CAR_Public/070813.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, August 13, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 158

                            Headlines


ACCREDITED HOME: Served with Suit by Former Aames Loan Officer
ACCREDITED HOME: Certification of Calif. FCRA Lawsuit Appealed
ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Home Equity Loans
ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces Suit Over Prescreened Credit Offers
ACCREDITED HOME: Md. Court Dismisses SMLL Claim in "Cabrejas"

ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces Ill. Mortgage Loan Fees Litigation
ALABAMA: Suit Alleges Racial Segregation at Monroeville School
BAYVIEW CREMATORY: N.H. High Court Decertifies Negligence Suit
CALIFORNIA: Sacramento Sued Over Ordinances Against Homeless
COMMONWEALTH LAND: Still Faces Suit Over Title Insurance Rates

COMMONWEALTH LAND: Oct. Certification Hearing Set for "Alberton"
COMMONWEALTH LAND: Still Faces Fla. Suit Over Title Insurance
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Mo. Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
CVT PREPAID: Accused of Defrauding Prepaid Phone Card Purchasers
DELTA AIR: $4.5M Settlement of Ga. ERISA Suit Awaits Court Okay

ENERGY EAST: Faces N.Y. Shareholder Suit Over Iberdrola Proposal
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Aug. 21 Hearing Set for Minn. Labor Suit
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Nixing of Minn. Securities Suit Appealed
HYDE PARK: Restaurant Settles Suit Over FACTA Violations
ILLINOIS: School Sued for Denying Students Bathroom Breaks

IRWIN UNION: Amicus Curiae Finds "Kessler" Settlement Reasonable
LAWYERS TITLE: Hearing on Title Insurance Rates Suit Set Dec.
LAWYERS TITLE: Oct. 9 Hearing Set for "Cooman" Litigation in Pa.
LINEBARGER, GOGGAN: Sued Over "Illegal" Collection Method
MASSACHUSETTS: Springfield Faces Employee Discrimination Suit

ROGER WIRELESS: High Court Dismisses Suit Over Cellphone Prices
TIME WARNER: Settlement of Subscribers' Suit Denied Final Okay
TYCO INT'L: Hearing of $3B Securities Suit Settlement Set Nov. 2
UNITED STATES: Accused of Defrauding Passport Applicants
VIACOM INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over 2004 Blockbuster Split-Off

WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Court Mulls Class Status for Natural Gas Suit
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS COS: Still Face System Access Fee Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases
                    
AMERICAN HOME: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
MOTOROLA INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
QIAO XING: Kaplan Fox Fiiles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.


                            *********


ACCREDITED HOME: Served with Suit by Former Aames Loan Officer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. disclosed that in February
2007, it was served with the class-action complaint, "Sierra v.
Aames Home Loan," which was filed by a former Aames Funding
Corp. loan officer in Superior Court for Los Angeles County,
California in December 2006.

As a result of the company's merger with Aames Investment Corp.
(AIC), and certain of its subsidiaries, the company succeeded to
the litigation interests of AIC and its subsidiaries, including
the interest under this matter of Aames Home Loan, a trade name
of Aames Funding Corp. (AFC), a subsidiary of AIC in this
lawsuit.

The named plaintiff is a former commissioned loan officer of
AFC, and the complaint alleges that AFC violated state law by
requiring the plaintiff to work overtime without compensation.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself, and other
similarly situated employees, the allegedly unpaid overtime,
general damages, multiple statutory penalties and interest,
attorneys' fees and costs of suit.  

A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed.  There has
been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiffs'
individual claims or the claims of the putative class.

Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com
-- is a mortgage banking company operating throughout the U.S.,
and in Canada. The Company originates, finances, securitizes,
services and sells non-prime mortgage loans secured by
residential real estate.  Accredited focuses on borrowers who
may not meet conforming underwriting guidelines because of
higher loan-to-value ratios, the nature or absence of income
documentation, limited credit histories, high levels of consumer
debt, or past credit difficulties.  


ACCREDITED HOME: Certification of Calif. FCRA Lawsuit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has yet to rule on a Petition for Leave to Appeal a court
decision to certify subclasses of plaintiffs in the class
action, "Phillips v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
al."

The complaint, which was filed in September 2005, alleged
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with
prescreened offers of credit that the company made.  

The plaintiff sought to recover, on behalf of her and similarly
situated individuals, damages, pre-judgment interest,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any
other relief the court may grant.

On Jan. 4, 2006, plaintiff re-filed the action in response to
the court's Dec. 9, 2005, decision granting motion to:

      -- dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's claim that the offer
         of credit failed to include the clear and conspicuous
         disclosures required by FCRA,

      -- strike plaintiff's request for declaratory and
         injunctive relief, and

      -- sever plaintiff's claims as to the Company from those
         made against other defendants unaffiliated with the
         Company.

Plaintiff's remaining claim is that the company's offer of
credit did not meet FCRA's "firm offer" requirement.

On May 15, 2007, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify
two subclasses, the first consisting of 58,750 recipients of the
initial mailer received by the named plaintiff, and a second
consisting of 70,585 recipients of the second mailer received by
the named plaintiff.

On May 24, 2007, the company filed a Petition for Leave to
Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking an
immediate appeal from the Order granting class certification and
a stay of the action in the District Court pending the outcome
of that appeal.  

A ruling on this appeal is not expected until the third quarter
of 2007, according to the company's Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Pamela Phillips, et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders  
Holding Company, et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-00851-CJC-RNB," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Cormac J. Carney with referral to Judge
Robert N. Block.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kevin K. Eng, Esq.
         Edward S. Zusman, Esq.
         David S. Markun, Esq.
         Markun Zusman & Compton
         Phone: 415-438-4515 and 310-454-5900
         E-mail: keng@mzclaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Patricia L. McClaran, Esq.  
         Michael J. Steiner, Esq.
         Severson & Werson
         1 Embarcadero Ctr., Ste. 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-398-3344
         E-mail: plm@severson.com


ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Home Equity Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. continues to face a
purported class action over adjustable-rate home equity loans,
according to the company's Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In October 2006, as a result of the merger with Aames Investment
Corp. (AIC), the company succeeded to the position of Aames
Funding Corp. (AFC) in the class action complaint, "Miller v.
Aames Funding Corp.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.

The complaint alleges that adjustable-rate home equity loans
originated by AFC in Texas violate the Texas Constitution's
requirement that such loans be scheduled to be repaid in
substantially equal installments.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated individuals, damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the
court may grant.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court on its own motion stayed the
action, pending the resolution of class certification issues in
a similar action pending before the court.

A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed.  There has
been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's
individual claims or the claims of the putative class.

The suit is "Miller et al. v. Aames Funding Corp. et al., Case
No. 9:05-cv-00183-TH-KFG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas Judge Thad Heartfield with
referral to Judge Keith F. Giblin.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Carl A. Parker, Esq.
         The Parker Law Firm
         One Plaza Square
         Port Arthur, TX 77642-5513
         Phone: 409/985-8814
         Fax: 14099852833
         E-mail: cparker714@aol.com

Representing the company is:

         Lindsay Lee Lambert, Esq.
         Hughes Watters & Askanase
         Three Allen Center, 333 Clay, 29th Floor
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/759-0818
         Fax: 713/759-6834
         E-mail: llambert@hwallp.com


ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces Suit Over Prescreened Credit Offers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. continues to face purported
class actions in California over prescreened offers of credit,
according to the company's Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In October 2006, as a result of the merger with Aames Investment
Corp. (AIC), the company succeeded to the position of Aames
Funding Corp. (AFC) and AIC in the matters:

      -- "Webb, et al., v. Aames Investment Corporation, et al."
         (U.S. District Court for the Central District of
         California); and

      -- "Cooper, et al., v. Aames Funding Corporation" (U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin).

The class actions allege violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act in connection with prescreened offers of credit.  

The Cooper matter was transferred to the Central District of
California and consolidated with the Webb matter by stipulation
of counsel on Sept. 29, 2006.

