CAR_Public/070814.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 14, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 159

                            Headlines


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Calif. Suit Alleges Deceptive TV Advertising
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged TCPA Violations
DAIRY COS: Face Price Fixing Claims in Grade A Milk Market
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Former Workers Sue Over Benefits Calculation
HCA INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit for $20M

KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Suits in Calif. Over LKQ Corp. Merger
KOREAN AIR: Wash. Lawsuit Alleges Violations of the Sherman Act
MASTERCARD INC: Arguments Appealing Dismissal of “Kendall” Heard
MASTERCARD INC: Ruling on Motion to Junk Suit Over IPO Pending
MASTERCARD INT’L: Discovery Continues in Interchange Fees MDL

MASTERCARD INT’L: Still Faces U.S. Merchant, Consumer Lawsuits
MASTERCARD INT’L: Nov. Hearing Set in Conversion Fee Suit Deal
MIDWAY GAMES: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ill.
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Conn. Court Mulls Dismissal of ERISA Suit
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Aug. 31 Hearing Set in “Carr” Fraud Lawsuit

NATIONWIDE LIFE: Dismissal of Marketing Timing Suit Appealed
NEWMONT MINING: Securities Suit Settlement Yet to Get Approval
NOBLE ENERGY: Colo. Court Approves Royalty Lawsuits Settlement
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Stockbrokers’ Lawsuits
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Settles N.M. Suit Over “Modal” Payment

QUIXTAR INC: Cal. Suit Claims Illegal Pyramid Recruitment Scheme
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: SEC Returns $267M to U.S. Investors
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: No OK Yet for $13M Securities Suit Deal
SEI INVESTMENTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Market Timing Suit
SONUS NETWORKS: No Class Status Ruling Yet for Securities Suit

SONUS NETWORKS: Seeks Dismissal of Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
TEXACO SUNBURST: High Court Affirms $16M Pollution Cleanup Award
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuits in Pa., Ill.
ZURN PEX: Minn. Homeowners Sue Over Failed Plumbing Systems


* Class Action, Management Conference Set Nov. 9 in California

      
                   New Securities Fraud Cases       

HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Schiffrin Barroway Files Fla. Securities Suit
LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Abraham Fruchter Files Cal. Securities Suit
LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Gardy & Notis Files Cal. Securities Lawsuit
LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Stull, Stull Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Calif. Suit Alleges Deceptive TV Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed in a Superior
Court in California accusing it of deceiving consumers with television ads
that state, “Your rates won’t go up just because of an accident,” the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Dan Koes says, “Allstate’s rate promise is false. Allstate
raises its policyholders’ premiums after they are involved in an automobile
accident. ... Allstate has earned potentially millions of dollars in premium
payments based on its false rate promise,” the complaint states.

Mr. Koes demands punitive damages.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is:

          Arkin & Glovsky
          225 South Lake Street, Tenth Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Phone: (626) 243-5598
          Fax: (866) 294-2501
          Website: http://www.fighthmos.com


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 9 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Named plaintiffs Kevin Lemieux and Erik Knutson accuse Blockbuster of
illegally using an automatic calling system to call plaintiffs on their
cellular phones.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons within the United
States who received any telephone call from defendant to said person's
cellular telephone through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system
or an artificial or prerecorded voice, within the four years prior to the
filing of this complaint.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether, within the four years prior to the filing of
         this complaint, defendant made any call (other than a
         call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior
         express consent of the called party) using any
         automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
         prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a
         cellular telephone service;

     (b) whether plaintiffs and the class were damaged thereby,
         and the extent of damages for such violation; and

     (c) whether defendants should be enjoined from engaging in
         such conduct in the future.

Plaintiffs request that court grant them relief against defendants as follows:

     -- as a result of defendant's negligent violations of 47
        U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1), plaintiffs seek for themselves
        $500 in statutory damages, for each and every violation,
        pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(B);

     -- pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(A), injunctive
        relief prohibiting such conduct in the future;

     -- as a result of defendants' willful and/or knowing
        violations of 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1), plaintiffs
        seek for themselves and each class member treble
        damages, as provided by statute, up to $1,500, for each
        and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section
        227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(C); and

     -- pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(30(A), injunctive
        relief prohibiting such conduct in the future.


The suit is “Lemieux et al. v. Blockbuster, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-01582-JAH-
AJB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, under Judge John A. Houston, with referral to Judge Anthony J.
Battaglia.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Robert Lyman Hyde
          Hyde & Swigart
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619)233-7770
          Fax: (619)330-4657
          E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com


DAIRY COS: Face Price Fixing Claims in Grade A Milk Market
----------------------------------------------------------
Dairy farmers continue to file an antitrust class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee claiming there was a conspiracy
to fix Grade A milk prices, strangle competition and restrict independent
dairy farmers' and independent coops' access to milk bottling plants.

The complaint, filed Aug. 9, names these parties as defendants:

          -- Dean Foods Company,
          -- National Dairy Holdings, L.P.,
          -- Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.,
          -- Dairy Marketing Services, LLC,
          -- Southern Marketing Agency, Inc.,
          -- James Baird,
          -- Gary Hanman and
          -- Gerald Bos

Named plaintiff Fidel Breto claims the defendants conspire with others,
including the Kroger Co. to:

     -- control access to bottling plants through long-term
        full-supply agreements;

     -- force independent producers to sell to DFA-controlled
        marketing entities, boycott milk producers who resist;

     -- flood the Southeast with milk to depress prices;

     -- punish independent producers by driving them out of
        business; and

     -- reap unjust profits from their illegal cartel.

Mr. Breto files this action on behalf of the Direct Milk Purchasers in the
States o Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Caroliuna, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

This is an antitrust case arising out of a combination and conspiracy among
defendants to refuse to compete for the purchase of raw Grade A milk
produced, marketed and processed in the Southeast United States.  Defendants
allegedly fix, stabilize, and maintain prices paid to dairy farmers for Grade
A milk and eliminate and stifle competition in the relevant market.  
Defendants' combination and conspiracy also had the purpose and effect of
artificially-inflating the prices of Grade A milk purchased by the plaintiff
and other Direct Mil Purchaser class members, among other unlawful activities.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
         stabilize, maintain, and/or artificially lower the
         price paid to Southeast dairy farmers for Grade A milk;

     (b) whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy to foreclose
         independent dairy farmers from access to fluid Grade A
         milk bottling plants in the Southeast;

     (c) whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy to foreclose
         dairy farmer members of independent cooperatives from
         access to fluid Grade A milk bottling plants in the
         Southeast;

     (d) whether, in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendants
         entered into full-supply agreements to foreclose such
         independent access;

     (e) whether, in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendants
         engaged in group boycott of independent dairy farmers
         and independent cooperatives;

     (f) whether DFA, and DFA, DMS and SMA collectively,
         exercise monopoly power in the production and marketing
         of Grade A milk in the Southeast United States;

     (g) whether DFA, and or DFA, DMS, and SMA collectively,
         have abused their monopoly power;

     (h) whether Dean, and/or Dean, DFA, and NDH collectively,
         have a monopsony in the purchase of Grade A milk in the
         Southeast United States;

     (i) whether Dean, and/or Dean, DFA, and NDH collectively,
         have abused and/or misused their monopsony;

     (j) whether defendants conspired to monopolize and/or
         monopsonize and/or restrain interstate trade of Grade A
         milk produced and marketed in the Southeast;

     (k) whether defendants' conduct has violated the Sherman
         Act;

     (l) whether Baird, Bos and Hanman participated in,
         authorized, directed and/or knowingly approved or
         ratified defendants' violation of the Sherman Act;

     (m) whether defendants caused injury to plaintiffs and
         proposed class members under the Sherman Act; and

     (n) whether plaintiffs and proposed class members are
         entitled to:

              (i) an injunction prohibiting the continuation of
                  defendants' violations, and ordering such
                  other and further injunctive relief as is
                  necessary to restore competition;

             (ii) a declaration of their eligibility to an award
                  of damages and other monetary relief,
                  including treble damages;

            (iii) interest from the date they should have
                  received all monies rightfully owed to the
                  actual date of payment as a result of this
                  lawsuit; and

             (iv) attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief
                  the court deems just and reasonable.

Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

     -- declare this action to be a proper class action
        maintainable pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure and declaring named plaintiff to be the
        class representative;

     -- adjudge and declare that defendants have engaged in
        unlawful conduct in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the
        Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1-2;

     -- preliminary and permanently enjoin defendants from
        violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Sections 1-2;

     -- order defendants, their subsidiaries or joint ventures
        to divest fluid Grade A milk bottling plants necessary
        to restore competition in the Southeast;

     -- against all defendants, jointly and severally, award
        plaintiffs and the proposed class damages in an amount
        to be proven at trial, to be trebled with interest and
        the costs of this suit, including attorneys' fees; and

     -- award such further relief, including structural
        remedies, as the court deems just and proper.

The suit is “Breto v. Dean Foods Company et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00188,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, under
Judge J. Ronnie Greer, with referral to Judge Dennis H. Inman.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gordon Ball
          Ball & Scott
          550 Main Avenue
          750 NationsBank Center
          Knoxville, TN 37902-2567
          Phone: 865-525-7028
          Fax: 865-525-4679
          E-mail: filings@ballandscott.com


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Former Workers Sue Over Benefits Calculation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two former employees of Deloitte & Touche USA LLP filed a lawsuit over what
they say the refusal of the company to apply the clear, unambiguous terms of
the Deloitte & Touche LLP Plan when calculating the amount of retirees'
pension benefits.

