” the suit states.

Plaintiffs allege the DeAgueros, of Pico Rivera, Calif., fraudulently claim
their product helps you lose weight “particularly in the chin,” cures cancer,
gives you “perfect cholesterol,” and will extend your life, “twenty, thirty
years or more.”

Plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is:

          Moore Labriola LLP Attorneys At Law
          620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1100
          Newport Beach, California 92660
          Website: http://www.moorelabriola.com/


21ST CENTURY: Mutual Fund Sues Over Losses from Restatement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kivun Mutual Funds filed a class action against Lauderdale Lakes, Fla.-based
21st Century Holding Co. (Nasdaq: TCHC) for alleged securities laws
violation, BestWire reports.

The suit was filed July 27 in U.S. District Court in Miami. It asks
undisclosed compensatory damages for losses suffered by the mutual fund when,
contrary to the company’s optimistic prognosis about the company’s financial
conditions, earnings fell.  

According to the suit, in an October press release, 21st Century predicted
earnings of $3 per share for 2006 and said guidance for 2007 would start at
$4 to $5 per share.  But on March 8, the insurer reported year-end 2006
earnings of $1.84 per share and a $4 million net loss.  

21st Century reported doubled loss and loss adjustment expenses at its first-
quarter 2007 earnings result released May 3.  The company was forced to
revise its 2007 annual guidance to $2 to $2.50 per share, down from $4.50.  
As a result, its stock price went down 44% to $11.05 in a single day.

Kivun says it suffered losses, though it did not say how much.

The insurer has not yet responded to the lawsuit.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Accused of Predatory Lending in Mo. Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A predatory lending class action was filed on Aug. 6 in Cole County against
Advance America, the largest payday lender in the U.S.  At the heart of the
lawsuit is the allegation that Advance America systematically traps customers
in loans they cannot repay by violating Missouri law.

The suit was filed against Advance America, a Spartanburg, S.C.-based company
and its subsidiaries Cash Advance Centers of Missouri doing business as
Advance America.  The company operates 2,900 cash advance stores in 37
states. Approximately 82 stores are located in Missouri.

The lead plaintiff is St. Louis County resident Cynthia Williams.  Beginning
in March 2006, Ms. Williams was allegedly trapped in a cycle of debt after
taking out a loan with Advance America.  She and her husband began working 70-
hour weeks to pay off the debt.

The suit alleges that while state law allows borrowers to repay the loans in
up to six payments, Advance America limited borrowers to four payments.
Borrowers were then trapped in loans charging over 400 percent interest,
despite laws that effectively capped interest at 324 percent.

The suit claims Advance America engaged in several other predatory practices
that violated Missouri law.  Those allegations include:

     -- Advance America exploited borrowers’ financial
        situation;

     -- intentionally loaning too much money at an interest rate
        over 400 percent that trapped them in a cycle of debt;

     -- Advance America created phony “new loans” and encouraged
        customers to take these out rather than make payments to
        reduce their existing loan.

St. Louis lawyers John Simon, Erich Vieth and John Campbell of Simon
Passanante P.C. and Debra K. Lumpkins of Gateway Legal Services filed the
lawsuit on behalf of the borrowers.  This is the first class action filed
against Advance America in Missouri.

Simon Passanante and Gateway Legal Services also have class actions pending
in St. Louis County and St. Louis City against three other payday lenders,
including the second largest private payday lender in the country, Overland
Park, Kan.-based Quik Cash.

“Missouri law is designed to protect Missouri citizens by getting them out of
payday loans as quickly as possible and by capping the amount of interest
charged on a loan. Advance America has short-circuited these protections,”
said John Campbell of Simon?Passanante.

St. Louis-based Simon Passanante P.C. –- http://www.spstl-law.com/-- handles  
catastrophic injury, mass tort, class action, intellectual property and
commercial litigation cases nationwide.  For more information contact John E.
Campbell at 314-241-2929 or


AMERICAN HOME: Freddie Mac Lodges Tex. Lawsuit Over $800M Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. has added on Aug. 2 its complaint to
some half dozen class actions already filed against American Home Mortgage
Corp., the CourtHouse News Service reports.  It filed a suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage (Freddie Mac) claims American Home, through
incompetence or design, failed to report honestly about the status of 4,500
Freddie Mac loans worth $800 million, or to remit payments for them.

When American Home went bust recently, Freddie Mac demanded an accounting and
files and records, and American Home failed to deliver them, the report said.

Freddie Mac prays for judgment in its favor including without limitation the
following relief:

     -- entry of a temporary restraining order, temporary
        injunction, and permanent injunction against defendant
        enjoining, restraining and directing defendant and its
        agents, servants, employees, attorneys, affiliates and
        all others acting for, in active concert or through or
        under them:

        (i) to deliver to plaintiff or its designee all mortgage
            files serviced by AHM for Freddie Mac including all
            documents;

       (ii) to deliver to plaintiff or its designee all funds
            derived from these mortgage loans, including any
            funds designated as impounded funds, less servicing
            fees earned and hereafter deliver any additional
            funds defendant may receive with respect thereto;

      (iii) to refrain from destroying, altering or disposing of
            the mortgage loan documents required to be delivered
            to plaintiff or its designee; and

       (iv) to refrain from taking any other action with respect
            to mortgage loans heretofore from depositing any
            payments received by AHM concerning the aforesaid
            mortgage loans or disbursing any sums held by AHM.

     -- alternatively, an order or seizure pursuant to the
        authority set forth, directing the United States
        Marshal, or other officer to whom the writ is directed
        to take immediate possession of the mortgage loan files
        and deliver the same to Freddie Mac or its designee;

     -- damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- such other and further relief as the court deems
        appropriate in the premises, including attorneys' fees,
        costs and pre- and post judgment interest.

The suit is “Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. American Home Mortgage
Corp., Case No. 3:07-cv-01335,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Sam A. Lindsay.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Thomas B. Alleman
          William Frank Carroll
          Winstead Sechrest & Minick
          Renaissance Tower
          1201 Elm St., Suite 5400
          Dallas, TX 75270-2120
          Phone: 214/745-5103 or 214/745-5106
          Fax: 214/745-5390
          E-mail: talleman@winstead.com or fcarroll@winstead.com

          - and -

          John J. Reenan
          Winstead Sechrest & Minick - Dallas
          5400 Renaissance Tower
          1201 Elm St
          Dallas, TX 75270
          Phone: 214/745-5109
          Fax: 214/745-5390
          E-mail: jreenan@winstead.com

Representing defendants are:

          Lawrence J. Friedman
          Bart F. Higgins
          Robert Brian Shields
          Friedman & Feiger
          5301 Spring Valley Rd., Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75254
          Phone: 972/788-1400
          Fax: 972/788-2667
          E-mail: lfriedman@fflawoffice.com or
                  bshields@fflawoffice.com

          - and -

          Royce West
          West & Associates LLP
          320 S RL Thornton Frwy., Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75203
          Phone: 214/941-1881
          Fax: 214/941-1399


CDW CORP: Proxy Violation Claims Added in Suit Over Madison Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended class-action complaint was filed on July 19 against CDW Corp. and
its directors to include claims of proxy violations under Section 14 and
Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The proxy material
solicits proxies for a shareholder meeting scheduled for August 9, 2007.

Lou Ann Murphy, a shareholder of CDW Corp., filed the lawsuit on May 31 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois claiming the
purchase price offered by Madison Dearborn Partners LLC for the Vernon Hills-
based computer and software resale firm is too low (Class Action Reporter,
June 6, 2007).

Ms. Murphy is seeking class-action status and a court order barring the sale,
valued at $87.75 per share, which is 16% higher than the stock price the day
before the deal was announced.

The action names as defendants, John A. Edwardson, Michelle L. Collins, Casey
G. Cowell, Daniel S. Goldin, Thomas J. Hansen, Donald P. Jacobs, Stephan A.
James, Michael P. Krasny, Terry L. Lengfelder, Susan D. Wellington, Brian E.
Williams and CDW.

The complaint charges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's shareholders and violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
certain material facts in connection with the acquisition of CDW by the
private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners LLC, entered into the agreement
with Madison Dearborn by a flawed process, and that the price being offered
for the Company's stock was inadequate.