A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed.  There has
been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's
individual claims or the claims of the putative class.

Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com
-- is a mortgage banking company operating throughout the U.S.,
and in Canada. The Company originates, finances, securitizes,
services and sells non-prime mortgage loans secured by
residential real estate.  


ACCREDITED HOME: Md. Court Dismisses SMLL Claim in "Cabrejas"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted a
motion seeking for the dismissal of the Secondary Mortgage Loan
Law (SMLL) claim made in the purported the matter, "Cabrejas v.
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," according to the company's Aug.
1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit, originally filed in the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County, Maryland, was served against the company in
March 2006.

The complaint alleges that Accredited's origination of second
lien loans in Maryland violated the SMLL and Consumer Protection
Act in that fees charged on such loans exceeded 10% of the
respective loan amounts.  

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated individuals, damages, disgorgement of fees,
pre-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court may grant.

On April 13, 2006, Accredited removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.  On May 15, 2006,
Accredited filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second cause of
action alleging a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act on the basis that full disclosure of the fees cannot be an
unfair or deceptive trade practice, which motion was granted on
Dec. 4, 2006.

On Jan. 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint,
alleging that the company's origination in Maryland of second
lien loans with balloon payments was also a violation of the
SMLL.

On July 5, 2007, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss this new claim on the basis that the SMLL's prohibition
of balloon payments was and is preempted by the federal
Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act.

A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed.  There has
been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's remaining
individual claims or the remaining claims of the putative class.

The suit is "Cabrejas et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,
Case No. 8:06-cv-00975-AW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland under Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.

Representing the defendant are:

         Kirk D. Jensen, Esq.
         Buckley Kolar LLP
         1250 24th St. NW, Ste. 700
         Washington, DC 20037
         Phone: 12023498000
         Fax: 12023498080
         E-mail: kjensen@buckleykolar.com

              - and -

         Brian L. Moffet, Esq.
         Gordon Feinblatt Rothman Hoffberger and Hollander LLC
         233 E Redwood St.
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 14105764000
         Fax: 14105764246
         E-mail: bmoffet@gfrlaw.com

Representing the plaintiff is:

         John A. Pica, Jr., Esq.
         Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos PC
         100 N Charles St., 20th Fl.
         Baltimore, MD 21201
         Phone: 14106492000
         Fax: 14106492150
         E-mail: johnpica28@hotmail.com


ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces Ill. Mortgage Loan Fees Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. continues to face a class action
over allegations of consumer fraud related to the amount of fees
it pays to third parties in connection with residential mortgage
loans.   

In December 2002, the company was served with a complaint and
motion for class certification in the class action, "Wratchford
et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc."

The suit was brought in Madison County, Illinois under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
the consumer protection statutes of the other states in which
the company do business and the common law of unjust enrichment.

The complaint alleges that the company has a practice of
misrepresenting and inflating the amount of fees the company pay
to third parties in connection with the residential mortgage
loans that we fund.

The plaintiffs claim to represent a nationwide class consisting
of others similarly situated, that is, those who paid the
company to pay, or reimburse our payments of, third-party fees
in connection with residential mortgage loans, and never
received a refund for the difference between what they paid and
what was actually paid to the third party.

The plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages on behalf of
themselves and the class, in addition to pre-judgment interest,
post-judgment interest, and any other relief the court may
grant.

On Jan. 28, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally
certifying:

      -- a class of Illinois residents with respect to the
         alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
         Deceptive Business Practices Act who, since Nov. 19,
         1997, paid money to the company for third-party fees in
         connection with residential mortgage loans and never
         received a refund of the difference between the amount
         they paid to the company and the amount it paid to the
         third party; and

      -- a nationwide class of claimants with respect to an
         unjust enrichment cause of action included in the
         original complaint who, since Nov. 19, 1997 paid money
         to the company for third-party fees in connection with
         residential mortgage loans and never received a refund
         of the difference between the amount they paid the
         company and the amount it paid the third party.

There has not yet been a ruling on the merits of either the
plaintiffs' individual claims or the claims of the class,
according to the company's Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com
-- is a mortgage banking company operating throughout the U.S.,
and in Canada. The Company originates, finances, securitizes,
services and sells non-prime mortgage loans secured by
residential real estate.  


ALABAMA: Suit Alleges Racial Segregation at Monroeville School
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Monroe County Board of Education is facing a class-action
complaint filed Aug. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama, alleging it has reinstituted
racial segregation at Monroeville Junior High School, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed by parents and grandparents of nine children,
who claim Superintendent Dennis Mixon, principal Lana Wilson and
the school board have racially segregated classes since 2005.
Parents say the district created all-white classes, or nearly
all-white classes, though 78% of the students are black.

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the court grant the
following relief:

     -- Declare Defendants conduct complained of herein to be in
        violation of the plaintiffs rights as secured by 42
        U.S.C. Section 2000d, and the United States
        Constitution.

     -- Permanently enjoin Defendants from further
        discrimination.

     -- Award the Plaintiffs compensatory damages to be
        determined by the jury at the time of trial;

     -- Award the Plaintiffs punitive damages to be determined
        by the jury at the time of trial;

     -- Award the Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and
        costs, including the fees and costs of experts, incurred
        in prosecuting this action; and

     -- Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary
        and proper.

The suit is "Williams et al. v. Monroe County Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00561-CG-B," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, under
Judge Callie V. S. Granade, with referral to Judge Sonja F.
Bivins.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Joshua Friedman
          25 Senate Place
          Larchmont, NY 10538
          Phone: 212-308-4338
          E-mail: josh@joshuafriedmanesq.com


BAYVIEW CREMATORY: N.H. High Court Decertifies Negligence Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New Hampshire Supreme Court refused to allow families who
filed lawsuits against funeral homes doing business with the
Bayview Crematory to sue as a group, David Tirrell-Wysocki of
Associated Press reports.

Dozens of families believe the crematorium in Seabrook, New
Hampshire is the site where the remains of their loved ones'
were mistreated.

In 2005, police discovered that remains at the crematorium were
mishandled, mislabeled and mistreated.  The discovery led to the
closure of the business.

Several suits followed.  In October 2006, the Rockingham County
Superior Court in New Hampshire granted class-action status to a
case filed by attorney David Charlip of Hollywood, Fla., on
behalf of an estimated 160 families in New Hampshire, Maine and
Massachusetts (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2006).

The lawsuit alleges negligence in the handling of bodies,
consumer protection violations and misrepresentation against
operators Derek Wallace and Linda Stokes, as well as Simplicity
Burial and Cremation Services Inc. of Massachusetts.

Plaintiffs sought compensation for all forms of damage,
including emotional distress and presumed damages for the
alleged mishandling of bodies at the crematorium (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 10, 2006).

The funeral homes challenged the certification of the suit
saying individual issues overshadowed any common ones.  They
also argued that emotional distress had to be proved by expert
testimony for each individual, including proof the stress caused
physical harm.

The high court agreed, saying claims of emotional distress
require "an inquiry require an inquiry into the physical
symptoms claimed by each putative class member, each member's
prior medical and psychological history, and the qualification
of each member's experts."

"[S]uch hearings would undermine the purpose of a class action
lawsuit, which is to save time, effort and expense," according
to the court.

For more details, contact plaintiffs' lawyer:

          David H. Charlip, Esq.
          The Charlip Law Group, LC
          1930 Harrison St., Suit 208
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Phone: 954- 921-2131
          Fax: 954-921-2191

Representing Bayview is:

          Andrew R. Schulman, Esq.
          Three Executive Park Drive
          Bedford, NH 03110
          Phone: 603-634-4300
          Fax: 603-626-3647
          E-mail: ASchulman@getmanstacey.com


CALIFORNIA: Sacramento Sued Over Ordinances Against Homeless
------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento and Sacramento County are facing a lawsuit for
prohibiting homeless people from sleeping outside the city and
county, reports Jackson Yan of The California Aggie Online.

Sacramento lawyer Mark Merin filed the suit April 2.  He wants
the city and county to stop enforcing ordinances that he said
allows the police to impose on civil rights of homeless people
who have no other option but to sleep on the streets.