The Plan is a "defined benefit plan" and the successor to the Deloitte &
Touche Employees' Pension Plan.

Deloitee refers to Deloitte & Touche (a New York partnership), Deloitte USA,
Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP, Deloitte
Financial Advisory Services LLP, Deloitte Development LLC and their
subsidiaries or affiliates.

Dov Frishberg and Jeffrey H. Teitel filed the suit in U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut on July 17, 2007.

Defendants allegedly refuse to credit the 12 to 18 months of service that
plaintiffs and other similarly situated retirees performed between the date
they were hired and the date they formally entered the plan
as "participants."  This refusal is allegedly despite the fact that the Plan,
like most defined benefit plans, expressly counts such pre-participation
service as "credited service" for benefit accrual purposes, i.e. for the
purpose of determining the amount of the retirees' pensions.  

This is allegedly so despite the fact that the Plan's terms clearly,
repeatedly and unambiguously specify that all service of an employee
compensated primarily on a salaried basis must be taken into account,
including pre-participation service, for benefit accrual purposes.   

The proposed class is composed of all persons:

     * who rendered Service as Eligible Employees under the
       Deloitte & Touche Employees' Pension plan, as amended and
       restated effective June 2, 1991 beginning at any time
       between June 1, 1991 and Jan. 1, 1997, and who became or
       will become entitled to a pension benefit thereunder; and

     * the beneficiaries or estates of such persons if deceased,
       or alternate payees under a Qualified Domestic Relations
       Order who are receiving benefit payments from the Plan or
       will be entitled to receive such benefit payments in the
       future.

The plaintiffs demand, among others:

     -- a permanent injunction compelling defendants to comply
        with Employee Retirement Security Act and the terms of
        the Plan and to calculate benefits due to members of the
        class by counting their pre-participation Service as
        Credited Service disregarding participants' pre-
        participation Service as Eligible Employees; and

     -- an order requiring defendants to re-calculate the
        benefit amounts due to plaintiff and the class under the
        1991 Plan in accordance with its terms, and for the Plan
        to pay the difference, plus interest, to or on behalf of
        all class members who have already received a complete
        or partial distribution of the Plan benefit.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jennifer C. Jaff, Esq.
         Law Office of Jennifer C. Jaff
         18 Timberline Drive
         Farmington, CT
         Phone: (8600 674-1370
         Fax: (860) 674-1378

         -- and –-

         Eli Gottesdiener
         Gottesdiener Law firm PLLC
         498 7th St.
         Brooklyn, N.Y. 11215
         Phone: (718) 788-1500
         Fax: (7180 788-1650


HCA INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit for $20M
------------------------------------------------------------
HCA Inc. agreed to settle the matter "In re HCA Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-CV-00981," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee for $20,000,000.

The class consists of all persons or entities who bought or acquired common
stock of HCA Inc. from Jan. 12, 2005 through July 12, 2005.

In November 2005, two putative federal securities law class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of persons who purchased the company's stock
between Jan. 12, 2005 and July 13, 2005.

These substantially similar lawsuits asserted claims pursuant to Sections 10
(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the company and its chairman and chief
executive officer, president and chief operating officer, and executive vice
president and chief financial officer, related to the company's July 13, 2005
announcement of preliminary results of operations for the second quarter
ended June 30, 2005.

On Jan. 4, 2006, the court consolidated these actions under the caption, "In
re HCA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-CV-00981."  

Pursuant to federal statute, on Jan. 25, 2006, the court appointed co-lead
plaintiffs to represent the interests of the putative class members in this
litigation.  Co-lead plaintiffs were set a deadline of March 27, 2006 to file
a consolidated amended complaint.

In light of the amount of the recent settlement and the immediacy of recovery
to the Class, Lead Plaintiffs believe that the proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the Class.

Lead Plaintiffs believe that the Settlement provides a substantial benefit
now, namely $20,000,000.00 in cash less the various deductions described in
the Notice, as compared to the risk that all or some of the claims in the
Action could have been dismissed in response to Defendants’ motions to
dismiss, or that a similar, smaller, or no recovery would be achieved after
motions for summary judgment, a trial and/or appeals, possibly years in the
future, in which Defendants would have the opportunity to assert substantial
defenses to the claims asserted against them.

The Settlement Fund will be distributed as follows:

     -- To pay all federal, state and local taxes on any income
        earned by the Settlement Fund and to pay the reasonable
        costs incurred in connection with determining the amount
        of, and paying, taxes owed by the Settlement Fund
        (including reasonable expenses of tax attorneys and
        accountants);

     -- To pay costs and expenses in connection with providing
        Notice to Class Members and administering the Settlement
        on behalf of Class Members;

     -- To reimburse Lead Counsel for, and to pay, costs and
        expenses incurred by Lead Counsel in connection with,
        commencing and prosecuting the Action, with interest
        thereon, if and to the extent allowed by the Court;

     -- To pay Lead Counsel’s attorneys’ fees, to the extent
        allowed by the Court; and

Subject to an Order of the Court granting approval of the Settlement and the
Plan of Allocation (or such other allocation plan as the Court may approve)
becoming final (meaning that the time for appeal or appellate review of the
Order granting final approval has expired, or if the Order is appealed, that
appeal is either decided without causing a material change in the Order or
upheld on appeal and no longer subject to appellate review by further appeal
or writ of certiorari) the balance of the Net Settlement Fund shall be
distributed to Authorized Claimants in accordance with the Plan of
Allocation.

After deduction for the payments set forth above, the Net Settlement Fund
will be distributed to Authorized Claimants as allowed by the Stipulation,
the Plan of Allocation, and/or the Court.

Defendants deny the claims asserted against them in the Action or that they
have engaged in any wrongdoing, violation of law or breach of duty, and the
Settlement may not be construed as an admission of wrongdoing by any of the
Defendants. Defendants have agreed to the Settlement in order to eliminate
the burden and expense of continued litigation.

Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on September 28, 2007.
Deadline to file claims is on November 26, 2007.

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on October 12, 2007 at 10 a.m,
before the Honorable William J. Haynes, Jr., at the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville Division).

In Re HCA Inc. Securities Litigation on the net:
http://www.hcasettlement.com/index.php3

The suit is "In re HCA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-CV-00981,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee under
Judge William J. Haynes.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul Kent Bramlett
          Bramlett Law Offices
          P.O. Box 150734
          Nashville, TN 37215-0734
          Phone: (615) 248-2828
          E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com

          - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas
          Tamara Skvirsky
          Marc A. Topaz
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 667-7706
          Fax: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          James N. Bowen
          Amy E. Neff
          Steven Allen Riley
          Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, PLC,
          1906 West End Avenue
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 320-3700
          E-mail: jimbowen@bowenriley.com, aneff@bowenriley.com
                  and sriley@bowenriley.com


KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Suits in Calif. Over LKQ Corp. Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. faces two purported class actions in
California over its merger agreement with LKQ Corp., according to the
company’s Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2007.

On July 16, 2007, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
with LKQ Corp., a Delaware corporation, and LKQ Acquisition Company, a
California corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of LKQ Corp., by which
LKQ Corp. has agreed to acquire the Company.  

The merger agreement is subject to shareholder and regulatory approval.  The
merger is expected to close in the fourth quarter of calendar 2007.

On July 18, 2007, two putative class actions were filed against the Company
and its directors in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles in connection with the Company’s proposed merger with LKQ Corp.
pursuant to the terms of a definitive merger agreement between the Company
and LKQ Corp.

The lawsuits purport to represent a class of all holders of the Company’s
common stock, allege self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty and challenge
the adequacy of the process employed by the Company and the share price to be
paid to the Company’s stockholders in the merger.

The lawsuits seek to enjoin the proposed merger and request payment of
attorneys’ fees.

Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. -- http://www.keystone-auto.com/-- is a  
distributor of aftermarket collision replacement parts produced by
independent manufacturers for automobiles and light trucks.  Keystone
distributes products primarily to collision repair shops throughout most of
the United States and certain areas in Canada.  It also recycles and produces
chrome plated and plastic bumper, and remanufactures alloy and steel wheels.  
The Company’s principal product lines consist of automotive body parts,
bumpers and remanufactured alloy wheels, light truck accessories, as well as
paint and other materials used in repairing a damaged vehicle.


KOREAN AIR: Wash. Lawsuit Alleges Violations of the Sherman Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a class action
against Korean Air Lines on August 8, 2007 in the U.S. District Court of
Seattle, Washington on behalf of passengers claiming the airline illegally
conspired with competitors to fix pricing for flights between the U.S. and
Korea for both airline passengers and cargo flights.

The complaint claims the airline is in violation of both the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, the first of which Korean Air
has admitted guilt to in a deal with the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust
division and has agreed to a $300 million fine for its actions.

The fine is the first in the antitrust division's investigation into the
airline industry. British Airways was also levied a $300 million fine for
price fixing on passenger flights.

"There is no doubt that the airline industry is highly competitive, but we
think trying to make a profit by price fixing is wrong," said lead attorney
and HBSS managing partner, Steve Berman. "It appears that legal action like
ours is the only way to get their attention and stop these practices."

The named plaintiff, James Van Horn, filed the suit on behalf of himself and
all others who purchased a ticket on Korean Air from January 1, 2000 until at
least July 16, 2006.