The complaint also includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty. It is
brought on behalf of a class of all shareholders except for the named
defendants and persons or entities related to or affiliated with the
defendants.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 6, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

The suit is “Murphy v. CDW Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03033,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge
George W. Lindberg.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Lori Ann Fanning
          Marvin Alan Miller
          Miller Law LLC
          101 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2010
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 525-8318 or (312) 525-8316
          Fax: (312) 525 -8231
          E-mail: LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com or
                  Mmiller@millerlawllc.com


CRYSTAL FORD: Sued Over Alleged Fraud in Warranty Service Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Ford Isuzu, Ltd. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 27 in
the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland that accuses it of
defrauding hundreds of customers by lying about the Ford Extended Warranty
Service Plan, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Anthony Frazier claims the Towson, Md.-based defendant
charged him $1,700 for a four-year or 100,000-mile warranty.  He says it
refused to honor the contract, claiming the warranty period begins at the
auto’s “build date” rather than the day he bought the extended service plan.

The suit is filed on behalf of persons who purchased Ford Extended Warranty
Service Plans from the defendant over the last four years.

Plaintiff demands punitive damages for deceptive trade and fraud.

The suit is "Anthony M. Frazier et al. v. Crystal Ford Isuzu. Ltd., Case No.
285006," filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Leslie L. Gladstone, P.A.
          1040 North Calvert Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: (410) 727-2322
          Fax: (410) 385-0311
          Web site: http://www.leslie-gladstone.com


E.I. DUPONT: Canada Teflon Suit Status Ruling Expected in 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on whether a lawsuit filed against E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. in
the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, Canada can proceed as a class
action is expected in 2007.

In December 2005, a motion was filed by a single named plaintiff in the case,
seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of all Quebec
consumers who have purchased or used kitchen items, household appliances or
food-packaging containing Teflon or Zonyl non-stick coatings.  A ruling on
this motion is expected from the Court in 2007.  

Damages are not quantified, but are alleged to include the cost of
replacement products as well as one hundred dollars per class member as
exemplary damages.

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.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com-- operates and  
manufactures a range of products for distribution and sale to many different
markets, including the transportation, safety and protection, construction,
motor vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.  


E.I. DUPONT: Faces PFOA Contamination Lawsuits in W.Va., N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. faces three purported class actions in West
Virginia and New Jersey over perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) releases from
certain of its plants.

PFOA is a synthetic chemical that does not occur naturally in the
environment.  PFOA is sometimes called “C8.” Companies use PFOA to make
fluoropolymers, substances with special properties that have thousands of
important manufacturing and industrial applications.

The suits were filed in the second quarter of 2006 as purported class
actions. One of these cases was filed in West Virginia state court on behalf
of customers of the Parkersburg City Water District, but was removed on
DuPont’s motion to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia.

The other two purported class actions were filed in New Jersey.

One was filed in federal court on behalf of individuals who allegedly drank
water contaminated by releases from DuPont’s Chambers Works plant in
Deepwater, New Jersey.  

The second was filed in state court on behalf of customers serviced primarily
by the Pennsville Township Water Department and was removed to New Jersey
federal district court on DuPont’s motion.

The New Jersey cases have been combined for purposes of discovery and the
complaints have been amended to allege that drinking water had been
contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.04 ppb.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com-- operates and  
manufactures a range of products for distribution and sale to many different
markets, including the transportation, safety and protection, construction,
motor vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.  


E.I. DUPONT: Iowa Court to Rule on Teflon Suits’ Status in 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on whether several lawsuits filed against E.I. DuPont De Nemours &
Co. in Iowa federal court over the company's cookware with Teflon non-stick
can proceed as class actions is expected in 2008.

As of June 30, 2007, 23 intrastate class actions have been filed on behalf of
consumers who have purchased cookware with Teflon non-stick coating in
federal district courts against the company.

The actions were filed on behalf of consumers in Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.  

Two of the 23 actions were filed in California.  By order of the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, all of these actions have been combined
for coordinated and consolidated pre-trial proceedings in federal district
court for the Southern District of Iowa.

The actions allege that DuPont violated state laws by engaging in deceptive
and unfair trade practices by failing "to disclose to consumers that products
containing Teflon were or are potentially harmful to consumers" and that
DuPont has liability based on state law theories of negligence and strict
liability.

The actions allege that Teflon contained or released harmful and dangerous
substances; including a chemical (PFOA) alleged to have been determined to
be "likely" to cause cancer in humans.

The actions seek unspecified monetary damages for consumers who purchased
cooking products containing Teflon, as well as the creation of funds for
medical monitoring and independent scientific research, attorneys' fees and
other relief.

Under the court’s latest case management order, a ruling on whether these
cases can proceed as class actions is expected in 2008.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com-- operates and  
manufactures a range of products for distribution and sale to many different
markets, including the transportation, safety and protection, construction,
motor vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.  


ELLSWORTH COOPERATIVE: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Wis.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ellsworth Cooperative Creamery is facing a class action filed July 18, 2007
in Madison, Wisconsin, Federal Court, CourtHouse News Service.

The suit “Hoyt, Denton v. Ellsworth Cooperative Creamery,” alleges Labor Code
violations.


ENRON CORP: UC Seeks Inputs on How to Return $7.2B to Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
The University of California, the lead plaintiff in the class action against
the Enron Corp. executives, accountants, attorneys and financial institutions
that orchestrated the Enron fraud, announced on July 27 a proposed allocation
plan to distribute the largest settlement amount ever recovered in a
securities class action.

UC has obtained more than $7.2 billion from several defendants in settlements
on behalf of Enron investors. After adjustments for accrued interest, court-
approved fees and expenses, the net settlement amount will be distributed to
eligible investors who submit valid claims.

UC is now seeking public input on the proposed “plan of allocation” to
calculate the claims of Enron class members and distribute the recovered
funds to eligible investors who purchased Enron securities between September
9, 1997, and December 2, 2001. It is estimated that about 1.5 million Enron
stock and bond purchasers comprise the class, whose losses from the fraud
total more than $40 billion.

A copy of the complete plan is available online at
http://www.enronfraud.com/allocationplan.html.Public comments about the plan  
may be submitted no later than Monday, Aug. 20, by mail or at
http://www.enronfraud.com/allocationplan.html.  

After reviewing the public’s comments, the University will request permission
from Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, to mail a notice to the Enron class
members to seek their formal input about the proposed plan.  The actual
distribution of funds will be made after Judge Harmon approves the plan of
allocation, after any appeals from that ruling are resolved, and after the
claims administrator has received and reviewed the supporting data from class
members about their claims.  It is difficult to predict when all of those
events will occur, but the likely earliest date is late 2008.

                      Remaining Defendants

As the allocation plan process moves forward, there are also still several
remaining defendants in the Enron case, including;

     * Barclays Bank,
     * Credit Suisse First Boston, and Merrill Lynch,

as well as several former Enron officers, including:

     * chief executive Jeff Skilling, and
     * chief accounting officer Richard Causey.

Also, the cases against:

     * Royal Bank of Canada,
     * Royal Bank of Scotland, and
     * Toronto Dominion Bank

have not been set for trial and are stayed pending the appeal of the split
decision by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that
reversed the District Court's class certification order.  A successful appeal
will allow the plaintiffs to continue their efforts to collect additional
recoveries from these remaining defendants.

“While we will continue to make every effort to ensure that all of the
defendants are held accountable for their fraudulent actions, we also want to
make sure that victimized investors receive their settlements as
expeditiously and fairly as possible,” said Charles Robinson, the
University’s general counsel.

                          Settlements

To date, the settlements for Enron investors include:

    $2.4 billion        Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
    $2.2 billion        JPMorganChase,
    $2 billion          Citigroup,
  $222.5 million        Lehman Brothers,  
   $69 million          Bank of America,
  $168 million          Enron’s outside directors,
   $72.5 million        Arthur Andersen LLP,
   $33 million          Andersen Worldwide, and
   $13.5 million        Kirkland & Ellis LLP

UC has also secured a distribution of $51 million for investors through the
bankruptcy proceeding for the LJM2 partnership involved in the Enron
scheme.   