According to Mr. Yan, the lawsuit cites a study conducted by the
Ending Chronic Homelessness Initiative in January, which
estimates that: 2,452 people in the Sacramento area are
homeless; 1,005 were left without shelter and living outside.
The report also estimates that 4,367 people will experience
homelessness in Sacramento this year.

Mr. Merin also wants to prevent Sacramento peace officers from
confiscating and destroying the belongings of the homeless
population.  Major cities in California like San Diego have a
moratorium on arresting the homeless, and Fresno prohibits the
confiscation of people's belongings, he said.

Mr. Merin is seeking class-action status on behalf of
Sacramento's homeless population.  He is asking for a minimum of
$4,000 in damages for each person who had their belongings
illegally confiscated or were cited for living outside.

Francis House of Sacramento, a nonprofit organization that
provides service to Sacramento's homeless population, is one of
the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.


COMMONWEALTH LAND: Still Faces Suit Over Title Insurance Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., a subsidiary of
LandAmerica Financial Group, faces a purported class action
filed by Rodney P. Simon and Tracy L. Simon in the Court of
Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio on March 5, 2003,
according to LandAmerica Financial Group's

The suit alleged that the defendants had a practice of charging
original rates for owner's title insurance policies when lower,
reissue rates should have been charged.  

Defendant responded by demanding that the actions be arbitrated,
but on final appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the Court ruled
that arbitration was not required for either suit.  

Plaintiffs are seeking to have the case certified as a class
action on behalf of all sellers of residential property in Ohio,
who paid the original rate from 1993 to the present, as
requested in the original complaint, although no hearing date on
the class certification has been scheduled.  

They have demanded an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.  

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

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com-- is a  
holding company. Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.


COMMONWEALTH LAND: Oct. Certification Hearing Set for "Alberton"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 14, 2008 trial is slated for a purported class action
filed by A. D. Alberton on July 24, 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., a wholly owned subsidiary
of LandAmerica Financial Group.

The suit alleges that Commonwealth charged rates for title
insurance in excess of statutorily mandated rates and/or failed
to disclose to consumers that they were entitled to reduced
title insurance premiums and seeks to certify a class on behalf
of all consumers who paid premiums for the purchase of title
insurance on Pennsylvania properties from Commonwealth at any
time during the year 2000 until August 2005 and qualified for a
discounted refinance or reissue rate discount and did not
receive such discount.

Plaintiff has demanded an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, declaratory relief, triple damages, restitution, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and expert fees, attorneys'
fees and costs.

The court has set a class certification hearing date of Oct. 16,
2007.  The trial is currently scheduled to commence on Jan. 14,
2008, according to LandAmerica Financial Group'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 "Alberton v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:06-cv-03755-ER," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Eduardo C. Robreno.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
         Freedman Boyd Daniels Hollander & Goldberg PA
         20 First Plaza Suite 700,
         Albuquerque, NM 87102
         Phone: 505-842-9960
         Fax: 505-842-0761
         E-mail: jg@fbdlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Samuel W. Braver, Esq.
         Buchanan Ingersoll PC
         301 Grant St., 20th Fl.
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410
         Phone: 412-562-8939
         E-mail: braversw@bipc.com


COMMONWEALTH LAND: Still Faces Fla. Suit Over Title Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., a subsidiary of
LandAmerica Financial Group, continues to face a purported class
action filed by Kenneth and Deette Higgins on Sept. 20, 2004 in
the Circuit Court of Nassau County, Florida.

On Feb. 3, 2005, Plaintiffs in the Higgins Suit filed an Amended
Class Action Complaint.  They allege that Commonwealth had a
practice of charging refinance borrowers higher basic rates for
title insurance, rather than the lower reissue rates for which
they are alleged to have qualified, and of failing to disclose
the potential availability of the lower rates.  

Plaintiffs seek to have the case certified as a class action on
behalf of all Florida persons or entities who refinanced their
mortgages or fee interests on the identical premises from July
1, 1999 to the present where there was no change in the fee
ownership and who were charged a premium in excess of the
reissue premium.  

They have demanded an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-
judgment interest.

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

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com-- is a  
holding company. Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.  


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Mo. Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri has yet to give
final approval to a proposed $12.5 million settlement of the
consumer class action, "Marvin Fielder, et al. v. Credit
Acceptance Corp."

The Company is currently a defendant in a class action
proceeding commenced on Oct. 15, 1996 in the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri and removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri.

The complaint seeks unspecified money damages for alleged
violations of a number of state and federal consumer protection
laws.

On Oct. 9, 1997, the District Court certified two classes on the
claims brought against the Company, one relating to alleged
overcharges of official fees, the other relating to alleged
overcharges of post-maturity interest and a subclass relating to
allegedly inadequate repossession notices.

On Aug. 4, 1998, the District Court granted partial summary
judgment on liability in favor of the plaintiffs on the interest
overcharge claims based upon the District Court's finding of
certain violations but denied summary judgment on certain other
claims.

The District Court also entered a number of permanent
injunctions, which among other things restrained the Company
from collecting on certain class accounts.

The Court also ruled in favor of the Company on certain claims
raised by class plaintiffs.

Because the entry of an injunction is immediately appealable,
the Company appealed the summary judgment order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Oral argument on the appeals was heard on April 19, 1999.  On
Sept. 1, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
overturned the Aug. 4, 1998 partial summary judgment order and
injunctions against the Company.

The Court of Appeals held that the District Court lacked
jurisdiction over the interest overcharge claims and directed
the District Court to sever those claims and remand them to
state court.

On Feb. 18, 2000, the District Court entered an order remanding
the post-maturity interest class to the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri while retaining jurisdiction on the official
fee class.

The Company then filed a motion requesting that the District
Court reconsider that portion of its order of Aug. 4, 1998, in
which the District Court had denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment on the federal Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA)
claim.

On May 26, 2000, the District Court entered summary judgment in
favor of the Company on the TILA claim and directed the Clerk of
the Court to remand the remaining state law official fee claims
to the appropriate state court.

On July 18, 2002, the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended petition,
which was filed on Oct. 28, 2002.  

Instead of a subclass of Class 2, that petition alleges a new,
expanded Class 3 relating to allegedly inadequate repossession
notices.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's fourth
amended complaint on Nov. 4, 2002.  On Nov. 18, 2002, the
Company filed a memorandum urging the decertification of the
classes.

On Feb. 21, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a brief opposing the
Company's Nov. 4, 2002 motion to dismiss the case.  

On May 19, 2004, the Circuit Court released an order, dated Jan.
9, 2004, that denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  

On Nov. 16, 2005 the Circuit Court issued an order that, among
other things, adopted the District Court's order certifying
classes.

By adopting the District Court's order, the Circuit Court's
order certified only the two original classes and did not
certify the new, expanded Class 3.

On Jan. 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion entitled Plaintiffs'
Motion to Adjust Class 2 Definition to Correspond with
Allegations of Their Fourth Amended Complaint which requested
that the "repossession subclass" be deleted from Class 2 and a
new Class 3 be adopted.

The Company filed a response arguing that the new, expanded
Class 3 is inappropriate for a number of reasons including the
expiration of the statute of limitations.

On May 23, 2006, the Circuit Court issued several orders,
including an order granting plaintiffs' motion and adding the
new Class 3.

On June 2, 2006 the Company filed for leave to appeal the
Circuit Court's decision to allow the expanded repossession
class as well as its Nov. 16, 2005 certification order.  

The Court of Appeals denied the Company's request for leave to
appeal the Circuit Court's decision on Aug. 31, 2006.

In October 2006, the Company and plaintiffs' counsel commenced
settlement discussions, agreeing to use a third party
facilitator in face to face discussions in November and December
2006.

These discussions led to the execution of a Feb. 9, 2007
Memorandum of Understanding whereby the parties agreed to settle
the lawsuit.

The Company, without any admission of liability, agreed to pay
$12.5 million in full and final settlement of all claims against
the Company.

The Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed
class settlement on June 7, 2007.  The settlement remains
subject to final court approval, according to its Aug. 2, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Credit Acceptance Corp. -- http://www.creditacceptance.com-- is  
a provider of auto loans to consumers, using a nationwide
network of automobile dealers who benefit from sales of vehicles
to consumers who otherwise could not obtain financing; from
repeat and referral sales generated by these same customers, and
from sales to customers responding to advertisements for the
Company's product, but who actually end up qualifying for
traditional financing.


CVT PREPAID: Accused of Defrauding Prepaid Phone Card Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVT Prepaid Solutions Inc. is facing a class action alleging it
engages in unfair, deceptive and fraudulent practices in the
sale, marketing and servicing of its prepaid phone cards.

Plaintiff Orlando S. Ramirez, a New York resident, filed the
suit on behalf of himself and purchasers of CVT prepaid
telephone cards, alleging the company systematically targets
elderly and immigrant populations with its illegal practice.

CVT's Prepaid Phone Cards contain uniform representations of a
specific number of minutes available to purchasers, but the
cards do not provide what CVT says they offer.  Among other
things, the cards allegedly expire without notice and/or without
the consumer's knowledge.  Also, rates are frequently higher
than stated in the uniform representations on the Cards and/or
include hidden charges.

These charges and other undisclosed conditions have the effect
of reducing the value of the Prepaid Phone Cards.

The plaintiff and other purchasers of the Prepaid Phone Cards
have allegedly failed to receive the full value of what they
paid for as represented by defendant, and suffered damages as a
result of the alleged wrongful practice.

Plaintiff claims the company had engaged for several years in
wrongful and fraudulent practices in connection with its prepaid
phone card business, including breaching contracts with
purchasers and users, committing common law fraud, intentionally
and negligently misrepresenting its products to users, violating
state consumer protection and fraud statutes and engaging in
unfair and deceptive trade practices

The proposed class (alternate classes) are:

     (a) Class A: all persons who purchased Prepaid Phone Cards
         which were produced, sold, and/or distributed by CVT;

     (b) [Alternate] Class B: all residents of specific sister
         states [California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri,  
         Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington]
         who purchased Prepaid Phone Cards which were produced,
         sold and/or distributed by CVT; and

     (c) [Alternate] Class C: all residents of New York who
         purchased Prepaid Phone Cards which were produced, sold
         and/or distributed by CVT.

The suit is Case no. Cv-07-2980, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
          E-mail: paul@freedweiss.com
          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          E-mail: bills@freedweiss.com
          Eric C. Brunick, Esq.
          E-mail: erich@freedweiss.com
          Matt Sheynes, Esq.
          E-mail: matt@freedweiss.com
          111 West Washington St., Suite 1331
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          (312)220-0000

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          One William St.
          10th Floor
          New York, Ny 10004
          Phone: (212)584-0700
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  sweiss2seegerweiss.com
                  dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com

          Lehrman & Lehrman PA
          Seth Lehrman, Esq.
          E-mail: seth@lehrmanlaw.fdn.com
          1801 North Pine Island Rd.
          Suite 103
          Plantation, Florida 33322
          Phone: (954) 472-9990

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Scott A. George, Esq.
          Seeger Weiss LLP
          1515 Market St.
          Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 564-2300
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
                  sgeorge@seegerweiss.comn

          Tod Aronovitz, Esq.
          E-mail: ta@aronoytizlaw.com
          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          E-mail: srj@aronovitzlaw.com
          Museum Tower, Suite 2700
          150 West Flagler St.
          Miami, Florida 33130
          Phone: (305) 372-2772

          Law office of Eric Stoppenhagen
          Eric Stoppenhagen, Esq.
          E-mail: eric@stoppenhagen.com
          285 Avenue C
          Suite 3MB
          New York, New York 10009
          Phone: (646)594-8669


DELTA AIR: $4.5M Settlement of Ga. ERISA Suit Awaits Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $4.5 million settlement of class claims in "Smith v. Delta Air
Lines, Inc., et al." remains subject to the completion of
definitive documentation and Bankruptcy Court approval.

On Sept. 3, 2004, a retired company employee filed a class
action complaint, which was amended on March 16, 2005, against
the company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors on behalf of himself and other participants in the
Delta Family-Care Savings Plan.

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia is alleging violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants were
fiduciaries of the Savings Plan and, as such, breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA to the plaintiff class by:

      -- allowing class members to direct their contributions
         under the Savings Plan to a fund invested in Delta
         common stock; and

      -- continuing to hold Delta's contributions to the Savings
         Plan in Delta's common and preferred stock.

The amended complaint seeks damages unspecified in amount, but
equal to the total loss of value in the participants' accounts
from September 2000 through September 2004 from the investment
in the company's stock.

Defendants denied that there was any breach of fiduciary duty.  

The court had stayed the action due to the company's Sept. 14,
2005 bankruptcy filing.  The company and substantially all of
its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.  

It later granted the motion to dismiss filed by the individual
defendants.  Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 11th Circuit the court's decision to dismiss the
complaint against the individual defendants but voluntarily
dismissed this appeal, pending resolution of the automatic stay
of their claim against Delta.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to resolve
this matter on a class-wide basis under which the plaintiffs
would receive a $4.5 million general, unsecured pre-petition
claim in Delta's Chapter 11 proceedings.

The settlement is subject to the completion of definitive
documentation and Bankruptcy Court approval.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Smith v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-02592-ODE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Orinda D. Evans.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Evan J. Smith, Esq.
         Brodsky & Smith, LLC
         Suite 602, 333 East City Avenue
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-6200

         Gerald D. Wells, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-676-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: gwells@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Michael Ira Fistel, Jr., Esq.
         Holzer & Holzer, LLC
         1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
         Atlanta, GA 30338
         Phone: 770-392-0090
         E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com

Representing the company is:

         William Henry Boice, Esq.
         Kilpatrick Stockton
         1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
         Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
         Phone: 404-815-6464
         E-mail: bboice@kilpatrickstockton.com


ENERGY EAST: Faces N.Y. Shareholder Suit Over Iberdrola Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy East Corp. faces a purported class action in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York for Kings County (Brooklyn) in
connection with Iberdrola S.A.'s proposed acquisition of the
company.

Howard Lasker, an alleged shareholder of Energy East, filed the
suit on or about July 6, 2007 against the company and its
directors.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, the
consideration for the proposed acquisition is unfair and
inadequate because it does not provide Energy East shareholders
with a sufficient premium and the defendants have breached their
fiduciary duty.  It seeks an injunction on the completion of the
Merger as well as monetary damages in an amount not specified.  

A response to the complaint is currently due Sept. 5, 2007,
according to the company's Aug. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

Energy East Corp. -- http://www.energyeast.com-- is a public  
utility holding company that conducts all its operations through
its subsidiaries: Connecticut Energy Corp., CMP Group, Inc., CTG
Resources, Inc., Berkshire Energy Resources and RGS Energy
Group, Inc.  The Company, through its subsidiaries, has
regulated transmission, distribution and generation operations
in New York and Maine, and is engaged in regulated natural gas
transportation, storage and distribution operations in New York,
Connecticut, Maine and Massachusetts.  Energy East also controls
energy-marketing companies and has other non-utility businesses.
The Company created a support services company in 2004, Utility
Shared Services Corporation, to consolidate support service
functions for its utilities.


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Aug. 21 Hearing Set for Minn. Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 21, 2007 hearing is set on a request for partial summary
judgment in a purported class action alleging violations of
labor law by Hutchinson Technology, Inc.

Originally, Hutchinson Technology was named as the defendant in
a complaint brought in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District
Court by two current and three former employees and served on
the company on Aug. 28, 2006.

The complaint asserts claims based on the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, several statutes and regulations dealing with
topics related to wages and breaks, and common law theories.

It alleges that the company fails to pay its production workers
for the time they spend changing into and out of protective
clothing and that the company does not provide employees the
breaks allegedly required by Minnesota law or promised by
company policy.