Mr. Van Horn is seeking redress for the increased pricing of passenger air
transportation as a result of "the illegal combination and conspiracy" to
inflate prices which was agreed upon between Korean Air and its unnamed co-
conspirators.

The filed complaint goes on to state the "defendant and its co-conspirators
entered into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and
eliminate competition by fixing the price for passenger air fares."

"We know from our investigation that this alleged practice could have
impacted hundreds of thousands of travelers in the U.S. and Korea," said
Berman. "Six years is a long time to be charging artificially inflated prices
and we want those customers to be rightfully reimbursed."

The suit was seeks compensatory, statutory and exemplary relief for damages
suffered by the plaintiff and the proposed class.
According to the filed complaint the single count being held against the
airline is a violation of the Sherman Act.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

          Mark Firmani
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: (206) 443-9357
          E-mail: Mark@firmani.com


MASTERCARD INC: Arguments Appealing Dismissal of “Kendall” Heard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California heard oral
argument on an appeal against a dismissal of the class action "Kendall, et
al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-04276-JSW."

On October 8, 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a group of
merchants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp.
and several member banks in California alleging, among other things, that
MasterCard’s and Visa’s interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.

The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction against MasterCard (and Visa)
setting interchange and engaging in “joint marketing activities,” which
plaintiffs allege include the purported negotiation of merchant discount
rates with certain merchants.

MasterCard moved to dismiss the claims in the complaint for failure to state
a claim and, in the alternative, also moved for summary judgment with respect
to certain of the claims.

On July 25, 2005, the court issued an order granting MasterCard’s motion to
dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice which plaintiffs have
appealed.  Oral argument on the appeal was held on June 11, 2007.  The
parties are awaiting a decision, according to the company’s Aug. 1 form 10-Q
filing for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

MasterCard Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries, including its principal
operating subsidiary, MasterCard International Inc., and MasterCard Europe
sprl, provide transaction processing and related services to customers
principally in support of their credit, debit, electronic cash and Automated
Teller Machine payment card programs, and travelers cheque programs.

The suit is "Kendall, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-04276-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard Joseph Archer, Esq.
         Archer & Hansen
         3110 Bohemian Highway
         Occidental, CA 95465
         Phone: 707-874-3438
         Fax: 707-874-3438
         E-mail: archerdic@aol.com

              - and -

         James Archer Kopcke, Esq.
         Golden & Kopcke, LLP
         22 Battery Street, Suite 610
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-399-9995
         Fax: 415-398-5890
         E-mail: jameskopcke@yahoo.com

Representing the company are:

         Jay Neil Fastow, Esq.
         Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: 212-310-8644
         Fax: 212-310-8007
         E-mail: jay.fastow@weil.com

         Gianluca Morello, Esq.
         Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A.,
         501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Phone: (813) 769-7867
         E-mail: gianluca.morello@fowlerwhite.com
      
              - and -

         Wesley Railey Powell, Esq.
         Hunton & Williams, LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-309-1013
         Fax: 212-309-1100
         E-mail: wpowell@hunton.com


MASTERCARD INC: Ruling on Motion to Junk Suit Over IPO Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss all claims
contained in a supplemental complaint in relation to its 2006 Initial Public
Offering.

On July 5, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a supplemental
complaint alleging that the IPO and certain purported agreements entered into
between MasterCard Inc. and its member financial institutions in connection
with its 2006 IPO:

     (1) violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their
         effect allegedly may be to substantially lessen
         competition,

     (2) violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they
         allegedly constitute an unlawful combination in
         restraint of trade, and

     (3) constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the member
         banks are allegedly attempting to release without
         adequate consideration from the member banks
         MasterCard’s right to assess the member banks for
         MasterCard’s litigation liabilities in these
         interchange-related litigations and in other antitrust
         litigations pending against it.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing and unwinding
the IPO.  On September 15, 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss all of the
claims contained in the supplemental complaint.  The parties are awaiting a
decision, according to the company’s Aug. 1 form 10-Q filing for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.  

MasterCard Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries, including its principal
operating subsidiary, MasterCard International Inc., and MasterCard Europe
sprl, provide transaction processing and related services to customers
principally in support of their credit, debit, electronic cash and Automated
Teller Machine payment card programs, and travelers cheque programs.


MASTERCARD INT’L: Discovery Continues in Interchange Fees MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed by a group of
merchants against MasterCard International Inc., among others, alleging that
the company’s purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

On June 22, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a group of
merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against MasterCard
International Inc., Visa U.S.A., Inc. Visa International Service Association
and a number of member banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard’s
and Visa’s purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

In addition, the complaint alleges MasterCard’s and Visa’s purported tying
and bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.  The suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount,
attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief.

Since the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately 50 similar
complaints (the majority styled as class actions although a few complaints
are on behalf of individual plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants against
MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member banks) in federal
courts in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio,
Kentucky and Connecticut.

On October 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an
order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial
proceedings.  On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint.

Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and in
the complaints brought on the behalf of the individual merchants are
generally brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of these claims:

     (i) that MasterCard’s and Visa’s setting of interchange
         fees (for both credit and offline debit transactions)
         violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

    (ii) that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced
         various rules, including the no surcharge rule and
         purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section
         1 or 2 of the Sherman Act;

   (iii) that MasterCard’s and Visa’s purported bundling of the
         acceptance of premium credit cards to standard credit
         cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and

    (iv) that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and
         bundled transaction fees.

In addition to the claims brought under federal antitrust law, some of these
complaints contain certain state unfair competition law claims based upon the
same conduct described above.  These interchange-related litigations also
seek treble damages in an unspecified amount (although several of the
complaints allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the
tens of billions of dollars), as well as attorneys’ fees and injunctive
relief.

On June 9, 2006, MasterCard answered the complaint and moved to dismiss or,
alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage claims that were contained
in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and moved to dismiss the Section
2 claims that were brought in the individual merchant complaints.  The
parties are awaiting a decision.  

Fact discovery is scheduled to be completed by June 30, 2008, with briefing
on case dispositive motions to be completed by June 30, 2009.  No trial date
has been scheduled.  

MasterCard Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries, including its principal
operating subsidiary, MasterCard International Inc., and MasterCard Europe
sprl, provide transaction processing and related services to customers
principally in support of their credit, debit, electronic cash and Automated
Teller Machine payment card programs, and travelers cheque programs.

Plaintiffs in “Lakeshore Interiors v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. 05-cv-
5081JG JO” are represented by:

          Darla Jo Boggs, Esq.
          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneappolis, MN 55401, U.S.
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981
         E-mail: djboggs@locklaw.com  
                 wjbruckner@locklaw.com

Plaintiffs in civil action “NuCity Publications, Inc. v. Visa  
U.S.A., Inc. 05-cv-5075 JG-JO” are represented by:

         Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 W Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, U.S.
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: bsweeney@lerachlaw.com

Defendant Fifth Third Bancorp is represented by:

         Patrick F. Fischer, Esq.
         Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL
         One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
         Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-579-6400
         Fax: 513-579-6457
         E-mail: pfischer@kmklaw.com

Defendant Capital One Bank is represented by:

         Andrew J. Frackman, Esq.  
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-326-2017
         Fax: 212-326-2061
         E-mail: afrackman@omm.com


MASTERCARD INT’L: Still Faces U.S. Merchant, Consumer Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commencing in October 1996, several class actions were brought by a number of
U.S. merchants against MasterCard International Inc. and Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
challenging certain aspects of the payment card industry under U.S. federal
antitrust law.  

Those suits were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard’s “Honor
All Cards” rule (and a similar Visa rule), which required merchants who
accept MasterCard cards to accept for payment every validly presented
MasterCard card, constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard and Visa unlawfully tied acceptance of
debit cards to acceptance of credit cards.  The plaintiffs also claimed that
MasterCard and Visa conspired to monopolize what they characterized as the
point-of-sale debit card market, thereby suppressing the growth of regional
networks such as ATM payment systems.

On June 4, 2003, MasterCard International signed a settlement agreement to
settle the claims brought by the plaintiffs in this matter, which the Court
approved on December 19, 2003.  On January 24, 2005, the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals issued an order affirming the District Court’s approval of the
settlement agreement.  Accordingly, the settlement is now final.

In addition, individual or multiple complaints have been brought in 19
different states and the District of Columbia alleging state unfair
competition, consumer protection and common law claims against MasterCard
International (and Visa) on behalf of putative classes of consumers.  The
claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the U.S.
merchant lawsuit and assert that merchants, faced with excessive merchant
discount fees, have passed these overcharges to consumers in the form of
higher prices on goods and services sold.

MasterCard has been successful in dismissing cases in 17 of the jurisdictions
as courts have granted MasterCard’s motions to dismiss for failure to state a
claim or plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their complaints.  However,
there are outstanding cases in New Mexico, California and West Virginia. The
parties are awaiting a decision on MasterCard’s motion to dismiss in New
Mexico.

Discovery is now proceeding in the California cases as the California
appellate court rejected MasterCard’s petition to reverse the lower court’s
decision denying MasterCard’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Section 17200
claims.

On March 26, 2007, the West Virginia court stayed discovery pending briefing
by the parties on the question of whether the state law unfair competition
claims should be dismissed in light of the opinions from other states
dismissing similar unfair competition claims on standing grounds.