These prior settlements –- those set for distribution in the allocation plan -
– are unaffected by the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.

UC has appealed the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which
will hear a related case, “Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-
Atlanta, Inc., Case No. 06-43,” this fall that will likely determine if the
case against the remaining Enron defendants will proceed.  

UC filed a friend of the court brief supporting the plaintiffs in the
Stoneridge case, as did a majority of state Attorneys General and a
bipartisan group of former chairmen and commissioners of the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  A majority of the current SEC board, including Chairman
Christopher Cox, also voted in favor of filing a brief on behalf of the
plaintiffs.

In February 2002, UC was named lead plaintiff in the Enron shareholders’
class action suit initially filed against top executives of Enron Corp. and
its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP. The university filed a consolidated
complaint in April 2002 and an amended complaint in May 2003, which added
nine banks and two law firms as defendants. The lead plaintiff and the class
of Enron investors are represented by the law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.

In calculating the net settlement amount available for allocation, the lead
counsel may request a fee award of up to 10 percent of the settlement after
deduction of costs and expenses. Any fee request will be subject to court
approval.  Previous expense reimbursements granted by the court to date total
about $36 million.  The $7.2 billion already recovered for investors is
earning approximately $500,000 in interest every day, having already
increased the net settlement available for eligible class members by several
hundred million dollars.

UC’s proportional share of recovered investments, net of internal litigation
costs, will be returned to its pension and endowment funds, and would not be
available for adjustments to University operations such as student fees,
employee salaries, research facilities or other budgetary expenditures.

Allocation plan and public comment form:
http://www.enronfraud.com/allocationplan.html  

For more background on the Enron lawsuit:  
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/enron

Q&A for Enron investors:
http://www.enronfraud.com/enr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=qa.html     

For investors who have questions about the Enron class and distribution:
(800) 449-4900


FIELDS INFINITI: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fields Infiniti, Fields Volvo, and Fields Jeep-Eagle are facing a class
action filed in Chicago federal court on July 23, CourtHouse News Service.

Plaintiff Jorge Hernandez alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation.

The suit is “Hernandez v. M.E. Fields, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-04144,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Illinois under Wayne R.
Andersen.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Maureen Ann Bantz, Esq.
          Werman Law Offices, PC
          77 West Washington
          Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: mbantz@flsalaw.com

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Werman Law Office, P.C.
          77 West Washington
          Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312)419-1008
          Fax: 312-419-1025
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Units Still Face Lawsuits Over Tenant Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of First Advantage Corp. continue to face purported class
actions filed in California state court with regards to tenant reports.

The plaintiffs in both cases allege that the company's subsidiaries, directly
and through their agents, violated the California Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act and Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency Act (ICRA) by
failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy
when issuing tenant reports and to comply with ICRA.

The actions seek injunctive relief, an accounting, restitution, statutory
damages, interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

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.

First Advantage Corp. -- http://www.fadv.com/-- is an international provider  
of risk mitigation and business solutions.


FLORIDA: Judge Cooper Dismisses Lawsuit Over “Save Our Homes”
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leon County Circuit Judge John C. Cooper dismissed a lawsuit claiming the
state’s Save Our Homes system violates constitutional provisions, Tampa
Tribune reports.

Judge Cooper cited earlier rulings that upheld Florida's tax laws as
constitutional.  The rulings were in the case filed in 2000 by an Illinois
couple who were ineligible for a $25,000 exemption on their Florida home.

According to the report: “Judge Cooper stressed that his directive addresses
the existing Save Our Homes benefit and does not apply to a tweak of state
tax law passed in the spring legislative session or the proposed
constitutional amendment that will ask voters to allow replacing the
exemption with "superexemption.’”

The Save Our Homes amendment prevents county appraisers from raising the
value of a home for taxable purposes by more than 3 percent a year.  As a
result, tax bills for many longtime Florida homeowners were kept low while
property values have soared.  In contrast, non-homestead properties,
including Floridians' second homes, those owned by out-of-state residents,
and commercial property, are taxed at full market value.

A group of Alabama residents with second homes in Florida's Walton and
Okaloosa counties filed the purported class action against the state (Class
Action Reporter, March 1, 2007).  The suit was filed in Leon County Circuit
Court.  It asked that back taxes be refunded to thousands of Florida's non-
homesteaded homeowners.

Plaintiffs contend that the property-assessment cap passed by voters in 1992
unconstitutionally shifted "more than a reasonable and fair share of the
infrastructure demands of Florida" onto them.

One of the plaintiffs is Jerome K. Lanning, a retired real-estate lawyer from
Birmingham (Alabama).  Other plaintiffs in the suit included, Mr. Lanning's
wife, Joyce, Diana Slaughter, whose husband is a high-school classmate of
Jerome Lanning, and Marlow Reese of Montgomery (Alabama).

The suit asks the court to refund non-homesteaded homeowners for the taxes
they've been assessed since 2003 above what they would have paid with the
same Save Our Homes protection as full-time residents.

The complaint names as defendants Okaloosa and Walton County entities and
individuals, along with Jim Zingale, director of the state Department of
Revenue.

Representing the plaintiff is William Slaughter.  Representing the defendants
is Greg Stewart.


GENERAL MOTORS: Accused of Hiding Defects in Saturn L-Series
------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 6 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska claiming the company hid
defects in its Saturn L-Series, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Amy Faust claims General Motors and its Saturn division
refuse to recall the Saturn L-Series despite its defective timing chain and
oiler nozzle.

The lawsuit claims the timing chains in model years 2000-2002 do not have
enough chrome plating to withstand normal wear and tear.

Plaintiff claims General Motors and the national Highway Traffic Safety
Administration received “hundreds of complaints” about this as early as 2001,
but waited until 2003 to issue a technical service bulletin about it.

Ms. Faust says General Motors still refuses to tell customers about the
defect, and denies it when confronted, although it was secretly informing
Saturn dealers service departments that they should make repairs using the
redesigned timing chain and oiler nozzle, the complaint states.

As a result of the acts alleged, defendants have violated the law governing
implied warranties, unjust enrichment and consumer protection (as set forth
in the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 87-302
(a)(5) and Section 87-302 (a)(7) and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act,
Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 59-1601, et seq.).

Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and all persons who purchased a
Saturn L-Series Vehicle equipped with a Timing Chain and Oiler Nozzle whose
Timing Chain failed.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (i) Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by
         ascertaining benefits conferred by Plaintiff and
         members of the Class;

    (ii) Whether the Vehicles are defective because they are
         equipped with the defective Timing Chain and the
         defective Oiler Nozzle;

   (iii) Whether Defendants knew or should have known about the
         defects;

    (iv) Whether Defendants concealed from Plaintiff and members
         of the class the material fact that the Vehicles were
         defective;

     (v) Whether Defendants violated the Uniform Deceptive Trade
         Practices Act codified under Neb. Rev. Stat. Section
         87-302 (a)(5) and Section 87-302 (a)(7);

    (vi) Whether GM breached its implied warranty to the Class;

   (vii) Whether the Vehicles are merchantable as a result of
         the design defect; and

  (viii) Whether, as a result of Defendant’s misconduct,
         Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to damages,
         restitution, equitable relief or other relief, and the
         amount and nature of such relief.

Plaintiff wants the Court to:

     -- Certify this action as a class action under Rule 23;

     -- Order Defendants to pay Plaintiff and members of the
        Class an amount of actual damages to be determined at
        trial;

     -- Issue an injunction preventing Defendants from
        manufacturing and selling the defective Vehicles;

     -- Issue an order granting Plaintiff reasonable costs and
        attorney’s fees; and

     -- Grant such other relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is “Faust v. General Motors Corp., Case No. 8:07-cv-00298-LSC-FG3,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, under Judge
Laurie Smith Camp, with referral to Judge F. A. Gossett.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Pamela A. Car
          William L. Reinbrecht
          Car, Reinbrecht Law Firm
          8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Phone: (402) 391-8484
          Fax: (402) 391-1103
          E-mail: carlaw@uswest.net or pacwlr@qwest.net


HANNA ANDERSSON: Recalls Sandal Clogs with Strap that can Tear
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hanna Andersson Inc., of Portland, Oregon, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,900 units of
Birchwood sole sandal clogs.