On Sept. 18, 2006, the company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  

The complaint seeks pay for the allegedly unpaid time, an equal
amount of liquidated damages, other damages, penalties,
attorneys' fees and interest.

By order dated Feb. 22, 2007, the Court conditionally certified
a class consisting of certain current and former Minnesota
employees.

On June 14, 2007 an amended complaint was filed with the Court
seeking to add certain of our current and former Wisconsin and
South Dakota employees to the plaintiff class, but the Court has
not yet certified this new class.

On July 5, 2007 the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment and the motion is scheduled for hearing on Aug.
21, 2007.

Hutchinson Technology Inc. -- http://www.htch.com-- operates in  
two segments: the Disk Drive Components Division and the
BioMeasurement Division.  The Disk Drive Components Division is
a supplier of suspension assemblies for disk drives.  Suspension
assemblies are precise electro-mechanical components that hold a
disk drive's recording head at microscopic distances above the
drive's disks.  The BioMeasurement Division is filling an
information gap in the monitoring of trauma patients with the
introduction of the InSpectra StO2 Tissue Oxygenation Monitor.
Launched in October 2006, the device gives hospital trauma teams
the ability to non-invasively and continuously measure tissue
oxygen saturation (St02) and monitor it during resuscitation.


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Nixing of Minn. Securities Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against Hutchinson Technology, Inc. are appealing the dismissal
of the case by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

The company and six of its present executive officers, two of
which are directors, were named as defendants in a Consolidated
Complaint filed by several investors on May 1, 2006.

The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of all persons, except the defendants, who purchased
company stock in the open market between Oct. 4, 2004 and Aug.
29, 2005.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements about the company, and the business
and prospects, in press releases and the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings during the class period, and that
the market price of the company's stock was artificially
inflated as a result.

Additionally, the consolidated complaint also alleges claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

It seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged class in
an unspecified amount, interest, an award of attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation, and unspecified equitable/injunctive
relief.

On June 4, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint with prejudice and on the
merits.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the Court's dismissal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, according
to company's Aug. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 24, 2007.

The suit is "In re Hutchinson Technologies Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-02095-PJS-JJG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Patrick
J. Schiltz with referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         58 S. Service Rd., Ste. 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-454-7722
         E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com

         Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP
         100 Washington Ave., S. Ste. 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
         Phone: (612) 339-6900
         Fax: (612) 339-0981
         E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com

              - and -

         Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         1 Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-631-8605
         E-mail: smlee@milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Ahna M. Thoresen, Esq.
         Faegre & Benson, LLP
         90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
         Phone: 612-766-7000
         Fax: 612-766-1600
         E-mail: athoresen@faegre.com


HYDE PARK: Restaurant Settles Suit Over FACTA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab granted preliminary
approval to a settlement reached by Hyde Park Prime Steakhouse
in a class action accusing it of printing credit card
information on customer receipts more than what is allowed by
law, Jason Cato of Tribune-Review reports.

Hyde Park will offer a free appetizer, salad or side item to
those affected and donate $5,000 in gift certificates to
charities and pay $2,500 to Carol Jean Sinatra, who filed the
lawsuit.  Ms. Sinatra's lawyers stand to earn $105,000.

A final settlement conference is scheduled for Sept. 28.

Hyde Park continues to deny all accusations of violations of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act passed by Congress in
2003, which makes it illegal for businesses to print more than
the last five digits of a customer's credit card number or
expiration date on a receipt.

The suit was filed in April by attorneys Gary F. Lynch and R.
Bruce Carlson.  They stand to receive a combined $50,000 in
legal fees as well as $3 for each person who collects settlement
relief vouchers, up to an additional $55,000.

Representing Hyde Park is lawyer Brian Simmons.


ILLINOIS: School Sued for Denying Students Bathroom Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed against a Chicago Public School and its
officials who denied students access to water and bathroom use.

On July 12, 2007 seventh graders Seneca Ammons and Keefe Ammons
were suspended for one day after using the washroom.

Teacher, Regina Shields, maintains a policy whereby her students
are permitted to use the bathroom once/day.  They are not
allowed any drink breaks at all, except during lunch.  On the
date in question, Seneca and Keefe were allegedly compelled to
use the washroom and upon doing so, were punished.

The incident occurred at Cuffe Math and Science Academy at 8324
S. Racine.

The lawsuit, which is being filed in federal court, aims to stop
school officials from enforcing a rule whereby students are
permitted to use the bathroom only once per day and have a drink
only during their lunch break.  The denial of washroom and water
breaks at Cuffe are humiliating and allegedly deny students
basic rights -- rights that are not taken away from prisoners,
jailed for serious crimes.

"Children need water throughout the day. They also need to use
the washroom. To deprive them of that is irresponsible, and
quite frankly, ridiculous," says Attorney Blake Horwitz.

For more information, contact:

          Blake Horwitz
          The Law Offices of Blake Horwitz
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 723
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 616-4433
          E-mail: lobh@att.net


IRWIN UNION: Amicus Curiae Finds "Kessler" Settlement Reasonable
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Amicus Curiae appointed by a Pennsylvania District Court to
evaluate the fairness of the modified settlement of "Kessler v.
RFC, et al.," issued his Advisory Opinion, which found the
proposed modified settlement to be fair and reasonable.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Court stayed actions filed against Irwin Union Bank and Trust
Co. in connection with loans the company purchased from
Community Bank of Northern Virginia (CBNV), until issues in the
Kessler case are resolved.

Irwin Union Bank is a subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp.

Initially several suits were filed against the company in both
federal and state courts.  These suits are:

      -- "Hobson v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company;"

      -- "Kossler v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia;"

      -- "Chatfield v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et
         al.," and

      -- "Ransom v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et al."

"Hobson" was filed on July 30, 2004 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.  As amended on Aug. 30,
2004, the Hobson complaint, seeks certification of both a
plaintiffs' and a defendants' class, the plaintiffs' class to
consist of all persons who obtained loans from CBNV and whose
loans were purchased by Irwin Union Bank.  

The suit alleges that defendants violated the Truth-in-Lending
Act (TILA), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
(HOEPA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

On Oct. 12, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Hobson claims as untimely filed and substantively defective.

"Kossler," was originally filed in July 2002 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  The
company was added as a defendant in December 2004.

The Kossler complaint seeks certification of a plaintiffs' class
and seeks to void the mortgage loans as illegal contracts.  It
also seeks recovery against the company for alleged RESPA
violations and for conversion.  

On Sept. 9, 2005, the Kossler plaintiffs filed a third amended
class action complaint.  On Oct. 21, 2005, the company filed a
renewed motion seeking to dismiss the Kossler action.

Plaintiffs in "Hobson" and "Kossler" claim that CBNV was
allegedly engaged in a lending arrangement involving the use of
its charter by certain third parties who charged high fees,
which were not representative of the services rendered and not
properly disclosed as to the amount or recipient of the fees.

The loans in question are allegedly high cost/high interest
loans under Section 32 of HOEPA.  Plaintiffs also allege illegal
kickbacks and fee splitting.  

In "Hobson," plaintiffs allege that the company was aware of
CBNV's alleged arrangement when it purchased the loans and that
it participated in a RICO enterprise and conspiracy related to
the loans.  Because the company bought the loans from Community
Bank, the Hobson plaintiffs are alleging that Irwin has assignee
liability under HOEPA.

If the Hobson and Kossler plaintiffs are successful in
establishing a class and prevailing at trial, possible RESPA
remedies could include treble damages for each service for which
there was an unearned fee, kickback or overvalued service.  

Other possible damages in "Hobson" could include TILA remedies,
such as rescission, actual damages, statutory damages not to
exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the net worth of the
creditor, and attorneys' fees and costs; possible HOEPA remedies
could include the refunding of all closing costs, finance
charges and fees paid by the borrower; RICO remedies could
include treble plaintiffs' actually proved damages.