Based upon litigation developments and settlement negotiations in that state,
and pursuant to Financial Accounting Standards No. 5, “Accounting for
Contingencies,” MasterCard recorded legal reserves for the West Virginia
consumer litigation during the second quarter of 2007.

On April 29, 2005, a complaint was filed in California state court on behalf
of a putative class of consumers under California unfair competition law
(Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act.  The claims in this action seek to
piggyback on the portion of the Department of Justice antitrust litigation in
which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found
that MasterCard’s CPP and Visa’s bylaw constitute unlawful restraints of
trade under the federal antitrust laws. See “—Department of Justice Antitrust
Litigation and Related Private Litigations.”

MasterCard and Visa moved to dismiss the complaint and the court granted the
defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Cartwright claims but denied
the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Section 17200 unfair
competition claims.  MasterCard filed an answer to the complaint on June 19,
2006 and the parties are proceeding with discovery, according to the
company’s Aug. 1 form 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the outcome of, or, except as
indicated above in the West Virginia consumer action, estimate the liability
related to, the remaining consumer cases and no provision for losses has been
provided in connection with them.  The consumer class actions are not covered
by the terms of the settlement agreement in the U.S. merchant lawsuit.

MasterCard Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries, including its principal
operating subsidiary, MasterCard International Inc., and MasterCard Europe
sprl, provide transaction processing and related services to customers
principally in support of their credit, debit, electronic cash and Automated
Teller Machine payment card programs, and travelers cheque programs.


MASTERCARD INT’L: Nov. Hearing Set in Conversion Fee Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 2, 2007 hearing is set to finally approve a settlement reached in a
consolidated suit over MasterCard International’s one percent currency
conversion “fee.”

MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp.,
several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Chase Manhattan
Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA), MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club
Inc. are defendants in a number of federal putative class actions that
allege, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the
asserted one percent currency conversion “fee.”

Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the
federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL No. 1409 before Judge
William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  

In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint adding MBNA Corp. and MBNA America Bank, N.A. as defendants.  This
pleading asserts two theories of antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act:

     (i) an alleged “inter-association” conspiracy among
         MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
         with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
         conversion “fees” allegedly charged to cardholders of
         “no less than 1% of the transaction amount and
         frequently more;” and

    (ii) two alleged “intra-association” conspiracies, whereby
         each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to
         have conspired with its members to fix currency
         conversion “fees” allegedly charged to cardholders of
         “no less than 1% of the transaction amount” and “to
         facilitate and encourage institution—and collection—of
         second tier currency conversion surcharges.”

The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency conversion “fees”
have not been disclosed as required by the Truth in Lending Act and
Regulation Z.

On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL action
entered into agreements settling the MDL action and related matters, as well
as the Schwartz matter.  

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard has paid $72,480 to be used
for defendants’ settlement fund to settle the MDL action and $13,440, which
is expected to be paid in the third quarter of 2007, to settle the
matter, “Schwartz v. Visa Int’l Corp., et al.,” which was brought in the
Superior Court of California in February 2000, purportedly on behalf of the
general public over the conversion fee.

On November 8, 2006, Judge Pauley granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreements.  The settlement agreements are subject to final
approval by Judge Pauley, and resolution of all appeals.

The hearing on final approval of the settlement agreements has been scheduled
for November 2, 2007.  On November 15, 2006, the plaintiff in one of the New
York state court cases appealed the preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On June 6,
2007, the appellate court granted MasterCard’s motion to defer briefing until
a final settlement is approved in the MDL action.

The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William
H. Pauley, III.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David J. Bershad, Esq.
         Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9387
         Fax: 212-868-1229
         E-mail: mbuchman@milbergweiss.com

         Christopher Burke, Esq.
         Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP
         Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Sheldon V. Burman, Esq.
         Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC
         110 East 59th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 935-1600


MIDWAY GAMES: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Midway Games, Inc. is facing several purported securities fraud class actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Beginning on July 6, 2007 a number of putative securities class actions were
filed against Midway, Steven M. Allison, James R. Boyle, Miguel Iribarren,
Thomas E. Powell and David F. Zucker.

The lawsuits are essentially identical and purport to bring suit on behalf of
those who purchased the Company’s publicly traded securities between Aug. 4,
2005 and May 24, 2006.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made a series of misrepresentations and
omissions about Midway’s financial well-being and prospects concerning its
financial performance, including decisions regarding reductions in work
force, the company’s need to seek additional capital, and decisions by Sumner
Redstone and his related parties with respect to their ownership or trading
of the company’s common stock, that had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the Company’s securities during the Class Period.  

Plaintiffs also claim that defendants lacked a reasonable basis for the
company’s earnings projections, which plaintiffs alleged were materially
false and misleading.  

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the
company’s common stock during the Class Period, 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.

Midway Games, Inc. -- http://www.midway.com/-- develops and publishes  
interactive entertainment software for the global video game market.  The
Company's games are available for play on home video game consoles and
handheld game platforms, including Microsoft's Xbox, Nintendo's GameCube,
Game Boy Advance and Nintendo DS and Sony's PlayStation 2 and PlayStation
Portable.  


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Conn. Court Mulls Dismissal of ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet to rule on a
motion by Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. (NFS) and its Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. (NLIC) subsidiary to dismiss a fifth amended complaint alleging
Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations against the company.

On Aug. 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named as defendants in the lawsuit, "Lou
Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan,
et al. v. Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance
Co."

The fifth amended complaint, filed March 21, 2006, purports to represent a
class of qualified retirement plans under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, that purchased variable annuities from
NLIC.  

Plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in their variable
annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS breached ERISA fiduciary duties by
allegedly accepting service payments from certain mutual funds.  

The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments allegedly
received by NLIC and NFS, other unspecified relief for restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The district court has rejected the plaintiffs' request for certification of
the alleged class.  NLIC and NFS' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fifth
amended complaint is currently pending before the court.

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 "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No.   3:01-cv-01552-
SRU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under
Judge Stefan R. Underhill with referral to Judge William I. Garfinkel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard A. Bieder, Esq.
         Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.
         350 Fairfield Ave.
         Bridgeport, CT 06604
         Phone: 203-336-4421
         Fax: 203-368-3244
         E-mail: rbieder@koskoff.com

         Gregory G. Jones, Esq.
         603 S. Main, Suite 200
         Grapevine, TX 76051
         Phone: 871-424-9001
         Fax: 817-424-1665
         E-mail: greg@gjoneslaw.com

              - and -

         Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
         Stanley, Mandel & Iola
         3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
         Dallas, TX 75205
         Phone: 214-443-4300
         Fax: 214-443-0358
         E-mail: rmandel@smi-law.com


Representing the defendants are:

         Jessica A. Ballou, Esq.
         LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae
         Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St.
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-293-3535
         Fax: 860-293-3555
         E-mail: jballou@llgm.com.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Aug. 31 Hearing Set in “Carr” Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 31 hearing is set for oral argument on the motions for summary
judgment in the purported class action, “Michael Carr v. Nationwide Life
Insurance Co.,” which was filed in Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio
against the Nationwide Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Nationwide
Financial Services, Inc.

The complaint, filed on Feb. 11, 2005, seeks recovery for breach of contract,
fraud by omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
unjust enrichment.

It also seeks unspecified compensatory damages, disgorgement of all amounts
in excess of the guaranteed maximum annual premium and attorneys' fees.  

On Feb. 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class
certification on the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.

The court certified a class consisting of all residents of the U.S. and the
Virgin Islands who, during the class period, paid premiums on a modal basis
to Nationwide Life Insurance Co. (NLIC) for term life insurance policies
issued by NLIC during the class period that provide for guaranteed maximum
premiums, excluding certain specified products.

Excluded from the class are NLIC; any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of
NLIC; all employees, officers and directors of NLIC; and any justice, judge
or magistrate judge of the State of Ohio who may hear the case.

The class period is from Feb. 10, 1990 through Feb. 2, 2006, the date the
class was certified.  

On Jan. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.  On
April 30, 2007, NLIC filed a motion for summary judgment.

Oral argument on the motions for summary judgment is scheduled for Aug. 31,
2007, according to Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.’s Aug. 2, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

Based in Columbus, Ohio, Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --  
http://www.nationwide.com/nw/-- is the holding company for Nationwide Life  
Insurance Co. (NLIC) and other companies that comprise the domestic life
insurance and retirement savings operations of the Nationwide group of
companies.  The company, a provider of long-term savings and retirement
products in the U.S., develops and sells a diverse range of products,
including individual annuities, private and public group retirement plans,
other investment products sold to institutions, life insurance and advisory
services.



NATIONWIDE LIFE: Dismissal of Marketing Timing Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
4th Circuit the dismissal of the “Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation,” which names Nationwide Life Insurance Co. (NLIC), a subsidiary
of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., as defendant.

On April 13, 2004, Nationwide Life was named in the class action, "Woodbury
v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co.," which was filed in Circuit Court, 3rd
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.

Nationwide Life removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on June 1, 2004.  On Dec. 27, 2004, the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and
included in the multi-district proceeding, "In Re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation."

In response, on May 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
purporting to represent, with certain exceptions, a class of all persons who
held -- through their ownership of an Nationwide Life annuity or insurance
product -- units of any Nationwide Life sub-account invested in mutual funds
that included foreign securities in their portfolios and that experienced
market timing or stale price trading activity.