The company said the leather ankle strap can tear or separate from the clog
sole, posing a fall hazard.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled sandals have a birchwood sole and leather straps. They come in
different colors (blue, pink and black) and were sold in European sizes 25-
41. The bottom of the wooden sole has rubber grips. The words “Hanna
Andersson” and “Made in Sweden” are printed on the sole.

These recalled Birchwood sole sandal clogs were manufactured by Skottens
Skor, of Vretstorp, Sweden and are being sold at Hanna Andersson stores
nationwide, its catalog, and Web site from January 2007 through July 2007 for
between $48 and $58.

Picture of the recalled Birchwood sole sandal clogs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07568.jpg

Customers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled Sandals and
contact Hanna Andersson for instructions on returning the item for a full
refund.

For additional information, call Hanna Andersson at (800) 222-0544 between 5
a.m. and 9 p.m. PT daily, e-mail: customerservice@hannaandersson.com, or it
the firm’s Web site: http://www.hannaandersson.com.


HERCULES INC: Court Mulls Appeal on “Agent Orange” Suits’ Nixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule on
plaintiffs’ appeal regarding the dismissal of several Agent Orange lawsuits,
which had named Hercules, Inc. as defendant.

The company was named as a defendant in approximately 28 lawsuits, including
two purported class actions, wherein plaintiffs allege that exposure to Agent
Orange caused them to sustain various personal injuries.  

On Feb. 9, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
issued a series of rulings granting several motions filed by defendants in
the two cases that had been remanded to the U.S. District Court by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court:

     -- “In re: “Agent Orange” Product Liability Litigation: Joe
        Isaacson, et al. v. Dow Chemical Company, et al.,” and

     -- “Daniel Raymond Stephenson, et al. v. Dow Chemical
        Company, et al. (MDL 381, CV 98-6383 (JBW), CV 99-3056
        (JBW))).”  

In relevant part, those rulings held that plaintiffs’ claims against the
defendant manufacturers of Agent Orange that were brought in the state courts
are properly removable to federal court under the “federal officer removal
statute” and that such claims are subject to dismissal by application of
the “government contractor defense.”  

The Court then dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, but stayed its decision to allow
plaintiffs to obtain additional discovery and to move for reconsideration of
the Court’s decision.  

A hearing on the motion for reconsideration was held on Feb. 28, 2005.  By
Orders dated March 2, 2005, the Court denied reconsideration, lifted the stay
of the earlier decision, and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims in all of the
lawsuits that were before the Court at that time.  

Plaintiffs have appealed those dismissals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.  Oral argument before the Court of Appeals took place on
June 18, 2007.  

No ruling has yet been issued, 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.

Hercules Inc. -- http://www.herc.com-- is a manufacturer and marketer of  
specialty chemicals and related services for a range of business, consumer
and industrial applications.  The company's principal products include
chemicals used by the paper industry, water-soluble polymers and specialty
resins. The primary markets served by Hercules include pulp and paper, paints
and adhesives, construction materials, food, pharmaceutical and personal
care, and industrial specialties, including oilfield, textiles and general
industrial.  


HERCULES INC: Ruling on Georgia Gulf Pollution Suit Deal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana has yet to
grant final approval to a $1,412,000 settlement of class actions filed
against Hercules, Inc. and other defendants over the contamination of potable
water supply at Georgia Gulf.

The company is one of several defendants that were sued by over 2,000
individuals in a series of lawsuits, including purported class actions that
were all brought in the 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville,
Louisiana, under the captions:

      -- "Jerry Oldham, et al. v. The State of Louisiana, et
         al., Civil Action No. 55,160";

      -- "John Capone, et al. v. The State of Louisiana, et al.,
         Civil Action No. 56,048C"; and

      -- "Georgenner Batton, et al. v. The State of Louisiana,
          et al., Civil Action No. 55,285."

The purported class members and plaintiffs, who claimed to have worked or
lived at or around the Georgia Gulf facility in Iberville Parish, Louisiana,
alleged injury and fear of future illness from the consumption of
contaminated water and, specifically, elevated levels of arsenic in that
water.  

As to the company, plaintiffs alleged that the company itself and as part of
a joint venture operated a nearby plant and, as part of those operations,
used a groundwater injection well to dispose of various wastes, and that
those wastes contaminated the potable water supply at Georgia Gulf.  

In August 2005, the company and several other defendants entered into an
agreement to settle these matters with the company agreeing to pay $1,412,000.

On May 4, 2006, the court granted settlement class certification.  This
settlement, which was agreed to by the company without any admission of
liability, is pending final approval by the court, 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.

Hercules Inc. -- http://www.herc.com-- is a manufacturer and marketer of  
specialty chemicals and related services for a range of business, consumer
and industrial applications.  The company's principal products include
chemicals used by the paper industry, water-soluble polymers and specialty
resins. The primary markets served by Hercules include pulp and paper, paints
and adhesives, construction materials, food, pharmaceutical and personal
care, and industrial specialties, including oilfield, textiles and general
industrial.  


HERCULES INC: Pa. Court Gives Final Approval to ERISA Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania gave final
approval to a settlement that resolved two purported class actions filed
against Hercules, Inc. that alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

In June 2004, a purported class action captioned filed by Charles Stepnowski
against:

     * Hercules Inc.;
     * The Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.;
     * The Hercules Inc. Finance Committee; and
     * Edward V. Carrington, Hercules’ Vice President Human  
       Resources

(Civil Action No. 04-cv-2296) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

The Stepnowski lawsuit sought the payment of benefits under the Pension Plan
of Hercules Incorporated, and alleged violations of ERISA.  

Under the Plan, eligible retirees of the Company may opt to receive a single
cash payment of 51% of the present value of their accrued benefit, with the
remaining 49% payable as a monthly annuity.  

In the Stepnowski lawsuit, it was alleged that the Company’s adoption in 2002
of a new interest rate assumption used to determine the 51% cash payment
constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of the anti-cutback
requirements of ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code and the terms of the Plan,
and that its communications to employees concerning the new interest rate
assumption constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.  

The Stepnowski lawsuit sought, among other things, the payment of additional
benefits under ERISA (as well as costs and attorneys fees), and to compel the
Company to use an interest rate assumption that is more favorable to eligible
retirees.  

In December 2005, a virtually identical purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the same Court in a matter captioned, “Samuel J. Webster, et al. v.
Hercules, Inc.; The Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.; The Hercules Inc. Finance
Committee; and Edward V. Carrington, Hercules’ Vice President Human
Resources, Civil Action No. 05-6404.”  

In January 2006, the Court consolidated the Stepnowski and Webster lawsuits
for discovery and trial.  

In March 2006, the Court certified the Webster action as a class action.  

By Order dated April 20, 2006, the Court entered partial summary judgment in
favor of plaintiffs, holding that while the interest rate change did not
violate the anti-cutback provisions of ERISA, such change did violate
provisions of the Plan, and ordered the Company to recalculate the lump sum
pension benefit owed to class members by using the prior interest rate
assumption to calculate benefits accrued through Dec. 31, 2001, and the new
interest rate (30-Year Treasury Bond) for all benefits accrued after Dec. 31,
2001.  

That Order also required the Company to make certain payments to Mr.
Stepnowski and Mr. Webster, with such payments representing the additional
lump sum benefit payable as a result of the adjusted lump sum calculation
described in the preceding sentence, plus interest.  

On Oct. 4, 2006, the parties entered into a settlement in principle to
resolve both the Stepnowski lawsuit and Webster class actions.  

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Dec. 4, 2006.  A
hearing for final approval of the settlement was held on May 10, 2007, at
which time the Court gave its final nod to the deal, 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.

Hercules Inc. -- http://www.herc.com-- is a manufacturer and marketer of  
specialty chemicals and related services for a range of business, consumer
and industrial applications.  The company's principal products include
chemicals used by the paper industry, water-soluble polymers and specialty
resins. The primary markets served by Hercules include pulp and paper, paints
and adhesives, construction materials, food, pharmaceutical and personal
care, and industrial specialties, including oilfield, textiles and general
industrial.  