In addition, the Hobson plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
punitive damages.  Under TILA, HOEPA, RESPA and RICO, statutory
remedies include recovery of attorneys' fees and costs.  Other
possible damages in "Kossler" could include the refunding of all
origination fees paid by the plaintiffs.

"Chatfield" and "Ransom," which both names the company along
with CBNV as defendants were filed on June 9, 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Frederick County, Maryland.  The cases involve
mortgage loans the company purchased from CBNV.

On July 16, 2004, both of these lawsuits were removed to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The
complaints allege that the plaintiffs did not receive
disclosures required under HOEPA and TILA.  They also allege
violations of Maryland law because the plaintiffs were allegedly
charged or contracted for a prepayment penalty fee.

The company believes the plaintiffs received the required
disclosures and that CBNV, a Virginia-chartered bank, was
permitted to charge prepayment fees to Maryland borrowers.

Under the loan purchase agreements between the company and CBNV,
Irwin has the right to demand repurchase of the mortgage loans
and to seek indemnification from Community for the claims in
these lawsuits.  

On Sept. 17, 2004, the company made a demand for indemnification
and a defense to "Hobson," "Chatfield," and, "Ransom."  CBNV
denied this request as premature.

In response to a motion by Irwin, the Judicial Panel On
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated "Hobson," "Chatfield," and
"Ransom" with "Kossler" in the Western District of Pennsylvania
for all pretrial proceedings.

The Pennsylvania District Court had been handling another case
seeking class action status, entitled, "Kessler v. RFC, et al.,"
also involving CBNV and with facts similar to those alleged in
the Irwin consolidated cases.

The Kessler case had been settled, but the settlement was
appealed and set aside on procedural grounds.  

Subsequently, the parties in "Kessler" filed a motion for
approval of a modified settlement, which would provide
additional relief to the settlement class.

Irwin is not a party to the Kessler action, but the resolution
of issues in Kessler may have an impact on the Irwin cases.

The Pennsylvania District Court has effectively stayed action on
the Irwin cases until issues in the Kessler case are resolved.

On July 5, 2007, the Amicus Curiae appointed by the Pennsylvania
District Court to evaluate the fairness of the modified Kessler
settlement issued his Advisory Opinion, which found the proposed
modified Kessler settlement to be fair and reasonable.  

Irwin Financial Corp. -- http://www.irwinfinancial.com--  
provides financial services throughout the U.S. and Canada.  The
Company focuses primarily on the extension of credit to
consumers and small businesses, as well as providing the ongoing
servicing of those customer accounts.  Through its direct and
indirect subsidiaries, Irwin Financial operates three major
lines of business: commercial banking, commercial finance and
home equity lending.  Its direct and indirect major subsidiaries
include Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co., a commercial bank, which
together with Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B., a federal savings bank,
which conducts the Company's commercial banking activities;
Irwin Commercial Finance Corp., a commercial finance subsidiary,
and Irwin Home Equity Corp., a consumer home equity lending
company.


LAWYERS TITLE: Hearing on Title Insurance Rates Suit Set Dec.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 6-7, 2007 hearing was set for a purported class action
alleging that Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, overcharges clients
for owner's title insurance policy rates.

On Jan. 25, 2002, Miles R. Henderson and Patricia A. Henderson
filed a putative class action against Lawyers Title in the Court
of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  

Lawyers Title removed the case to the District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on March 6, 2002, and the plaintiffs
amended the complaint on March 8, 2002.  On June 28, 2002, the
District Court remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas
for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had a practice of charging
original rates for owner's title insurance policies when lower,
reissue rates should have been charged.

Lawyers Title initially responded by demanding that the suit be
arbitrated, but on final appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the
court ruled that arbitration was not required for either suit.

On remand to the trial court, plaintiffs in the suit are now
seeking to have the case certified as a class action on behalf
of all sellers and buyers of residential property in Ohio who
paid the higher original rate from 1992 to the present.

The court has set a class certification hearing date of Dec. 6-
7, 2007, according to LandAmerica Financial Group's Aug. 1, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com-- is a  
holding company. Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.  The Company provides these products and
services to a customer group including residential and
commercial property buyers and sellers, real estate agents and
brokers, developers, attorneys, mortgage brokers and lenders,
and title insurance agents.  


LAWYERS TITLE: Oct. 9 Hearing Set for "Cooman" Litigation in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 9, 2007 hearing is slated for a purported class action
filed by Shariee L. De Cooman in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against Lawyers Title Insurance
Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group.

The original suit was filed on or about Aug. 12, 2005.  On Nov.
1, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in the suit, which
alleges that Lawyers charged the basic rate rather than a
reissue or discounted rate to certain consumers and seeks to
certify a class on behalf of all owners of residential real
estate in Pennsylvania who, at any time during the ten years
prior to Aug. 12, 2005 paid premiums for the purchase of title
insurance from Lawyers, qualified for a reissue or other
discounted rate, and did not receive such rate.  

Plaintiff has demanded an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, punitive damages, triple damages, prejudgment interest,
and attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs.  

The court has set a class certification hearing date of Oct. 9,
2007, according to LandAmerica Financial Group's Aug. 1, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com-- is a  
holding company. Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.  The Company provides these products and
services to a customer group including residential and
commercial property buyers and sellers, real estate agents and
brokers, developers, attorneys, mortgage brokers and lenders,
and title insurance agents.  In addition, it provides a suite of
other products and services for residential and commercial real
estate transactions, including title search, examination, escrow
and closing.


LINEBARGER, GOGGAN: Sued Over "Illegal" Collection Method
---------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners filed a class action against Linebarger, Goggan Blair
& Sampson law firm, claiming the attorneys' collection methods
of delinquent property taxes violate the Texas Tax Code, David
Yates of Southeast Texas Record reports.

Attorney Gilbert T. Adams filed a class action against the
Linebarger, Goggan on behalf of Pete Gotcher in the Jefferson
County District Court on Aug. 7.

The complaint says Linebarger Goggan has been charging and
collecting fees from delinquent Texans that are not "expressly
provided for in the state's Tax Code."  It allegedly "wrongfully
and deceitfully demand and extract payments from taxpayers in
amounts exceeding those permitted by law for abstract or title
search fees."

The suit accuses the firm of fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy.  It seeks a return of
the monies allegedly "illegally obtained," common law and
statutory damages, exemplary damages, "and to achieve a formal
declaration that such fees are not authorized," the suit said.

The suit is before Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th Judicial District.

Linebarger Goggan has 30 years in delinquent collections
business.  It describes itself as a major player in the
collection industry with over 2,800 clients, serving both the
public and private sectors from offices in Arizona, California,
Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.


MASSACHUSETTS: Springfield Faces Employee Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eight Springfield employees filed a class action against the
city alleging racial and ethnicity bias in pay and promotions,
Suzanne Mclaughlin of The Republican reports.

The suit was filed by the firm of Moriarty and Connor, of 101
State St. with the Massachusetts Commission Against
Discrimination on Aug. 7.  It was filed on behalf of the eight
employees and other similarly situated city workers.

The employees say of the city's 29 department heads, only four
are minorities.

One of the plaintiffs is a personnel director Gail Walls.  

Moriarty and Connor on the Net: http://www.moriarty-connor.com.


ROGER WIRELESS: High Court Dismisses Suit Over Cellphone Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canada's Supreme Court has ruled against a consumer's bid to
launch a class action against Rogers Wireless Inc. in a dispute
over cellphone prices.

Frederick Muroff, a Montreal dentist, filed a motion back in
2004 for permission to launch a class action against the
company.  He filed the suit after being unexpectedly billed $4 a
minute for phone calls while in Maine, U.S.A.

Rogers contracts contain a mandatory arbitration clause, meaning
if anyone has a complaint about their cell phone, bill or
service, they have to take the company to arbitration.  

Albert Greenspoon, of law firm Kaufman Laram,e, says that Rogers  
Wireless' practices are abusive and unfair.  He described it as
only having one purpose: to keep consumers from taking action
against the company.

Canada's high court dismissed the case in July.