The first amended complaint purports to disclaim, with respect to market
timing or stale price trading in Nationwide Life's annuities sub-accounts,
any allegation based on Nationwide Life's untrue statement, failure to
disclose any material fact, or usage of any manipulative or deceptive device
or contrivance in connection with any class member's purchases or sales of
Nationwide Life annuities or units in annuities sub-accounts.

The plaintiff claims, in the alternative, that if Nationwide
Life is found with respect to market timing or stale price trading in its
annuities sub-accounts, to have made any untrue statement, to have failed to
disclose any material fact or to have used or employed any manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance, then the plaintiff purports to represent a
class, with certain exceptions, of:

     all persons who, prior to Nationwide Life's untrue
     statement, omission of material fact, use or employment of
     any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, held
     -- through their ownership of an Nationwide Life annuity or
     insurance product -- units of any Nationwide Life sub-
     account invested in mutual funds that included foreign
     securities in their portfolios and that experienced market
     timing activity.

The first amended complaint alleges common law negligence and seeks to
recover damages not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or class member,
including all compensatory damages and costs.  

On June 1, 2006, the District Court granted NLIC’s motion to dismiss the
plaintiff’s complaint.  

The plaintiff appealed the District Court’s decision, and the issues have
been fully briefed.

Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. 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 "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-03944-
JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under
Judge J. Frederick Motz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq.
         Andrew Steven Friedman, Esq.
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC
         2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Phone: 1-602-776-5903
         Fax: 1-602-274-1199
         E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
                 afriedman@bffb.com

              - and -

         Eugene Yevgeny Barash, Esq.
         George A. Zelcs
         Korein Tillery 701 Market St.
         Ste. 300
         St. Louis, MO 63108
         Phone: 1-314-241-4844
         Fax: 1-314-241-3525
         E-mail: ebarash@koreintillery.com
                 gzelcs@koreintillery.com

Representing the company are:

         Shoshana Leah Gillers, Esq.
         Eric John Mogilnicki, Esq.
         Charles Collier Platt, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 1-212-230-8841
         Fax: 1-212-230-8888
         E-mail: shoshana.gillers@wilmerhale.com
                 eric.mogilnicki@wilmerhale.com
                 charles.platt@wilmerhale.com


NEWMONT MINING: Securities Suit Settlement Yet to Get Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to give
preliminary approval to a tentative settlement of a consolidated securities
class action pending against Newmont Mining Corp.

On June 8, 2005, UFCW Local 880 - Retail Food Employers Joint Pension Fund
filed a putative class action in the federal district court in Colorado
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Newmont Mining Corp. publicly traded
securities between July 28, 2004 and April 26, 2005.

The action named Newmont, Wayne W. Murdy, Pierre Lassonde and Bruce D. Hansen
as defendants.  Substantially similar purported class actions were filed in
the same court on June 15, 2005 by John S. Chapman and on June 20, 2005 by
Zoe Myerson.  In November 2005, the court consolidated these cases and, in
March 2006, appointed a lead plaintiff.  

In April 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
naming David Francisco, Russell Ball, Thomas Enos and Robert Gallagher as
additional defendants.  It alleged, among other things, that Newmont and the
individual defendants violated certain antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose alleged operating deficiencies and
sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On October 20, 2006, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a settlement class
consisting of all purchasers of Newmont securities from November 1, 2003,
through and including March 23, 2006, except defendants and certain related
persons, entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with defendants.

If approved by the Court, the Settlement:

     (a) would release all claims asserted, or that could
         have been asserted, in the action;

     (b) would provide for a payment by Newmont of $15 million
         to be distributed to class members pursuant to a
         plan of allocation developed by the lead
         plaintiff; and

     (c) would provide that all defendants deny any
         wrongdoing or liability with respect to the
         settled matters.

The parties have moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, but the
court has not ruled on the motion.

Gideon Minerals, U.S.A., Inc. has sought to intervene to bring a claim
alleging that Gideon has an interest in the Batu Hijau operation in
Indonesia; the court has denied that motion.

Gideon subsequently filed a substantially similar motion and moved for
default judgment; the court has also denied this motion and has required
Gideon to show cause as to why it should not be sanctioned in relation to its
filings.

The court has not ruled on the motion, according to the company's Aug. 2 form
10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "UFCW Local 880-Retail Food Employers Joint Pension Fund v.
Newmont Mining Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01046-MSK-BNB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Marcia S.
Krieger with referral to Judge Boyd N. Boland.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Darby K. Kennedy, Esq.
         Dyer & Shuman, LLP
         801 East 17th Avenue
         Denver, CO 80218-1417
         Phone: 303-861-3003
         Fax: 303-830-6920
         E-mail: dkennedy@dyershuman.com.

Representing the defendants is
       
         Pamela Robillard Mackey, Esq.
         Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey &
         Foreman, PC
         150 East 10th Avenue
         Denver, CO 80203
         Phone: 303-831-7364
         Fax: 303-832-2628
         E-mail: pmackey@hmflaw.com


NOBLE ENERGY: Colo. Court Approves Royalty Lawsuits Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Weld County, Colorado has approved the settlement of
two class actions filed against Noble Energy, Inc., and Patina Oil & Gas
Corp.  

In January 2003, Patina Oil & Gas Corp., a company acquired by Noble Energy
in 2005, was named as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging that Patina had
improperly deducted certain costs in connection with its calculation of
royalty payments relating to its Wattenberg, Colorado field operations.

The suit is captioned, "Jack Holman, et al. v. Patina Oil & Gas
Corp., Case No. 03-CV-09," and was filed in the District Court,
Weld County, Colorado.  

In October 2006, Noble Energy received service in an additional lawsuit,
captioned, “Wardell Family Partnership and Glen Droegemueller v. Noble
Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 06-CV-734,” which was filed in District Court,
Weld County, Colorado.

That suit involves royalty and overriding royalty interest owners in the same
field and not members of the Holman class.

Through a mediation process, Noble Energy and the attorneys representing the
Holman class and Wardell putative class entered into a Settlement Agreement
dated Feb. 15, 2007.  

Such a settlement was preliminarily approved by the court with notice of the
settlement published in local newspapers and sent to all members of the
Holman class and Wardell putative class.

In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Noble
Energy deposited the settlement funds into an escrow account in
April 2007.

At a Final Approval Hearing on June 11, 2007, the Court approved the
settlement, 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.

Noble Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nobleenergyinc.com/-- through its  
subsidiaries, engages in the exploration, development, production, and
marketing of crude oil and natural gas in the U.S. and internationally.  It
operates in Colorado's Wattenberg field, the Mid-continent region of western
Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle, the San Juan basin in New Mexico, the Gulf
Coast, and the Gulf of Mexico in the U.S.  The company also has operations in
Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon in West Africa, the Mediterranean Sea,
Ecuador, the North Sea, China, Argentina, and Suriname.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Stockbrokers’ Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. faces several purported class actions, which are
alleging that stockbrokers were improperly classified as exempt employees
under state and federal wage and hour laws and, therefore, were improperly
denied overtime pay.

The suits – recently consolidated in California for coordinated trial
proceedings -- also name as defendants Prudential Securities, Inc. and
Prudential Equity Group LLC.  

Two of the complaints -- "Janowsky v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, and
Prudential Securities Incorporated," and "Goldstein v. Prudential Financial,
Inc." were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  

The "Goldstein" complaint purports to have been filed on behalf of a
nationwide class.  The "Janowsky" complaint alleges a class of New York
brokers.  

The three complaints filed in California Superior Court purport to have been
brought on behalf of classes of California brokers.  The suits are captioned:

      -- “Dewane v. Prudential Equity Group, Prudential
         Securities Incorporated, and Wachovia Securities LLC;”
         
      -- "DiLustro v. Prudential Securities Incorporated,
         Prudential Equity Group, Inc. and Wachovia Securities;”  
         and

      -- “Carayanis v. Prudential Equity Group LLC and
         Prudential Securities Inc.”

The Carayanis complaint was subsequently withdrawn without prejudice in May
2006.

In June 2006, a purported New York state class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
captioned, “Panesenko v. Wachovia Securities, et al.”

The Panesenko complaint is alleging that the Company failed to pay overtime
to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law and that improper
deductions were made from the stockbrokers’ wages in violation of state law.  

In September 2006, Prudential Securities was sued in “Badain v. Wachovia
Securities, et al.,” a purported nationwide class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.

The complaint alleges that Prudential Securities failed to pay overtime to
stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law and that improper
deductions were made from the stockbrokers’ wages in violation of state law.

In October 2006, a purported class action, “Bouder v. Prudential Financial,
Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming that the Company
failed to pay overtime to insurance agents who were registered
representatives in violation of federal and state law, and that improper
deductions were made from these agents’ wages in violation of state law.

In December 2006, the stockbrokers’ cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial
proceedings.

The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of
improper deductions, interest, and attorneys’ fees.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial  
services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had approximately $616
billion of assets under management. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
the Company offers an array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement-related
services and administration, asset management, banking and trust services,
real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture,
retail securities brokerage services.  


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Settles N.M. Suit Over “Modal” Payment
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a purported national class action, “Azar, et al.
v. Prudential Insurance,” which was filed in the District Court of Valencia
County, New Mexico against The Prudential Insurance Company of America, a
wholly owned domestic insurance subsidiary Prudential Financial, Inc.