HERCULES INC: 2nd Circuit Hears Appeal on Dioxin Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule on
plaintiffs’ appeal regarding the dismissal the matter, “The Vietnam
Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA), et al. v. The Dow
Chemical Company, et al., Civil Action No. 04 CV 0400 (JBW)),” which had
named Hercules, Inc. as a defendant.

In January 2004, the Company was named in the purported class action, which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by
The Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin and several
individuals who claim to represent between two and four million Vietnamese
who allege that Agent Orange used by the U.S. during the Vietnam War caused
them or their families to sustain personal injuries.  

The suit alleges violations of international law and war crimes, as well as
violations of the common law for products liability, negligence and
international torts.  

The defendants moved to dismiss this case on several grounds, including
failure to state a claim under the Alien Tort Claims Statute, lack of
jurisdiction and justiciability, the bar of the statute of limitations,
failure to state claims for violations of international law, and
the “government contractor defense.”  

A hearing on these motions was held on Feb. 28, 2005.   By order dated March
10, 2005, the Court dismissed this lawsuit.  

Plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  Oral argument before the Court of Appeals took place on June
18, 2007.  

No ruling has yet been issued, 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.

Hercules Inc. -- http://www.herc.com-- is a manufacturer and marketer of  
specialty chemicals and related services for a range of business, consumer
and industrial applications.  The company's principal products include
chemicals used by the paper industry, water-soluble polymers and specialty
resins. The primary markets served by Hercules include pulp and paper, paints
and adhesives, construction materials, food, pharmaceutical and personal
care, and industrial specialties, including oilfield, textiles and general
industrial.  


MMS MORTGAGE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------
MMS Mortgage Services, Ltd. is facing a class action filed in Chicago federal
court on July 12, 2007, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiff Carrie Jillson alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation.

The suit is “Jillson v. MMS Mortgage Services, Ltd., Case No. 1:07-cv-03924,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge Ruben Castillo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Maureen Ann Bantz, Esq.
          Werman Law Offices, PC
          77 W. Washington
          Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: mbantz@flsalaw.com

          -- and –

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Werman Law Office, P.C.
          77 West Washington
          Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312)419-1008
          Fax: 312-419-1025
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com


MODINE MANUFACTURING: Continues to Face Pa. Personal Injury Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Modine Manufacturing Co., along with Rohm & Haas Co., Morton International,
and Huntsman Corp., remains a defendant in the lawsuit, “Gates, et al. v.
Rohm and Haas Co., et al., Case No. 06-1743,” pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The case involves allegations of personal injury from exposure to solvents
that were allegedly released to groundwater and air for an undetermined
period of time.  

It seeks damages for medical monitoring and property value diminution for a
putative class of residents of a community that are allegedly at risk for
personal injuries as a result of exposure to this same allegedly contaminated
groundwater and air.  

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.

The suit is “Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company, et al., Case No. 06-
1743,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania Gene E.K. Pratter.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq.
         Layser & Freiwald PC
         1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Phone: 215-875-8000
         E-mail: ajf@layserfreiwald.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Albert G. Bixler, Esq.
         Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
         1515 Market Street, 9th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Phone: 215-851-8412
         E-mail: abixler@eckertseamans.com


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Appeals Class Certification in Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Co., a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., is appealing a
certification of a class in a lawsuit filed against it, which alleges that
the company, damaged plaintiffs as a result of its services.

The suit being appealed is “Ernest W. Warren and Dolores G. Warren, et al. v.
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., et al.”  The case originates in Georgia.

The Superior Court of Cobb County, Marietta, Georgia, ruled in August 2006,
certifying the class action against Orkin.  The company has appealed this
ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals.  

Rollins, Inc. 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.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com-- a subsidiary of Rollins, provides  
insect, rodent, and termite control services to more than 1.7 million
commercial and residential customers in the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico,
and Panama.  The company, which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch
offices throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Bid for Narrower Class in “Butland” Allowed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals allowed plaintiffs in the purported
class action, “Mark and Christine Butland et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Co.,
Inc., et al.,” to file for a certification of a narrower class in the case.

The company, a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., was a named as defendant in the
case, which was filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Tampa,
Florida on March 1999.  The suit seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The court ruled in early April 2002, certifying the class action against
Orkin.  Orkin appealed this ruling to the Florida 2nd District Court of
Appeals, which remanded the case back to the trial court for further findings.

In December 2004, the court issued a new ruling certifying the class action.  
Orkin appealed this new ruling to the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals.  

In June 2006, the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals issued a ruling
denying certification of the class.  

Following the plaintiffs' motion for rehearing, the court upheld its prior
decision that class certification was improper, but also ruled that the
plaintiffs can return to the trial court and attempt to certify a narrower
class.

Rollins, Inc. 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.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com-- a subsidiary of Rollins, provides  
insect, rodent, and termite control services to more than 1.7 million
commercial and residential customers in the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico,
and Panama.  The company, which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch
offices throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Ill. Court Sends ERISA Breach Suit to Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted a
motion by Principal Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Principal Financial
Group, Inc., to transfer a purported class action filed against it to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

A trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement Savings Plan filed the purported
class action over allegations that the company received secret kickbacks from
mutual funds.

The putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois on Nov. 8, 2006.  It alleges, among other
things, that Principal Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties while
performing services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately
disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life
receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are included in its pre-
packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed to use the revenue to defray the
expenses of the services provided to the plans.  

Plaintiff further alleges that these acts constitute prohibited transactions
under Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all retirement plans to which Principal
Life was a service provider and for which Principal Life received and
retained "revenue sharing" fees from mutual funds.  Plaintiff seeks
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief.

Principal Life’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Southern District of Iowa
was granted and Principal Life is aggressively defending the lawsuit,
according to the Principal Financial’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 “Ruppert v. Principal Life Insurance Company, Case No. 4:07-cv-
00344-HDV-TJS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa under Judge Harold D. Vietor with referral to Judge Thomas J. Shields.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Klint L. Bruno, Esq.
         Korein Tillery
         209 South LaSalle, Suite 701
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-759-7510
         E-mail: kbruno@koreintillery.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Joel S. Feldman, Esq.
         Sidley, Austin et al.
         10 South Dearborn Street, Bank One Plaza
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Pone: 312-853-7000
         Fax: 312-853-7036
         E-mail: jfeldman@sidley.com


PUBLIC SERVICE: Seeks Dismissal of Transition Bond Charge Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Electric & Gas Co. (PSE&G) is seeking the dismissal of an
amended complaint in a purported class action filed against it in New Jersey.

On April 23, 2007, PSE&G and PSE&G Transition Funding LLC were served with a
copy of a purported class-action complaint challenging the constitutional
validity of certain provisions of New Jersey’s Competition Act, seeking
injunctive relief against continued collection from PSE&G’s electric
customers of the transition bond charge (TBC) of PSE&G Transition Funding, as
well as recovery of TBC amounts previously collected.

Notice of the filing of the Complaint was also provided to New Jersey’s
Attorney General.  Under New Jersey law, the Competition Act, enacted in
1999, is presumed constitutional.

On July 9, 2007, the same plaintiff filed an amended complaint to also seek
injunctive relief from continued collection of related taxes as well as
recovery of such taxes previously collected and also filed a petition with
the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities requesting review and adjustment to
PSE&G’s recovery of the same charges.  

PSE&G and Transition Funding filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
or in the alternative for summary judgment, on July 30, 2007.

Public Service Electric and Gas Co. -- http://www.pseg.com/-- is an  
operating public utility company engaged principally in the transmission and
distribution of electric energy and gas in New Jersey.  


RYERSON INC: Faces Suits in Ill. Over Rhombus Merger Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryerson, Inc., the members of its board of directors, Rhombus Holding Corp.
and Rhombus Merger Corp. have been named as defendants in purported class
actions filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Sidney A. Brumitt and Kathleen B. Leffew filed one of the suits, which
generally alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the individual directors in
connection with the acquisition contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of July 24, 2007, by and among the Company, Rhombus Holding
Corp. and Rhombus Merger Corp., and aiding and abetting liability on the part
of the Company, Rhombus Holding Corp., and Rhombus Merger Corp.

Plaintiffs seek certain equitable relief, including enjoining the
acquisition, attorney’s fees and other fees and costs.

The Company and the members of the Board of Directors have also been named as
defendants in another purported class action brought by L.A. Murphy in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

In that suit, plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty by defendants in
connection with the transaction contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of July 24, 2007, by and among the Company, Rhombus Holding
Corporation and Rhombus Merger Corporation.

Plaintiff also seeks certain equitable relief, including attorney’s fees and
other fees.

Ryerson Inc. -- http://www.ryerson.com/-- conducts its materials  
distribution operations in the U.S. through its operating subsidiary Joseph
T. Ryerson & Son, Inc.  The Company is organized into business units along
product lines.


SPRINGS WINDOW: Recalls Window Blinds to Repair Pull Cord
---------------------------------------------------------
Springs Window Fashions LLC, of Middleton, Wisconsin, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 140,000 Basic
Blindz Window Blinds.

The company said the window blinds have a pull cord that is looped, posing a
strangulation hazard to young children.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves two inch Natural Faux Wood Plantation Blinds sold under
the Basic Blindz brand. The blinds have a yellow steel top rail, also called
the head rail, a cord tilter on the left side (to tilt the slats open or
closed), and a double pull cord that meets at a cord connector and ends in a
single cord on the right side (to raise and lower the blinds).

Stickers inside the top rail state: “Springs Window Fashion LLC, Middleton,
WI 53562,” “Made in China,” and “Manufacturing Date Code.” Blinds with
manufacturing date codes JX, JY, JZ, KO, KP, KQ, KR, KS, and KT are included
in the recall.

The following item numbers are located on the window blind’s packaging.

Item # (SWF)    Item #              Description
                (Lowe’s)

75-4270-27      251072    Basic Blindz 23x64 Faux Wood - Natural
75-4271-27      251075    Basic Blindz 27x64 Faux Wood - Natural
75-4272-27      251078    Basic Blindz 29x64 Faux Wood - Natural
75-4273-27      251080    Basic Blindz 30x64 Faux Wood - Natural
75-4274-27      251083    Basic Blindz 31x64 Faux Wood - Natural
75-4275-27      251085    Basic Blindz 32x64 Faux Wood - Natural
75-4276-27      251088    Basic Blindz 34x64 Faux Wood - Natural
75-4277-27      251090    Basic Blindz 35x64 Faux Wood - Natural
75-4278-27      251093    Basic Blindz 36x64 Faux Wood - Natural
75-4290-27      253063    Basic Blindz 34x72 Faux Wood - Natural
75-4291-27      253064    Basic Blindz 35x72 Faux Wood - Natural

These recalled Basic Blindz window blinds were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Lowe’s stores from March 2007 through July 2007 for between $24
and $40.

Pictures of recalled Basic Blindz window blinds
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07262a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07262b.jpg

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled window blinds and
contact Springs Window Fashions to receive a free retrofit kit.

For additional information, contact Springs Window Fashions toll-free at
(866) 305-8652 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
the company’s Web site: http://www.springswindowfashions.com.


STURDIVENT FOODS: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sturdivent Foods, Inc. is facing a class action filed in U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida on July 24, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Plaintiff Dominick Pirritino alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation.

The suit is “Pirritino v. Sturdivent Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00461-MMH-DNF,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida under Judge Marcia Morales Howard, with referral to Judge Douglas N.
Frazier.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Kelly Allyssha Amritt, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          7450 Griffin Rd
          Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Phone: 954/318-0268
          Fax: 954/333-3515
          E-mail: kamritt@forthepeople.com


TRANE: Recalls Air Filtration Systems Posing Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Trane, of Tyler, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 135,000 stand-alone CleanEffects and AccuClean
air filtration systems.

The company said the electrical arcing inside the collection cells can cause
the collection cell material to overheat or ignite, posing a fire hazard.

Trane has received twelve reports of overheating and property damage limited
to HVAC equipment. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves whole-house air filtration units that were installed with
consumers’ air handlers or furnaces. They were sold as the Trane CleanEffects
and the American Standard AccuClean systems. The recall involves air
filtration systems with serial numbers prior to 7222***** and includes:

     CleanEffects models

     TFD145ALFR000A TFD14DALFR000A TFD215ALAH000A
     TFD175ALFR000A TFD17DALFR000A TFD235ALAH000A
     TFD210ALFR000A TFD21DALFR000A TFD260ALAH000A
     TFD245ALFR000A TFD24DALFR000A

     AccuClean models

     AFD145ALFR000A AFD14DALFR000A AFD215ALAH000A
     AFD175ALFR000A AFD17DALFR000A AFD235ALAH000A
     AFD210ALFR000A AFD21DALFR000A AFD260ALAH000A
     AFD245ALFR000A

The serial and model numbers are located on the inside of the door of the air
cleaning units. Models with other serial numbers; models installed as an
integrated part of the air handler or furnace; and models with the “Perfect
Fit” upgrade are not subject to this recall.

These recalled air filtration systems were manufactured in the United States
and are being sold at Trane and American Standard independent dealers
nationwide from December 2005 through June 2007 for about $1,400 (installed).

Pictures of recalled air filtration systems:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07567a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07567b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07567c.jpg

Consumers with an air handler unit are advised to stop using the recalled
systems immediately. To turn off the system, push and hold the round power
button on the front of the air cleaner door for about three seconds until the
LED panel illuminates. Release the power button. The LED panel will remain
lit for about 15 seconds and then go out. Affected consumers will be notified
directly about receiving a free replacement collection cell.

For more information, contact Trane toll-free at (888) 556-0125 between 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.trane.com
(for CleanEffects owners) or http://www.americanstandardair.com(for  
AccuClean owners).

Firm’s Media Contact: Jerianne Thomas, 903-581-3325


TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Sued for Denying Insureds’ Injury Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Indemnity Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 3
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland accusing it of
routinely denying valid personal injury claims.

Named plaintiff Helane Bulmash seeks recovery of compensatory damages,
punitive damages, and declaratory and other relief arising from defendant's
breaches of insurance contracts, violations of Md. Code Ann., Insurance
Section 19-508, and otherwise wrongful refusal to honor its contractual
obligations arising under certain policies of automobile insurance issued by
that defendant.

Under Md. Code Ann., Insurance Section 19-505, each insurer that issues,
sells or delivers a motor vehicle liability insurance policy in Maryland must
provide coverage for certain medical, hospital and disability benefits in
specified minimum amounts.

This coverage, widely known as Personal Injury Protection, includes payment
of up to $2,500 for "all reasonable and necessary expenses that arise from a
motor vehicle accident and that are incurred within 3 years after the
accident for necessary prosthetic devices and ambulance, dental, funeral,
hospital, medical, professional nursing, surgical, and x-ray services," along
with payment of "85% of income lost
. . . within 3 years after, and resulting from, a motor vehicle
accident . . . ."

Further, under Md. Code Ann., Insurance Section 19-508, insurers must make
payment of PIP benefits "periodically as claims for the benefits arise and
within 30 days after the insurer receives satisfactory proof of claim."

Section 19-508 further provides, under subdivision (c), that overdue payments
of PIP benefits (that is, payments not made within the prescribed thirty-day
period) "shall bear simple interest at the rate of 1.5% per month."

According to the complaint, Travelers routinely fails to pay covered PIP
claims, including claims for medical expenses and lost income, within the
thirty-day statutory period under Md. Code Ann., Insurance Section 19-508.

In addition to violating the statutory requirement of payment for covered PIP
claims within thirty days, Travelers allegedly routinely ignores its
obligation to pay the statutory interest owed in such cases. Travelers thus
owes to the plaintiff Ms. Bulmash, and all members of the proposed class,
interest under Md. Code Ann., Insurance Section 19-508(c).

This action is brought on behalf of all of Travelers' Maryland insureds who,
during the period August 6, 2004 to the present, submitted covered claims for
medical expenses, lost earnings or other benefits under PIP coverages issued
as part of Travelers' insurance contracts; but whose claims, though not
disputed by Travelers at the time, were not paid by Travelers at any time
prior to the expiration of the thirty-day period under Md. Code Ann.,
Insurance Section 19-508(c).

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) Whether Travelers engages in the delay of payment for
         covered PIP benefits in Maryland as a matter of regular
         business practice;

     (b) Whether Travelers engages in the practices complained
         of as a matter of regular business practice;

     (c) Whether Travelers owes statutory interest to the
         proposed class members under Md. Code Ann., Insurance
         Section 19-508(c);

     (d) Whether Travelers' routine and systematic violations of
         Md. Code Ann., Insurance Sections 19-505 and 19-508
         constitute a fraud on the public at large;

     (e) Whether Travelers' routine and systematic violations of
         Md. Code Ann., Insurance Sections 19-505 and 19-508
         constitute "actual malice" under Maryland law;

     (f) Whether the proposed class is entitled to compensatory
         damages, and if so, the amount of such damages; and

     (g) Whether the proposed class is entitled to punitive
         damages, and if so, the amount of such damages.

Plaintiff, requests that this Court enter judgment as follows:

      -- Entering an Order certifying the plaintiff class,
         appointing plaintiff Helane Bulmash as representative
         of that class, and appointing Ms. Bulmash's counsel to
         represent that class, all pursuant to Federal Rule of
         Civil Procedure 23;

      -- Declaring the parties' rights, duties, status or other
         legal relations under the subject insurance contracts;

      -- Awarding to plaintiff Helane Bulmash and all others
         similarly situated compensatory damages, including
         incidental and consequential damages, for Travelers'
         breaches of its insurance contracts;

      -- Awarding to plaintiff Helane Bulmash and all others
         similarly situated compensatory and punitive damages
         for Travelers' violations of Md. Code Ann., Insurance
         Section 19-508;

      -- Awarding to plaintiff Helane Bulmash and all others
         similarly situated all costs of this action; and

      -- Awarding such other and further relief as this Court
         deems just and appropriate.

The suit is “Bulmash v. The Travelers Indemnity Co., Case No. 1:07-cv-02075-
JFM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, under
Judge J. Frederick Motz.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Lawrence A. Melfa
          Butler Melfa and Taylor PA
          401 Allegheny Ave
          Towson, MD 21204
          Phone: 14103370900
          Fax: 14103370916
          E-mail: hbm.linda@gtb.net


UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet to rule on a
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action against United
Rentals, Inc.

Initially, three purported class actions were filed against the company.  
Plaintiff in each of the suits sought to sue on behalf of a purported class
comprised of purchasers of the company's securities from Oct. 23, 2003 to
Aug. 30, 2004.

The lawsuits initially named as the defendants the company, its chairman,
vice chairman, and chief executive officer, its former president and chief
financial officer, and its former corporate controller.  

These initial complaints alleged, among other things, that certain of the
company's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other public
statements contained false and misleading statements, which resulted in
damages to the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased the company's securities.  

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each action asserted claims:

      -- against all defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule  
         10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and  

      -- against one or more of the individual defendants under  
         Section 20(a) of such Act.  

The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses.  
On Feb. 1, 2005, the court entered an order consolidating the three
actions.   

On Nov. 8, 2005, the court appointed City of Pontiac Policeman's and
Fireman's Retirement System as lead plaintiff for the purported class.  

The consolidated action is now entitled, "In re United Rentals, Inc.
Securities Litigation."  The parties agreed upon, and the court subsequently
approved, a schedule for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in
this action and the briefing of any motions to dismiss directed to the
operative complaint in the action.  

On June 5, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which:

     -- adds allegations relating to, among other things, the
        conclusions of the Special Committee and to other
        matters disclosed in the 2005 Form 10-K;

     -- amends the purported class period to include purchasers
        of the company's securities from Feb. 28, 2001 to Aug.
        30, 2004; and

     -- names as an additional defendant the company's first
        chief financial officer.

In Sept. 2006, the company and certain of the individual defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in this action.  Briefing with
respect to these motions is now complete.

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.

The suit is "In re United Rentals, Inc. Securities Litigation,  
Case NO. 04-CV-1615," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Erin Green Comite, Esq.
         Scott & Scott
         108 Norwich Ave., P.O. Box 192
         Colchester, CT 06415
         Phone: 860-537-5537
         Fax: 869-537-4432
         E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com

              - and -

         Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
         Schatz & Nobel
         One Corporate Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-493-6292
         Fax: 860-493-6290
         E-mail: nancy@snlaw.net

Representing the defendants are:

         David M. Bizar, Esq.
         Day, Berry & Howard
         Hartford, CT 06103-3499
         Phone: 860-275-0648
         Fax: 860-275-0343
         E-mail: dmbizar@dbh.com

              - and -

         Alan R. Friedman, Esq.
         Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel
         1177 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-715-9100
         E-mail: afriedman@kramerlevin.com


VIRGINIA: Suit Against Charlottesville Police Seeks Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
A July 20 hearing was held on a motion to certify a class in a suit filed by
a man approached by Charlottesville city police to submit to a cheek-swab DNA
test in 2003 and 2004 in the search for a serial rapist, Meg Mcevoy of C-
Ville Weekly reports.

The suit was filed on Dec. 16, 2005 by Larry Monroe against the City of
Charlottesville, city police Chief Tim Longo and detective James Mooney.  His
suit claims the swabs violated the constitutional rights of nearly 190 men.

Attorneys for Mr. Monroe plan to seek $15,000 for each plaintiff should the
case be certified as a class action.

The suit alleges two violations of constitutional rights:  

     (1) the policy of asking Mr. Monroe and other black men to  
         provide their DNA for tests violates their  
         constitutional right to equal protection because the  
         same policy wasn't applied to all white men after  
         unsolved sexual assaults made by white assailants; and  

     (2) the policy constituted unreasonable seizures.  

The suit contends that all government classifications based on race are
subject to strict judicial scrutiny, including decisions regarding whom to
speak with when police are investigating a crime.  Furthermore, the suit
noted that while race may be a factor in such decisions, it might not be the
only factor.

Attorneys for the city contend in case documents that the swabs weren't
haphazard.  It was done based on certain criteria.  The police department
claims they swabbed black males because that's how the victims described the
rapist.

The defense had challenged Mr. Monroe’s representation of the class.  Their
attorneys stated: ...’Mr. Monroe has demonstrated...a complete lack of
knowledge and understanding concerning the action."

The suit is "Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, Virginia et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00074-nkm," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia under Judge Norman K. Moon with referral to Judge B.
Waugh Crigler.  

Representing the plaintiff are:  

           Neal L. Walters, Esq.
           Scott & Kroner, PC
           P.O. BOX 2737,  
           Charlottesville, VA 22902-2737
           Phone: 434-296-2161  
           Fax: 434-293-2073
           E-mail: nwalters@scottkroner.com

           -- and --

          Deborah Chasen Wyatt, Esq.
          Wyatt & Armstrong, 300 Court  
          Square, Charlottesville, VA 22902-5160
          Phone: 434-296-4130
          Fax: 297-3083
          E-mail: DWESQ@aol.com  

Representing the defendants is:

          Richard Hustis Milnor, Esq.
          Taylor Zunka Milnor & Carter, Ltd.
          414 Park Street, Charlottesville  
          VA 22902
          Phone: 434-977-0191
          Fax: 434-977-0198
          E-mail: rmilnor@cstone.net
  

                     New Securities Fraud Cases


21ST CENTURY: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida a class action on behalf
of all common stock purchasers of 21st Century Holding Company (Nasdaq: TCHC)
from October 3, 2006 to May 3, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges 21st Century and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (a) that the Company's previously reported expenses and
         reserve levels were maintained at inadequate levels;

     (b) that the Company had adopted a program in the third
         quarter of 2006 which would significantly adjust such
         inadequate levels of expenses and reserves upward to
         reflect the fact that they were previously maintained
         at inadequate levels;

     (c) that these upward adjustments were scheduled to take
         place in the first quarter of 2007, which would
         severely impact the Company's financials and earnings
         for the quarter;

     (d) that going forward, the Company would be forced to
         accrue greater levels of reserves and expenses in order
         to compensate for the previously maintained inadequate
         levels;

     (e) that the Company's financial guidance for 2007 was
         based upon such previously maintained inadequate
         expense and reserve levels, and would have to be
         significantly revised once the proper adjustment levels
         were determined;

     (f) that the Company's financial guidance for 2007 failed
         to reflect the full cost of reinsurance;

     (g) that pending legislation would have a severe negative
         impact on the Company's earnings, revenues, and profits
         going forward;

     (h) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls;

     (i) that the Company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading at all relevant times; and

     (j) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being, earnings,
         and future prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis
         when made.

On May 3, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it reported first quarter
2007 earnings of $0.11 per share, compared with $0.88 per share for first
quarter 2006. Additionally, the Company reported that prepaid insurance
premiums had increased from $8,671,572 in the first quarter of 2006 to
$16,972,087 in the first quarter of 2007, and that loss and loss adjustment
expenses had increased from $7,568,834 in the first quarter of 2006 to
$14,102,655 in the first quarter of 2007. Finally, the Company significantly
reduced its 2007 guidance from $4.50 per share to $2.00 to $2.50 per share.

On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $8.94 per share, or over 44
percent, to close on May 4, 2007 at $11.05 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 25, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

21st Century is an insurance holding company, which, through its subsidiaries
and its contractual relationships with its independent agents and general
agents, controls substantially all aspects of the insurance underwriting,
distribution and claims process.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


AMERICAN HOME: Shalov Stone Bonner Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP has filed a securities fraud
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (NYSE: AHM) in the period between
July 26, 2006 and July 27, 2007, inclusive.

The lawsuit names as defendants Michael Strauss and Stephen A. Hozie,
respectively the Company's CEO and CFO during the Class Period.

According to the complaint, the defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that
misrepresented and failed to disclose, among other things, that:

          -- rising levels of loan delinquencies were depressing
             the Company's earnings;

          -- margins and profits were decreasing due to falling
             prices caused by increasing difficulties with
             selling loans; and

          -- due to the foregoing, the Company was overstating
             its financial results by failing to write down the
             value of many of the loans in its portfolio that
             had declined substantially in value.

For additional information about the lawsuit, contact:

          Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, New York 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          E-mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com

GPC BIOTECH: Shalov Stone Bonner Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP has filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York a securities fraud class
action against GPC Biotech AG and certain of its executive officers, on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GPC
securities between December 5, 2005, and July 24, 2007, inclusive.

According to the complaint, GPC and the other defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, the defendants made a series of materially false and
misleading misrepresentations and omissions about the Company's operations,
financial condition, and business prospects, including those concerning the
prospects for FDA approval of GPC's leading drug candidate, Satraplatin (a
treatment for advanced prostate cancer), thereby artificially inflating the
price of the Company's securities during the Class Period.

For additional information about the lawsuit, contact:

          Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, New York 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          E-mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com


GREENFIELD ONLINE: Schiffrin Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all
common stock purchasers of Greenfield Online, Inc. from February 9, 2005 to
September 30, 2005, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Greenfield Online and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Greenfield
Online is an independent collector of consumer opinions, which they provide
to the global marketing research industry.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that internal performance expectations were not being
         met;

     (2) that the Company's revenues and earnings would be
         significantly impacted in subsequent financial
         quarters;

     (3) that the highly touted Ciao AG acquisition was
         unsuccessful in its implementation and integration, and
         that Ciao AG was not performing as previously expected;

     (4) that the Company's financial statements overvalued the
         Ciao AG acquisition, and should have been written down
         to reflect Ciao AG's actual value;

     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being, earnings,
         and future prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis
         when made.

On August 9, 2005, after the market had closed, the Company announced that it
was revising its 2005 revenue guidance downward to $95 to $99 million, down
from the $102 to $108 million revenue guidance previously provided to
investors. The Company announced that its bid volume in the second quarter
was essentially flat in the U.S., and that its revised outlook also reflected
an estimated $1.5 million negative adjustment related to the Company's
estimates for foreign currency translation. On this news, shares of the
Company's stock declined $3.31 per share, or over 27% percent, to close on
August 10, 2005 at $8.94 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on September 29, 2005, the Company announced preliminary its Third
Quarter 2005 results which revealed that the Company expected to report
quarterly revenue of $22 to $23 million, which was significantly below the
quarterly revenue guidance previously provided of $26 to $27 million.
Additionally, the Company reported that it had replaced its President and
Chief Executive Officer, and had elected new Directors to the Company's
Board. On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined an additional
$1.53 per share, or almost 22 percent, to close on September 30, 2005 at
$5.44 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 24, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


TXU CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Tex. Lawsuit Over $45B LBO
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons
who held the common stock of TXU Corp. at the close of business on July 19,
2007.

The complaint alleges violations under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(a), and the rules and regulations
of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated thereunder, in
connection with the solicitation of proxies in favor of a proposed management-
led $45 billion leveraged buy-out of TXU to take it private at $69.25 cash
per share to be accomplished by means of a proposed merger.  Named defendants
are TXU and certain of its officers and directors.


The action was filed in connection with a proposed settlement of the claims
asserted herein and in related litigation pending in Texas state and federal
courts.

The complaint alleges that the LBO and the Merger were negotiated and
approved by the Board of Directors of TXU by means of a biased and flawed
bidding process that did not represent the intrinsic value of the Company or
its value going-forward premised on its ability to generate strong earnings
and expand to meet growing energy demand in the southwest. The complaint
further alleges that shareholder proxies in favor of the LBO and the Merger
are being sought pursuant to a materially false and misleading proxy
statement filed with the SEC on or about June 14, 2007.

As alleged in detail in the complaint, the proxy statement is materially
false and misleading in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. ss. 78n(a), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated by the SEC thereunder, in that,
among other things, the proxy statement does not truthfully or adequately
describe among other things:

     (a) material background information regarding the
         transaction,

     (b) the Director Defendants' consideration of the
         transaction,

     (c) their efforts, if any, to obtain an alternate
         transaction or alternative strategic opportunity on
         terms more favorable to plaintiff and the Company's
         other public shareholders,

     (d) the financial analysis supporting the fairness of the
         transaction to TXU's public shareholders, and

     (e) the Director Defendants' consideration of or response
         to certain derivative litigation currently pending
         against them in the District Court of Dallas County,
         Texas, captioned In re TXU Corp. Derivative Litigation,
         No. 07-01779 (44th Judicial District).

If the LBO and the Merger are approved, the TXU public shareholders' valuable
interest in the Company will be acquired by private equity investors Texas
Pacific Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. for inadequate consideration
following a flawed process and their right to participate in TXU's profitable
business will cease.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 8, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

The suit is “Schipper v. TXU Corp. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01281,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern of Texas, under Judge Sam A. Lindsay.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gustavo Bruckner
          Matthew Guiney
          Gregory M. Nespole
          Mark C. Rifkin
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
          270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212/545-4600
          Fax: 212/545-4653

          Bernard Malina
          Malina & Associates PC
          60 E 42nd St., Suite 510
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212/986-7410

          - and -

          Roger L. Mandel
          Martin Woodward
          Stanley Mandel & Iola
          3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Phone: 214/443-4302 or 214/443-4304
          E-mail: rmandel@smi-law.com or mwoodward@smi-law.com

Representing defendants are:

          Richard S. Krumholz
          Fulbright & Jaworski
          2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201-2784
          Phone: 214/855-8000
          Fax: 214/855-8200
          E-mail: rkrumholz@fulbright.com

          Gerard G. Pecht
          Fulbright & Jaworski
          1301 McKinney St., Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010-3095
          Phone: 713/651-5151
          Fax: 713/651-5246
          E-mail: gpecht@fulbright.com

          David P. Poole
          TXU Legal Dept
          1601 Bryan St., 21st Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214/812-6001
          Fax: 214/812-6032
          E-mail: dpoole@txu.com

          - and -

          John C. Stewart
          TXU Legal
          1601 Bryan St., 6th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214/812-3722
          Fax: 214/812-6032
          E-mail: jstewart@txu.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  * * *