For more details, contact:

          Albert A. Greenspoon, Esq.
          Kaufman Laram,e, S.E.N.C.
          800 Rene-Levesque Boulevard West, Suite 2220
          Montreal Quebec, Canada
          Phone: 514-875-7550
          Fax: 514-875-7147  
          E-mail: http://www.kaufmanlaramee.com/   


TIME WARNER: Settlement of Subscribers' Suit Denied Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
declined to grant final approval to a settlement reached in a
purported nationwide class action filed against Time Warner
Entertainment Co., L.P., and Time Warner Cable alleging
violation of subscribers' privacy rights.

The suit, "Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time
Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. and Time Warner Cable," alleges
that the company sold its subscribers' personally identifiable
information and failed to inform subscribers of their privacy
rights in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984 and common law.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On Aug. 6, 1998, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which
was denied on Sept. 7, 1999.  On Dec. 8, 1999, the company filed
a motion to deny class certification, which was granted on Jan.
9, 2001 with respect to monetary damages, but denied with
respect to injunctive relief.

On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the court's decision denying class certification
as a matter of law and remanded the case for further proceedings
on class certification and other matters.

On May 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which Time Warner Cable has opposed.  On Oct. 25,
2005, the court granted preliminary approval of a class
settlement arrangement on terms that were not material to the
company.

A final settlement approval hearing was held on May 19, 2006,
and on Jan. 26, 2007, the court denied approval of the
settlement.

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 "Parker, et al. v. Time Warner Entertai, et al.,
Case no. 1:98-cv-04265-ILG-JMA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge I. Leo
Glasser.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael G. Lenett, Esq.
         Cuneo Waldman & LaDuca LLP
         507 C. Street, N.E.
         Washington, DC 20002
         Phone: 202-789-3960
   
              - and -

         Peter Steven Linden, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         830 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 371-6600

Representing the company are:

         Landis Cox Best, Esq.
         Jonathan D. Their, Esq.
         Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
         80 Pine Street
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: (212) 701-3694
         Fax: (212) 269-5420
         E-mail: lbest@cahill.com
                 jthier@cahill.com

              - and -

         George W. Sampson, Esq.
         Hagens Berman LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Fax (206) 623-0594


TYCO INT'L: Hearing of $3B Securities Suit Settlement Set Nov. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire will
hold on November 2, 2007 at 10:30 a.m., a final approval hearing
for the $3.2 billion settlement of a consolidated securities
class action filed against Tyco International Ltd., certain of
the company's former directors and officers and its former
auditors.

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquire Common Stock, Notes or Options on Common Stock of Tyco
from December 13, 1999 to June 7, 2002, inclusive.

Deadline to file for objections and requests for exclusions is
September 28, 2007. Deadline to file claims is December 28,
2007.

                         Case Background

The company and certain of its former directors and officers
were named as defendants in over 40 securities class actions.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire most
of the securities class actions for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

On Jan. 28, 2003, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the New
Hampshire securities actions filed, "In re Tyco International,
Ltd., Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335,
Master Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," a consolidated securities
class action complaint against the company certain of the
company's former directors and officers and its former auditors.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire.

As to the company and certain of its former directors and
officers, the complaint asserts causes of action under Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 14(a) of that Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.

Claims against the company's former directors and officers are
also asserted under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

The complaint asserts that the Tyco defendants violated the
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning, among others:

      -- Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting  
         therefor, as well as allegedly undisclosed  
         acquisitions;  

      -- misstatements of Tyco's financial results;  

      -- the impact of a new accounting standard (SAB 101,  
         promulgated in 1999) on the company's earnings  
         performance;  

      -- compensation of certain of the company's former  
         executives;  

      -- their improper use of the company's funds for personal  
         benefit and their improper self-dealing real estate  
         transactions;  

      -- their sales of Tyco shares;  

      -- payment of $20 million to one of the company's former  
         directors and a charity of which he is a trustee; and  

      -- the criminal investigation of the company's former  
         chief executive officer.

On June 12, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class
"consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tyco securities between Dec. 13, 1999 and
June 7, 2002, and who were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants, all of the officers, directors and partners thereof,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in
which any of the foregoing have or had a controlling interest."

In May, Tyco agreed to immediately fund $2.975 billion in cash
to settle securities and accounting fraud claims relating to the
Kozlowski era (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2007).  

In July, Tyco's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, agreed to pay
$225 million to settle securities and accounting fraud claims
relating to Tyco's securities class action (Class Action
Reporter, July 9, 2007).

Consequently, Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire has given preliminary approval
to the $3.2 billion settlement (Class Action Reporter, Jul 18,
2007).

The case caption is: In re: Tyco International, Ltd.
Multidistrict Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No.  1:02-md-
01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.

For more information, contact:

          Katharine Ryan, Esq.
          Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
          Darren Check
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (Toll Free) or 1-610-822-2223 or           
                 1-610-822-2203 or 1-610-822-2235
          E-mail: kryan@sbtklaw.com or myarnoff@sbtklaw.com or
                  dcheck@sbtklaw.com


UNITED STATES: Accused of Defrauding Passport Applicants
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of State is facing a class-action complaint
filed Aug. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging it breached contract with more
than 2 million citizens who applied for passports, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Julie Chattler accuses the State Department of
accepting $60 apiece for expedited processing of passports,
failing to deliver the passports on time, failing to return the
$60, and failing to tell them how to get her money back.

She claims the State Department accepted the $60 extra fee from
about half of the 4.5 million applicants who sought passports
from December 2006 through February this year, the complaint
states.  But it failed to deliver them within the statutory
three days, and refused to issue refunds.

The State Department offered refunds to people who did not get
their expedited passports within 14 days when Congress raised
the issue in June.  But the State Department allegedly did not
tell the applicants this; it only informed members of Congress.

Plaintiff brings this action against the United States and the
Department of State as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a)a ntl2 3(b)(2)a nd2 3(b)(3) on behalf of
all individuals who paid the extra $60 fee for expedited service
and for whom either:

     (a) the passport was not mailed out or available for pick-
         up within three business days of its arrival at a
         Passport Agency or

     (b) the passport was not reserved by the applicant within
         twenty-one days of application

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (1) Whether the Department of State's failure to complete
         processing of applications within three business days
         for individuals paying for expedited service
         constitutes a breach of the express or implied contract
         or is a violation of pertinent regulations;

     (2) Whether the Department of State's failure to return the
         passports to individuals paying for expedited service
         in less than twenty one days constitutes a breach of
         the promise to return them within about two weeks;

     (3) Whether the Department of State's proposed refund
         program and its failure to automatically process
         refunds based on its own records to those individuals
         whose passports were not processed within three
         business days or returned within twenty one days
         constitutes a breach of the contract or a violation of
         regulation due to its inferior methodology.

Plaintiff requests that the Court:

     -- Certify this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23
        of the Federa Rules of Civil Procedure, and appoint
        Plaintiff Chattler as class representative and Hagens
        Berman Sobol Shapiro and the Carey Law Firm as class
        counsel;

     -- Adjudge and decree that defendant's conduct as described
        herein breached the contract between plaintiffs and
        defendant and violates pertinent regulations.

     -- Award compensatory damages including all consequential
        and specialized damages in amounts to be determined at
        trial or, where applicable, to the full extent allowed
        by law.

     -- Award pre-judgment interest to plaintiffs to the fullest
        extent allowed by law.

     -- Award plaintiffs the costs of bringing this action,
        including the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is "Chattler v. United States of America, Case No.
3:07-cv-04040-JL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge James Larson.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

          Robert B. Carey
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro PLLC
          2425 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 650
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: 602-224-2626
          Fax: 602-840-5900
          E-mail: rcarey@hbsslaw.com

          Reed R. Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          Fax: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

          Megan E. Waples
          The Carey Law Firm
          2301 East Pikes Peak Avenue
          Colorado Springs, CO 80909
          Phone: 719-635-0377
          Fax: 719-635-2920


VIACOM INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over 2004 Blockbuster Split-Off
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viacom, Inc. remains a defendant in several purported class
actions over the 2004 split-off of Blockbuster, Inc.