In August 2000, a suit was filed against the company, which is a subsidiary
of Prudential Financial, Inc., based upon an alleged failure to adequately
disclose the increased costs associated with payment of life insurance
premiums on a "modal" basis, i.e., more frequently than once a year.  Similar
actions were filed in New Mexico against over a dozen other insurance
companies.   

The complaint asserts claims for breach of the common law duty to disclose
material information, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and fraudulent
concealment.  

It seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, both in
unspecified amounts, restitution, treble damages, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.   

In March 2001, the court entered an order granting partial summary judgment
to plaintiffs as to liability.  

In January 2003, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed this finding and
dismissed the claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and breach of fiduciary duty.

The case was remanded to the trial court and in November 2004, it held that,
as to the named plaintiffs, the non-disclosure was material.

In July 2005, the court certified a class of New Mexico only policyholders
denying plaintiffs’ motion to include purchasers from 35 additional states.

In September 2005, plaintiffs sought to amend the court’s order on class
certification with respect to eight additional states.

In March 2006, the court reiterated its denial of a multi-state class and
maintained the certification of a class of New Mexico resident purchasers of
Prudential life insurance.  The court also indicated it would enter judgment
on liability against Prudential for the New Mexico class.

In May 2007, the matter was settled.  The settlement, which is subject to
final approval by the court, provides that Prudential Insurance will pay the
difference between the annualized modal premium and the annual premium and
attorneys’ fees.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial  
services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had approximately $616
billion of assets under management. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
the Company offers an array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement-related
services and administration, asset management, banking and trust services,
real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture,
retail securities brokerage services.  
  

QUIXTAR INC: Cal. Suit Claims Illegal Pyramid Recruitment Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quixtar Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 9 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California accusing the company of
running an illegal pyramid recruitment scheme under the guise of a multi-
level, home-based “business opportunity,” the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Sixteen distributors of Quixtar, the Interne-based successor to Amway, claim
Quixtar products are so expensive it’s impossible to make a living selling
them, but Amway’s founding family continues to profit by recruiting
distributors.

The complaint alleges Quixtar knows its products are priced so high they
cannot be sold and yet it continues to recruit distributors in a concerted
effort to enrich the founding families at the expense of the rank and file
simply trying to earn a living.

Quixtar holds itself out as a legitimate, multi-level home-based business
opportunity, but in fact it operates an illegal pyramid recruitment scheme,
according to the complaint. Quixtar leads participants to believe that they
can build a viable business retailing Quixtar products; but once the
participants sign up and pay their initial investment into the pyramid, it
quickly becomes evident that Quixtar's products cannot be retailed because
they are hopelessly overpriced, it added.

Plaintiffs bring this as a class action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, on behalf of all U.S. citizens who are current Quixtar
distributors or are otherwise subject to Quixtar's noncompetition and
nonsolicitation rules.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule:

     (a) whether Quixtar is or was operating an unlawful pyramid
         scheme;

     (b) whether distributors paid money to Quixtar in exchange
         for: (1) the right to sell a product and
              (2) the right to receive, in return for recruiting
                  others into the program, rewards unrelated to
                  the sale of the product to retail consumers;

     (c) whether distributors were required to make an initial
         investment in inventory into the pyramid scheme;

     (d) whether Quixtar enforced the buy-back rule;

     (e) whether Quixtar enforced the ten customer rule;

     (f) whether Quixtar omitted to inform plaintiffs and the
         plaintiff class that they were entering into an illegal
         pyramid scheme where the overwhelming majority of
         participants lose money;

     (g) whether Quixtar operates illegally;

     (h) whether the plaintiffs' purpose for entering into the
         uniform distributor contracts with Quixtar has been
         frustrated; and

     (i) distribution unconscionable.

Plaintiffs do not seek damages against Quixtar, or to shut it down. Rather,
plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the noncompetition and non-
solicitation provisions of the uniform Quixtar distributor agreement are
unenforceable as a matter of law, so those plaintiffs who so choose will be
able to extricate themselves from continued forced participation in Quixtar's
illegal pyramid scheme and pursue legitimate business opportunities instead.

The suit is "Orrin Woodward et al. v. Quixtar, Inc. Quixtar, Inc., Case No.
CV07-05194," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Thomas A. Brackey II
          Derek S. Lemkin
          Freund & Brackey, LLP
          427 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 247-2165
          Fax: (310) 247-2190
          E-mail: tbrackey@freundandbrackey.com or
                  dlemkin@freundandbrackey.com

          - and -

          D.J. Poyfair
          Bennet L. Cohen
          Reid A. Page
          Nicole A. Westbrook
          Shuggart, Thomson & Kilroy
          1050 17th Street, Suite 2300
          Denver, Colorado 80265
          Phone: (303) 572-9300
          Fax: (303) 572-7883


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: SEC Returns $267M to U.S. Investors
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has started distribution of the
$267 million Fair Fund created as part of settlements with Qwest
Communications International Inc. and several of its former executives.

The funds are being distributed to approximately 200,000 investors who
purchased Qwest's securities between July 27, 1999, and July 28, 2002.  

"Since the 2002 passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Commission has now
returned more than $2.4 billion to investors," said Linda Chatman Thomsen,
Director of the Division of Enforcement. "The Qwest Fair Fund is the latest
example of our continuing commitment to ensuring that injured investors are
compensated for their losses."

Donald Hoerl, Associate Regional Director of the Commission's Denver Regional
Office, added, "We are pleased to begin the distribution of the Qwest Fair
Fund. It is gratifying to see money returned to Qwest's investors, and we
will continue our efforts on their behalf."

The Commission brought a settled enforcement action against Qwest in October
2004. In the complaint, the Commission alleged that Qwest fraudulently
recognized more than $3.8 billion in revenue and excluded $231 million in
expenses in order to meet ambitious revenue and earnings projections.

In the settlement agreement, Qwest neither admitted nor denied the
Commission's allegations, but agreed to pay a civil penalty of $250 million
that is being distributed to investors through the Fair Fund.  Several former
Qwest executives including Augustine Cruciotti, Gregory Casey, Roger
Hoagland, William Eveleth, and Robin Szeliga also reached settlement
agreements with the Commission and paid civil penalties and disgorgement into
the Fair Fund.  Mr. Szeliga additionally paid restitution into the Fair Fund
after pleading guilty to one felony count of insider trading.

The Commission anticipates that cases currently being litigated,
including “SEC v. Joseph P. Nacchio, et al.” and “SEC v. Joel M. Arnold, et
al.,” may result in more money being added to the Qwest Fair Fund.

Investors can obtain additional information about the distribution process by
contacting the distribution agent:

Call toll-free: 800-516-6339
  
Visit the settlement Web site: www.gilardi.com/qwst1
  
          Write to: Gilardi & Co. LLC
          P.O. Box 808003
          Petaluma, CA 94975-8003


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: No OK Yet for $13M Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to
approve a $13.5 million settlement in a securities fraud class action filed
against RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.

Beginning in July 2005, seven putative class actions were filed against the
defendants.  In December 2005, these actions were consolidated and in
February 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased and/or acquired the
publicly traded securities of the company between April 22, 2003 and July 25,
2005.

The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants in addition to the
company, current and former officers of the company as defendants.

It alleges that the company and the other named defendants violated the U.S.
federal securities laws by making material misstatements and failing to state
material facts about the company's business and financial condition in, among
other things, U.S. Securities and Exchange filings and public statements.

In March 2006, defendants notified the court of their intention to move to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  Thus on June 2006, they filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On Oct. 24, 2006, before those motions were ruled upon, counsel for the lead
plaintiffs requested permission from the court to move for leave to file a
second amended complaint (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 20, 2006).

On October 30, 2006, the defendants consented to that request.  
Once the new complaint is filed, it is expected that the defendants will file
motions to dismiss the new complaint.

On Feb. 14, 2007, the company executed a memorandum of understanding with
plaintiffs’ representatives setting forth an agreement in principle to settle
the claims alleged in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, as amended.  

The total amount to be paid in settlement of the claims is $13.5 million.

The settlement is subject to, among other things, court review and approval
and other customary conditions, according to the company’s Aug. 1, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. Securities  
Litigation, No. 05-Civ.-6764 (WHP)," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William  
H. Pauley, III.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

         Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
         Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, 100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 907-0853
         Fax: (212) 883-7053
         E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Steven Robert Paradise, Esq.
         Vinson  & Elkins, L.L.P.
         666 Fifth Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, New York 10103
         Phone: (917) 206-8000
         Fax: (917) 849-5338
         E-mail: sparadise@velaw.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Market Timing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has not yet ruled on a
proposal to dismiss SEI Investments Distribution Co., or SIDCO, a subsidiary
of SEI Investments Co., in the consolidated class action, "Stephen Carey v.
Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd., et al."

The PBHG Complaint is purportedly made on behalf of all persons who purchased
or held PBHG mutual funds from Nov. 1, 1998 to Nov. 13, 2003 and relates
generally to various market timing practices allegedly permitted by the PBHG
Funds.  

The suit names as defendants some 36 persons and entities, including various
persons and entities affiliated with Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd.,
various PBHG Funds, various alleged market timers, various alleged
facilitating brokers, various clearing brokers, various banks that allegedly
financed the market timing activities, various distributors/underwriters and
others.  

The PBHG Complaint alleges that the company was the named
distributor/underwriter from November 1998 until July 2001 for various PBHG
funds in which market timing allegedly occurred during that period.  

It generally alleges that the prospectus for certain PBHG funds made
misstatements and omissions concerning market-timing practices in PBHG
funds.  

The PBHG Complaint also alleges that the company violated Sections 11 and 12
(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 34(b) and 36(a)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and that the company breached its
fiduciary duties, engaged in constructive fraud and aided and abetted the
breach by others of their fiduciary duties.  

It does not name the company or any of its affiliates as a market timer,
facilitating or clearing broker or financier of market timers.   The PBHG
Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement
and restitution.  

In 2006, the plaintiffs submitted a proposed form of order dismissing SIDCO
from the action, but the court has not yet acted on the proposed order.  The
company had not made any provision relating to this legal proceeding.

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 "Carey v. Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-01151-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge J. Frederick Motz.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
         Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 16106677706
         Fax: 16106677056
         E-mail: mtopaz@sbclasslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plz.
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: 12125945300

         Stephanie Glaser Wheeler, Esq.
         Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP
         125 Broad St.
         New York, NY 10004
         Phone: 12125587384
         Fax: 12125583354
         E-mail: wheelers@sullcrom.com

              - and -

         Susan R. Gross, Esq.
         Law Offices of Bernard Gross, PC
         1515 Locust St., Second Fl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Phone: 12155613600
         Fax: 12155613000


SONUS NETWORKS: No Class Status Ruling Yet for Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has yet to rule on
a motion seeking class-action status for the purported class action, “In Re:
Sonus Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-10294.”

Beginning in February 2004, a number of purported shareholder class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the company and certain of its current officers and
directors.

On June 28, 2004, the court consolidated the claims.  On Dec. 1,
2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The complaint asserted claims under the federal securities laws, specifically
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, relating to the
company's restatement of its financial results for 2001, 2002, and the first
three quarters of 2003.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the company issued a series of false
or misleading statements to the market concerning the company's revenues,
earnings and financial condition.  Plaintiffs contended that such statements
caused the company's stock price to be artificially inflated.

The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from March 28,
2002, through March 26, 2004.

On Jan. 28, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismiss the Section
11 claim filed by the individual defendants.  On June 1, 2005, the court held
a hearing on the motion and allowed the plaintiff to file an amended
complaint.

In August 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  On Sept. 12, 2005,
the defendants filed motions to dismiss this amended complaint.  On Dec. 10,
2005, the court held a hearing on the motions and took the matter under
advisement.  

On May 10, 2006, the court issued an order granting the defendants’ motions
in part and denying the motions in part.  The court dismissed the Section 12
(a)(2) claims against all the defendants and the Section 10(b) and Section 11
claims against the individual defendants.

The court denied the motions as to the Section 10(b) and Section 11 claims
against us and Section 15 claims against the individual defendants.  The
plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification, which the defendants
have opposed.

The court held a hearing on Feb. 28, 2007 on plaintiff’s motion for class
certification and took the matter under advisement, according to the
company’s Aug. 2, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Sonus Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-
CV-10294," filed in the U.S. District for the District of Massachusetts under
Judge Douglas P. Woodlock.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2300
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
         Phone: 800-778-1822
         Fax: 415-777-5189
         E-mail: info@gbcsf.com

              - and -

         Norman Berman, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         One Liberty Square
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-542-8300
         E-mail: NBerman@Bermanesq.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Mary P. Cormier, Esq.
         Edwards & Angell, LLP
         101 Federal Street
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-2225
         Fax: 617-439-4170
         E-mail: mcormier@edwardsangell.com

              - and -

         Thomas J. Dougherty, Esq.
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP
         One Beacon Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-573-4800
         Fax: 617-573-4822
         E-mail: dougherty@skadden.com


SONUS NETWORKS: Seeks Dismissal of Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

Beginning in July 2002, several purchasers of the company’s common stock
filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the company, certain officers and directors and a former officer
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.

The purchasers seek to represent a class of persons who purchased our common
stock between Dec. 11, 2000 and Jan. 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary
damages.

The Class Action Complaints were essentially identical and alleged that the
company made false and misleading statements about its products and
business.  

On March 3, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On
April 22, 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint on various grounds.

On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument on the motion, at the
conclusion of which the court denied the company’s motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on July 30, 2004.  On
Feb. 16, 2005, the court certified the class and appointed a class
representative.

On March 9, 2005, the court appointed the law firm of Moulton & Gans as lead
counsel.  

After the court requested additional briefing on the adequacy of the class
representative, the class representative withdrew.

Lead counsel then filed a motion to substitute a new plaintiff as the class
representative.

On May 19, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and took the matter
under advisement.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the court issued an order decertifying the class and
requiring the parties to submit a joint report informing the court whether
the cases have been settled and whether defendants would be seeking to
recover attorney’s fees from the plaintiffs.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed motions to voluntarily dismiss their
complaints with prejudice.  On Oct. 5, 2005, the court entered an order
dismissing the cases.

On June 26, 2006, the court issued an order denying the company’s motion for
recovery of attorneys’ fees.

On Jan. 6, 2006, a purchaser of the company common stock filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that is essentially
identical to the Consolidated Amended Complaint previously filed against the
defendants.

The Court has appointed the Public Employees’ Retirement System of
Mississippi as lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff has filed an Amended
Consolidated Complaint.  

The defendants filed on April 19, 2007 a motion to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Complaint, according to the company’s Aug. 2, 2007 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Sonus Networks Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:02-cv-11315-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Mark L. Wolf.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert J. Berg, Esq.
         Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
         10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414

              - and -

         Richard H. Weiss, Esq.
         Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach
         One Penn Plaza
         New York City, NY 10002
         Phone: 212-594-5300
         Fax: 212-868-1229

Representing the company are:  

         Daniel W. Halston, Esq.
         J. Andrew Kent, Esq.
         Michelle D. Miller, Esq.
         James W. Prendegrast, Esq.
         Jeffrey B. Rudman, Eqs.
         Peter A. Spaeth, Esq.
         Wilmer Hale
         60 State Street
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-526-6654
         Fax: 617-526-5000
         E-mail: daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com
                 michelle.miller@wilmerhale.com
                 jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com
                 peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com


TEXACO SUNBURST: High Court Affirms $16M Pollution Cleanup Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed an award for the cleaning up of pollution
at Texaco’s now-defunct Sunburst Works Refinery, but reversed an award for
punitive damages against the company, Peter Johnson of Great Falls Tribune
reports.

The Sunburst School District and 90 adjoining property owners sued Texaco in
2001 for the leaking of pollutants, including benzene, a carcinogen, onto
their properties from a Texaco gasoline refinery.  

Recently, the high court unanimously affirmed a 2004 jury award of $16
million in cleanup and other compensatory damages to Sunburst residents.  
However, it reversed the Cascade County jury's award of $25 million in
punitive damages against Texaco, and remanded that part of the case back to a
district court.  The high court deems a jury should consider whether Texaco
acted with deliberate indifference or knowingly concealed facts in
determining the amount of punitive damages.  

The lead plaintiff is Larry Fauque, a Sunburst teacher.  Representing
plaintiffs are Great Falls attorney David Slovak, with partners Tom Lewis and
Mark Kovacich.

For more information, contact:

          J. David Slovak, Esq.
          Lewis, Slovak & Kovacich, P.C.  

          725 Third Avenue North
          P.O. Box 2325
          Great Falls, MT 59401-1501
          Phone: (406) 761-5595
                 (800) 735-6756
          Fax: (406) 761-5805


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuits in Pa., Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Roadhouse, Inc. faces two purported class actions in Pennsylvania and
Illinois that generally alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, 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 26, 2007.

The suits are:

      -- “Nicole M. Ehrheart v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. and Does 1
         through 10, Case No. CA 07-54,” which was filed against
         the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western
         District of Pennsylvania on March 26, 2007; and

      -- “Mario Aliano v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC, Texas
         Roadhouse, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 07cv4108,”
         which was filed against the Company in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
         July 20, 2007.

                       Ehrheart Litigation

The suit alleges liability under FACTA based on the alleged practice of
unlawfully including more information on the electronically printed credit or
debit card receipts provided to customers than is permitted.  

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including statutory damages, punitive
damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction against the
alleged unlawful practice.  

Statutory damages range from $100 to $1,000 for each willful violation.  

The Company has filed an answer to the complaint denying the material
allegations of the complaint.  Discovery has not yet begun.

                        Aliano Litigation

The case alleges liability under FACTA.  The plaintiff seeks statutory
damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses
and costs.

Texas Roadhouse, Inc. -- http://www.texasroadhouse.com-- is a full-service,  
casual dining restaurant chain.  It offers an assortment of seasoned and aged
steaks hand-cut daily on the premises and cooked to order over open gas-fired
grills.  The Company also offers its guests a selection of ribs, fish,
seafood, chicken and vegetable plates, and an assortment of hamburgers,
salads and sandwiches.  During the fiscal year ended Dec. 26, 2006 (fiscal
2006), there were 251 Texas Roadhouse restaurants operating in 43 states.  
The Company owned and operated 163 restaurants in 37 states and franchised
and licensed an additional 88 restaurants in 23 states.


ZURN PEX: Minn. Homeowners Sue Over Failed Plumbing Systems
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zurn Pex, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 8 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota relating to the failure of PEX
plumbing systems built in Minnesota homes.

PEX plumbing systems involve flexible plastic plumbing tubes (as opposed to
the more common copper plumbing systems) that are attached to brass fittings
throughout the plumbing system. "PEX" is a generic term for cross linked
polyethylene -- the material used to make the plastic piping. PEX plumbing
systems are the newest generation of non-copper plumbing systems coming into
favor after the plumbing industry stopped selling the failure-prone
polybutylene pipe systems.

Homeowners, Denise and Terry Cox from Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, started the
nationwide class action against Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries after
brass plumbing fittings used in their home's PEX plumbing system failed
shortly after completion of their new home. The failures caused water and
other damage at the Cox home.

According to the Cox’s attorney, Shawn Raiter, the problems with Zurn's brass
fittings can cause significant damage to homes. "Water damage from a total
failure, or even a slow leak, can cause serious damage. A large percentage of
the brass fittings in a typical residential PEX system are hidden behind
drywall or between floors. If undetected, water damage from a leaking fitting
can even lead to mold, which in turn can pose a health risk."

Over the last six years, Zurn has reportedly sold 139 million of the brass
PEX fittings. Because of the premature failures, certain Zurn distributors
have subsequently requested and received refunds for the brass fittings. In
fact, according to Mr. Raiter, Zurn no longer recommends installation of the
brass fittings in certain geographic areas. Yet, Zurn currently denies that
these failures will continue, much like its predecessor U.S. Brass did before
filing bankruptcy because of litigation related to its polybutylene systems.

Some plumbers have had 150 or more claims related to failed Zurn fittings.
And while Zurn initially honored its warranty and covered the damage caused
by the failed brass fittings, the company stopped paying claims, leaving
homeowners to pay for the damage themselves.

The Cox's lawsuit seeks to include the claims of all owners of Zurn PEX
systems with brass fittings in the U.S. The Cox's are seeking damages to pay
for the complete replacement of all brass Zurn fittings for PEX systems,
regardless of whether those fittings have already failed, as a way to prevent
damage caused by future leaks and failures.

The lawyers for the Cox's recommend that owners' properties with Zurn PEX
systems contact them to discuss their rights. "It is important that consumers
are aware of this lawsuit. If consumers provide their contact information, we
can keep them informed about the status of the litigation. Also, if the
lawsuit is successful -- by settlement or judgment -- contact information can
help us notify consumers how to obtain their share of any recovery," said
Shawn Raiter.

The suit is “Cox et al v. Zurn Pex, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-03652-ADM-
RLE,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, under
Judge Ann D. Montgomery, with referral to Judge Raymond L. Erickson.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          T. Joe Snodgrass, Esq.
          Larson - King, LLP
          St. Paul, Minnesota
          Phone: 877-373-5501


* Class Action, Management Conference Set Nov. 9 in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Grabowski of Jones Day, Jack Yeh of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips will
hold on Nov. 9, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., a Class Action Litigation &
Management Conference at the Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel in Costa Mesa,
Cal.  

This seminar, designed for transactional and litigation attorneys, in both
private practice and corporate counsel, program will cover the latest
developments in the law of federal class actions, California class actions
and class actions in hotbed states.

The class action is a unique animal in the legal world that requires
exceptional and specific skills in researching, writing, case management, and
client contact.

This workshop was designed to give the practicing attorney and in-house
counsel a comprehensive overview of each step in the process, with an
emphasis on the procedural rules. The program will also cover Prop. 64 and
its effect on the UCL and class actions.

This tone day program is designed for attorneys and corporate counsel as well
as risk and claims managers. The Program includes breakfast and handouts.
This unique, fast-paced program will incorporate both plaintiff and defense
perspectives.   
Topics include:

          * CAFA Update
          * Class Actions Case Update
          * Preparing and Attacking the Complaint
          * Settlement or Trial
          * An Update on the Injunction Remedy
          * 17200, 17500 & CLRA
          * ediscrovery in Class Actions
          * Class-Wide Arbitration Agreements

Richard Grabowski of Jones Day, Jack Yeh of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips -
invited, Ross Hyslop of McKenna Long and Aldridge, Ted Pintar of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, Peter B. Maretz of Shea Stokes, Harry
Chamberlain of Buchalter Nemer, Robert “Bo” Phillips of Reed Smith, Stanley
Gibson of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro and more.

This course will qualify for 6 hours of CLE credits.

To register online: http://server1.streamsend.com/streamsend/clicktracker.php?
cd=2795&ld=6&md=132&ud=3e1eeb8db1c7b4c765123d4b87bc9025&url=http://www.reconfe
rences.com/>http://www.reconferences.com

For additional seminar information visit:
http://server1.streamsend.com/streamsend/clicktracker.php?
cd=2795&ld=6&md=132&ud=3e1eeb8db1c7b4c765123d4b87bc9025&url=http://reconferenc
es.com/upcomingprograms1.html>http://reconferences.com/upcomingprograms1.html
For more information, contact:

          The Customer Service Department
          13636 Ventura Blvd. #215
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
          Phone: 818-783-7156
          Fax: (818) 827-3338


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Schiffrin Barroway Files Fla. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of
all common stock purchasers of Health Management Associates, Inc. from
January 17, 2007 to July 30, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Health Management and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

     (1) that the Company was experiencing a deterioration in
         the collectibility of its accounts receivable from
         uninsured patients;
     (2) that the Company was significantly under-reserving for
         bad debt expense;
     (3) as such, the Company would be forced to dramatically
         increase its provision for bad debt expense going
         forward, which would severely impact the Company's net
         earnings in subsequent quarters;
     (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         statements were materially misleading;
     (5) that the Company's materially misleading financial
         statements enabled the Company to effectuate a major
         recapitalization which was otherwise unattainable;
     (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and
     (7) that the Company's statements about its financial well-
         being, earnings, and guidance were lacking in a
         reasonable basis when made.

On July 31, 2007, Health Management revealed that, throughout the Class
Period, it had experienced deterioration in the collectibility of its
accounts receivable from uninsured patients. As a result, the Company was
forced to significantly increase its bad debt expense provision to 12 percent
of net revenue for the Company's third and fourth quarters of 2007.

Additionally, the Company announced that it had taken a $39 million charge to
reflect the decline in the collectibility of its accounts receivable from
uninsured patients, and had reduced its earnings guidance for fiscal year
2007 down from $0.71 - $0.81 per share to $0.45 - $0.50 per share. On the
release of this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $2.59 per share,
or almost 25 percent, to close on July 31, 2007 at $8.06 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 1, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.
Health Management, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates general acute
care hospitals in "non-urban" communities primarily in the Southeast and
Southwest regions of the United States.

For more information, contact:

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


LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Abraham Fruchter Files Cal. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors
of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Luminent between May 10, 2007 and August 6, 2007, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Luminent and certain of its officers with violations of
the Exchange Act. Luminent is a real estate investment trust, which
purportedly invests primarily in mortgage loans purchased from selected high-
quality providers, and U.S. agency and other highly-rated single-family,
adjustable rate and hybrid adjustable rate mortgage-backed securities.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, especially regarding its liquidity, the high quality
of its mortgage loans and the security of its dividend payment. Because of
defendants' false and misleading statements, Luminent's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On August 6, 2007, however, after the market closed, the Company announced
that financing had deteriorated significantly, resulting in a significant
increase in margin calls on its highest quality assets and a decrease on the
financing advance rates provided by its lenders. It also announced that it
was suspending the payment of its cash dividend. On the following day, August
7, 2007, Luminent's stock price plummeted $3.30 per share to close at $1.08
per share, a decline of approximately 75%.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from August 8,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Lawrence D. Levit, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Gardy & Notis Files Cal. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California charging Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. and
its top executive officers with violating the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading press releases and
filings with the SEC concerning Luminent's financial results and business
prospects.

Luminent's representations concerning the liquidity and the security of its
dividend are alleged to be patently untrue, and served to falsely inflate the
prices investors paid for Luminent securities. On August 6, 2007, following
the announcement that Luminent had suspended payment of its second quarter
dividend, Luminent stock lost over 92% of its value, inflicting enormous harm
on investors.

Interested parties who purchased any Luminent securities between October 10,
2006 and August 6, 2007, may move the court no later than October 8, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          Dustin Mansoor, Esq.
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com or dmansoor@gardylaw.com
          Website: http://www.gardylaw.com


LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Stull, Stull Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody has filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of investors of Luminent
Mortgage Capital, Inc. who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Luminent between May 10, 2007 and August 6, 2007, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Luminent and certain of its officers with violations of
the Exchange Act. Luminent is a real estate investment trust, which
purportedly invests primarily in mortgage loans purchased from selected high-
quality providers, and U.S. agency and other highly-rated single-family,
adjustable rate and hybrid adjustable rate mortgage-backed securities.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, especially regarding its liquidity, the high quality
of its mortgage loans and the security of its dividend payment. Because of
defendants' false and misleading statements, Luminent's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On August 6, 2007, however, after the market closed, the Company announced
that financing had deteriorated significantly, resulting in a significant
increase in margin calls on its highest quality assets and a decrease on the
financing advance rates provided by its lenders. It also announced that it
was suspending the payment of its cash dividend. On the following day, August
7, 2007, Luminent's stock price plummeted $3.30 per share to close at $1.08
per share, a decline of approximately 75%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from August 8,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Howard Longman, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Toll-free: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 212-490-2022
          E-mail: TSVI@aol.com
          Website: http://www.ssbny.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  * * *