The former Viacom entity, National Amusements, Inc.,
Blockbuster, and Viacom, Inc., and certain of the company's
respective present and former officers and directors, are
defendants in three putative class actions relating to the 2004
split-off of Blockbuster from the former Viacom pursuant to an
exchange offer.

The lawsuits now pending are a consolidated securities action
and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and a
state law action in the Court of Chancery of Delaware.

The lawsuits seek damages in unspecified amounts and other
relief on behalf of various classes of Blockbuster and former
Viacom stockholders and, in the ERISA case, participants in the
Blockbuster Investment Plan and the Plan itself.

The lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities action allege
that the defendants in that case made untrue statements of
material facts and concealed and failed to disclose material
facts in the Prospectus-Offer to Exchange and elsewhere during
the alleged period.

The plaintiff in the ERISA action alleges that the defendants in
that case breached fiduciary obligations to the Blockbuster
Investment Plan by continuing to offer to plan participants
Blockbuster stock from and after November 2003 and by offering
to plan participants the opportunity to exchange their shares of
Former Viacom common stock for the shares of Blockbuster common
stock.

The plaintiff in the Delaware case alleges that the Former
Viacom Board member defendants breached fiduciary duties to
Former Viacom shareholders in connection with the split-off and
that the Blockbuster Board member defendants breached fiduciary
duties to Blockbuster shareholders by disproportionately
favoring Former Viacom in the split-off transaction.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Viacom, Inc. -- http://www.viacom.com/-- is a global  
entertainment content company.  The Company operates through two
segments: Media Networks (formerly Cable Networks), which
includes MTV Networks (MTVN) and BET Networks, and Filmed
Entertainment (formerly Entertainment), which includes Paramount
Pictures Corporation and Famous Music.


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Court Mulls Class Status for Natural Gas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Kansas state court has yet to rule on a motion seeking class
certification for a lawsuit filed against Williams Partners L.P.
along with its other subsidiaries.

In 2001, defendants were named in a purported nationwide class
action in Kansas state court that had been pending against other
defendants, generally pipeline and gathering companies, since
2000.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties
to the class of producer plaintiffs and sought an unspecified
amount of damages.

Defendants have opposed class certification and a hearing on
plaintiffs' second motion to certify the class was held on April
1, 2005.  Parties are awaiting a decision from the court.

The company provided no material development in the matter in
its Aug. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

Williams Partners L.P. -- http://www.williamslp.com-- is a  
partnership formed by The Williams Companies, Inc. (Williams),
to own, operate and acquire a diversified portfolio of
complementary energy assets.  The Company is principally engaged
in the business of gathering, transporting and processing
natural gas and fractionating and storing natural gas liquids
(NGLs).  


WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS COS: Still Face System Access Fee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Saskatchewan court has yet to rule on an application to file
a class action against companies providing wireless
communications in Canada, Rogers Communications Inc. said at its
recent financial report.  

In August 2004, a proceeding under the Class Actions Act
(Saskatchewan) was brought against providers of wireless
communications in Canada.  Since that time, similar proposed
class actions have also been commenced in Newfoundland &
Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba,
Alberta and British Columbia.

The proceeding involves allegations by wireless customers of,
among other things, breach of contract, misrepresentation, false
advertising and unjust enrichment with respect to the system
access fee charged by Wireless to some of its customers.  

The plaintiffs seek unquantified damages from the defendants.
Wireless believes it has a good defence to the allegations.  The
plaintiffs have applied for an order certifying a national class
action in Saskatchewan.

In July 2006, the Saskatchewan court denied the plaintiffs'
application to have the proceeding certified as a class action.  
However, the court granted leave to the plaintiffs to renew
their applications in order to address the requirements of the
Saskatchewan Class Actions Act.

The plaintiffs' application to address these requirements was
heard by the Court in June 2007.  The Court reserved and no
decision has been released.  


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN HOME: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
a class of all persons who purchased securities of American Home
Mortgage Investment Corp. (NYSE: AHM) (PINKSHEETS: AHMMQ)
between July 26, 2006 and July 27, 2007, inclusive and alleges
violations of the federal securities laws by certain of the
Company's executives.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company
reported positive earnings and "strong" financial results and
record loan originations. However, unknown to investors, the
following adverse conditions were allegedly affecting the
Company's business during the Class Period:

     (i) its risk mitigation strategies were materially
         defective,
    (ii) its financial results were materially overstated
         because the Company failed to write-down the value of
         certain of the loans in its portfolio, such as stated
         income loans, in violation of generally accepted
         accounting principles ("GAAP") as these loans had
         materially declined in value; and
   (iii) its financial guidance and promised cash dividend
         lacked any reasonable basis.

As alleged in the Complaint, on July 27, 2007, after the close
of the market, American Home Mortgage disclosed that its
Company's Board of Directors decided to delay payment of its
quarterly cash dividend on the Company's common stock and that
it anticipated delaying payment of its quarterly cash dividends
on its Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock and Series
B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock "in order to preserve
liquidity until it obtains a better understanding of the impact
that current market conditions in the mortgage industry and the
broader credit market will have on the Company's balance sheet
and overall liquidity."

In response to this announcement, it is alleged that on July 30,
2007, the NYSE halted trading in American Home Mortgage stock
before the market opened and when trading resumed on July 31,
2007, the stock declined from $10.47 per share to close at $1.04
per share, a decline of $9.43 per share or approximately 90%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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

For more information, contact:

          Frederic S. Fox
          Joel B. Strauss
          Jeffrey P. Campisi
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail address: mail@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

          Laurence D. King
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail address: mail@kaplanfox.com


MOTOROLA INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that
a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of
Motorola, Inc. securities during the period between July 19,
2006 and January 4, 2007.

The complaint charges Motorola and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Motorola builds, markets and sells products, services and
applications that make connections to people, information and
entertainment through broadband, embedded systems and wireless
networks.

The complaint alleges that in the summer of 2006, Motorola's
poor financial performance had depressed its stock price to
below $19 per share. In order to artificially inflate the price
of Motorola stock, defendants began a series of false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
prospects. Specifically, defendants repeatedly told investors to
expect strong growth in sales and revenues.

On October 17, 2006, defendants announced that Motorola had
failed to meet its revenue and sales projections. As a result of
this announcement, Motorola's stock price declined over 7% in
two trading days. Then on January 4, 2007, defendants announced
that Motorola's fourth quarter 2006 results also failed to meet
expectations. This time, the Company's stock price declined
almost 8%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Motorola publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

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


QIAO XING: Kaplan Fox Fiiles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of a class of all persons who purchased securities of Qiao Xing
Universal Telephone, Inc., including purchasers of both Xing
common stock and call options, between June 30, 2004 and July
16, 2007, inclusive and alleges violations of the federal
securities laws by Xing and certain of its executives.

As alleged in the Complaint, on July 17, 2007, before the
opening of trading, Xing disclosed, among other things, that in
connection with the audit of the financial statements of a
Company subsidiary, certain misstatements for the years 2005,
2004 and 2003 were identified that were not initially detected
through the Company's internal control over financial reporting
and that, as a result, management has decided to restate the
Company's consolidated financial statements for the years ended
December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003. As further alleged, during the
Class Period, Xing overstated its reported net income for the
years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 by 2% and 93%,
respectively, and for the year ended December 31, 2003, Xing
understated its reported net loss by 210%.

The complaint further alleges that on July 17, 2007, the Company
filed its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2006 on
Form 20-F with the SEC that stated that the misstatements in the
financial statements resulted from certain deficiencies in the
Company's system of internal controls over financial reporting.

In response to these announcements, on July 17, 2007, the price
of Xing stock declined from $13.97 per share at the close of
trading on July 16, 2007, to close at $11.04 per share, a
decline of approximately 21%, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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

For more information, contact:

          Frederic S. Fox
          Joel B. Strauss
          Jeffrey P. Campisi
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail address: mail@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

          Laurence D. King
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail address: mail@kaplanfox.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, and Mary Grace Durana, Editors.

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *