CAR_Public/070822.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 22, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 166

                            Headlines

ART TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Mass. Securities Suit's Nixing
AXIS CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.J. Brokerage Antitrust Suit
BRUSH ENGINEERED: Petition for Panel Rehearing of "Paz" Denied
BRUSH WELLMAN: Continues to Face "Marin" Beryllium Litigation
BRUSH WELLMAN: Eleventh Circuit Denies Motions in “Parker” Case

BRUSH WELLMAN: Seeks to Junk Third-Party Beryllium Risk Claims
CEPHALON INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over PROVIGIL Case Deal
CONCORD EFS: Calif. Court Issues Order in ATM Litigation
CONCORD EFS: Ruling on Motion to Junk Securities Suit Pending
DVI INC: Former Outside Excecs Settle Securities Claims for $3M

ELECTRONIC DATA: Appeal Challenging $137M Deal Remains Pending
ELECTRONIC DATA: Certification of Tex. ERISA Lawsuit Vacated
ELI LILLY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in E.D. New York
EL PASO: 2008 Hearing Set for “Bank of America” Royalties Suit
FIRST HORIZON: Mo. Court Gives Final OK to $36M Suit Settlement

GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Certification of Canadian Antitrust Case
GENERAL MOTORS: GMIMCo Faces N.Y. Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
INTEL CORP: Ill. Supreme Court to Review Pentium 4 Litigation
INTEL CORP: Still Faces Suits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices
JERSEY CENTRAL: Continues to Face Suit Over 1999 Power Outages

MATTEL INC: Recalls Toy Cars with Lead Exceeding Safety Standard
OHIO EDISON: Opposes Motion in Lawsuit Over W.H. Sammis Plant
ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls Circular Saws to Repair Trigger Switch
UNITED STATES: Vets Sue Over “Deficient” Mental Health Care
UNITED STEEL: Retired Union Members Sue Over Health Benefits

WELLS REAL: Court Denies Expedited Discovery Motion in Ga. Suit


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SCHOLASTIC CORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ART TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Mass. Securities Suit's Nixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Technology Group, Inc. expects that oral arguments will be presented in
2007 with regards to an appeal of the dismissal of a consolidated securities
fraud suit filed against the company and certain of its former officers in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The company and certain of the company's former officers were named as
defendants in seven purported class action that have been consolidated into
one action under the caption, "In re Art Technology Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 01-CV-11731-NG."  

The case alleged that the company, and certain of the company's former
officers, have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule SEC 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, which
generally may subject issuers of securities and persons controlling those
issuers to civil liabilities for fraudulent actions in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities.  The case was originally filed in 2001, and
a consolidated amended complaint was filed in March 2002.  

In April 2002, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On Sept. 4,
2003, the court issued a ruling dismissing all but one of the plaintiffs'
allegations.  The remaining allegation was based on the veracity of a public
statement made by one of the company's former officers.

In August 2004, the company filed a renewed motion to dismiss and motion for
summary judgment as to the remaining allegation, which the court granted in
September 2005.  Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second consolidated
amended complaint.  

In October 2006, the court ruled in the company's favor and dismissed the
case on summary judgment.  The plaintiffs have appealed the decision.

The parties have filed appeal briefs and the company expects that oral
arguments will be presented in 2007, according to the company's Aug. 7, 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: Art Technology Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:01-cv-11731-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.     

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
         Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134
         E-mail: ted@shulaw.com

              - and -

         David C. Katz, Esq.
         Weiss & Lurie
         551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
         New York, NY 10176
         Phone: 212-682-3025
         Fax: 212-682-3010
         E-mail: dkatz@wllawny.com

Representing the company are:

         Dyan Finguerra-DeCharme, Esq.
         Mary Jo Johnson, Esq.
         William H. Pane, Esq.
         Jeffrey B. Rudman, Esq.
         Matthew A. Stowe, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
         399 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-230-8800
         Fax: 212-230-8888


AXIS CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.J. Brokerage Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. insurance companies of AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. along with other
defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the putative class action, "In
re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Filed on Aug. 1, 2005, the suit includes as defendants numerous insurance
brokers and insurance companies.  It generally alleges antitrust and a
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in
connection to the payment of contingent commissions and manipulation of
insurance bids and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the District Court granted, in part, motions to dismiss
filed by the defendants, and ordered plaintiffs to file supplemental
pleadings setting forth sufficient facts to allege their antitrust and RICO
claims.  After plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings, defendants
renewed their motions to dismiss.  

On April 15, 2007, the District Court dismissed without prejudice
plaintiffs’ complaint, as amended, and granted plaintiff thirty (30) days to
file another amended complaint and/or revised RICO Statement and Statements
of Particularity.

In May 2007, plaintiffs filed:

       -- a Second Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action
          complaint,

       -- a Revised Particularized Statement Describing the
          Horizontal Conspiracies Alleged in the Second
          Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action
          Complaint, and

       -- a Third Amended Commercial Insurance Plaintiffs’ RICO
          Case Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(B)(4).  

On June 21, 2007, the defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss, which are
pending before the court.

The suit is "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 1663," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge
Patty Shwartz.  

Representing the plaintiff are:

         Thomas M. Louis, Esq.
         Wells Marble & Hurst, PLLC
         P.O. BOX 131
         JACKSON, MS 39205-0131
         Phone: (601) 355-8321
         E-mail: tlouis@wellsmar.com

         H. Alan Mccall, Esq.
         Stockwell Sievert
         P.O. Box 2900
         Lake Charles, LA 70601
         Phone: 337-436-9491

              - and -

         Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
         Miller Faucher & Cafferty, LLP
         One Logan Square, Suite 1700, 18TH & Cherry Streets
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-864-2800
         E-mail: emeriwether@millerfaucher.com

Representing the company is:

         William F. Clarke, Esq.
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meahter & Flom, LLP
         Four Times Square
         New York, NY 10036-6522
         Phone: (212) 735-3000
         E-mail: wclarke@skadden.com


BRUSH ENGINEERED: Petition for Panel Rehearing of "Paz" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit denied a plaintiffs' Petition
for Panel Rehearing with regards to the dismissal of the purported class
action, "Paz, et al. v. Brush Engineered Materials Inc., et al., Case No.
1:04CV597."

The case, which is the third purported class action against the company over
the hazard of beryllium, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi on June 30, 2004.

The named plaintiffs are George Paz, Barbara Faciane, Joe Lewis, Donald
Jones, Ernest Bryan, Gregory Condiff, Karla Condiff, Odie Ladner, Henry
Polk, Roy Tootle, William Stewart, Margaret Ann Harris, Judith Lemon,
Theresa Ladner and Yolanda Paz.

The defendants are:

     -- Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.;
     -- Brush Wellman, Inc.;
     -- Wess-Del Inc.; and
     -- the Boeing Co.

Plaintiffs seek the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund as a
result of their alleged exposure to products containing beryllium,
attorneys' fees and expenses, and general and equitable relief.

They purport to sue on behalf of a class of:

     -- present or former Defense Contract Management
        Administration (DCMA) employees who conducted quality
        assurance work at Stennis Space Center and the Boeing
        Co. at its facility in Canoga Park, California;

     -- present and former employees of Boeing at Stennis; and

     -- spouses and children of those individuals.

Messrs. Paz and Lewis and Ms. Faciane represent current and former DCMA
employees at Stennis.  Mr. Jones represents DCMA employees at Canoga Park.  
Messrs. Bryan, Condiff, Ladner, Polk, Tootle and Stewart and Ms. Condiff
represent Boeing employees at Stennis.  Ms. Harris, Ms. Lemon, Ms. Ladner
and Ms. Paz are family members.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 28, 2004, which was granted
and judgment was entered on Jan. 11, 2005; however, the plaintiffs filed an
appeal.

Brush Engineered Materials Inc. was dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction on the same date, which plaintiffs did not appeal.

On April 7, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in case
number 05-60157, certified the question regarding whether Mississippi has a
medical monitoring cause of action to the Mississippi Supreme Court.  The
suit is now in the Supreme Court of Mississippi under Case No. 2006-FC-00771-
SCT.

In case number 2006-FC-007712-SCT, the Mississippi Supreme Court issued an
opinion that the laws of Mississippi do not allow for a medical monitoring
cause of action without an accompanying physical injury on Jan. 4, 2007.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied by the
Mississippi Supreme Court on March 1, 2007.  On March 29, 2007, the Fifth
Circuit entered and filed its judgment affirming the District Court’s
granting of the Company’s Motion to Dismiss.

On April 6, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing, which was
denied by the Fifth Circuit on June 18, 2007, and the case is now closed.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/-- through its  
wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of engineered materials serving
the global telecommunications, computer, data storage, aerospace and
defense, automotive electronics, industrial components, and appliance
markets.


BRUSH WELLMAN: Continues to Face "Marin" Beryllium Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman, Inc., a subsidiary of Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.
continues to face a purported class action over the hazards of beryllium.

The suit is "Marin et al. v. Brushman Wellman Inc., Case No. BC299055."  It
was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County on July
15, 2003.  

The named plaintiffs in the suit are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield
Perry and Susan Perry.  The defendants are:

     -- Brush Wellman,
     -- Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc., and
     -- Doe Defendants 1 through 100.

A first amended complaint was filed on Sept. 15, 2004, naming five
additional plaintiffs.  The five additional named plaintiffs are Robert
Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion, James Jones and John Kesselring.  

The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to beryllium while
employed at the Boeing Co.  The plaintiffs' wives claim loss of consortium.

Plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately 250 members
each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing or its predecessors and
are beryllium sensitized and the other consisting of their spouses.

They have brought claims for negligence, strict liability -- design defect,
strict liability -- failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of
implied warranties, and unfair business practices.

The suit seeks injunctive relief, medical monitoring, medical and health
care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees and costs, revocation of
business license, and compensatory and punitive damages.

Messrs. Marin, Perry, Thomas, White, Joffrion, Jones and Kesselring
represent current and past employees of Boeing in California; and Ms. Marin
and Ms. Perry are spouses.  Defendant Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc. was
dismissed on May 5, 2005.

Brush Engineered reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 6, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2007.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--   
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of engineered
materials serving the global telecommunications, computer, data storage,
aerospace and defense, automotive electronics, industrial components, and
appliance markets.


BRUSH WELLMAN: Eleventh Circuit Denies Motions in “Parker” Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denied both plaintiffs' and
defendant's motions for reconsideration of ruling in the purported class
action, "Parker, et al., v. Brush Wellman Inc., Case No. 2004CV80827"

The case is the second purported class action filed against Brush Wellman
Inc., a subsidiary of Brush Engineered Materials Inc., over the hazards of
beryllium.  It was filed in Superior Court of Fulton County, State of
Georgia, on Jan. 29, 2004.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, case number 04-CV-606, on May 4, 2004.  The named plaintiffs are
Neal Parker, Wilbert Carlton, Stephen King,
Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins, Leonard Ponder, Barbara King and
Patricia Burns.

The defendants are:

     -- Brush Wellman;
     -- Schmiede Machine and Tool Corp.;
     -- Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc., d/b/a Copper and Brass
        Sales;
     -- Axsys Technologies Inc.;
     -- Alcoa, Inc.;
     -- McCann Aerospace Machining Corp.;
     -- Cobb Tool, Inc.; and
     -- Lockheed Martin Corp.

Messrs. Parker, Carlton, King and Burns and Ms. Watkins are current
employees of Lockheed.  Mr. Ponder is a retired employee, and Ms. King and
Ms. Burns and Ms. Watkins are family members.

Plaintiffs have brought claims for negligence, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, civil conspiracy and punitive damages.

They seek a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to fund a court-
supervised medical monitoring program, attorneys' fees and punitive damages.

On March 29, 2005, the court entered an order directing plaintiffs to amend
their pleading to segregate out those plaintiffs who have endured only
subclinical, cellular and subcellular effects from those who have sustained
actionable tort injuries, and that following such amendment, the court will
enter an order:

     -- dismissing the claims asserted by the former subset of
        claimants, dismissing Count I of the complaint, which
        sought the creation of a medical monitoring fund; and

     -- dismissing the claims against defendant Axsys
        Technologies Inc.

On April 20, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Substituted Amended
Complaint for Damages, contending that each of the eight named plaintiffs
and the individuals listed on the attachment to the original complaint, and
each of the putative class members have sustained personal injuries.

Plaintiffs though allege that they identified five individuals whose
injuries have manifested themselves such that they have been detected by
physical examination and/or laboratory test.

On March 10, 2006, the Court entered an order construing this motion as a
Motion for Summary Judgment and granted summary judgment in the Company’s
favor; however, the plaintiffs filed an appeal.

On April 18, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s grant of summary
judgment, holding that Georgia tort law requires a current physical injury
and that allegations of subclinical and cellular damage do not satisfy the
physical injury requirement.  

However, with respect to the five named individuals with alleged beryllium
sensitization, there was a genuine issue of material fact that precluded
summary judgment, and the case has been remanded to the district court for
further proceedings.

Those five individuals are Messrs. Parker, Carlton, Brown, Griffin and
Walker.  Defendants and Plaintiffs filed motions for reconsideration, which
the Eleventh Circuit denied on June 6, 2007, according to Brush Engineered's
Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2007.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/-- through its  
wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of engineered materials serving
the global telecommunications, computer, data storage, aerospace and
defense, automotive electronics, industrial components, and appliance
markets.


BRUSH WELLMAN: Seeks to Junk Third-Party Beryllium Risk Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman, Inc., a subsidiary of Brush Engineered Materials Inc., moved
to dismiss a third-party complaint by Tube Methods, Inc. that seeks to hold
Brush Wellman partly liable for damage claims against Tube Methods in
relation to the hazards of beryllium-containing products.

"Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. d/b/a Small Tube Products Corp.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 000525" is the fourth purported class action that
Brush Wellman, Inc. faces in relation to beryllium.  It was filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on Sept. 7, 2006.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, under Case No. 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4, 2006.

The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony.  The defendants are:

      -- Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., d/b/a Small Tube
         Products Corp., Inc.;

      -- Admiral Metals Inc.;

      -- Tube Methods, Inc.; and

      -- Cabot Corp.

The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current and former
employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville, Pennsylvania who have
ever been exposed to beryllium for a period of at least one month while
employed at U.S. Gauge.

The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence.  Plaintiff seeks the
establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost of publication of
approved guidelines and procedures for medical screening and monitoring of
the class, attorneys' fees and expenses.

Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaint against Brush
Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006. Tube Methods alleges that
Brush supplied beryllium-containing products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube
Methods worked on those products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods
for indemnification and contribution.

The company moved to dismiss the Tube Methods complaint on Dec. 22, 2006.  
On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube Methods filed an amended third party complaint, which
Brush moved to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007.

Brush Engineered reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 6, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2007.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--   through its  
wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of engineered materials serving
the global telecommunications, computer, data storage, aerospace and
defense, automotive electronics, industrial components, and appliance
markets.


CEPHALON INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over PROVIGIL Case Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc. along with Barr Laboratories Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA, and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., are
seeking for the dismissal of litigations filed over its PROVIGIL patent case
settlements.

Initially, certain private parties brought a number of civil antitrust
complaints, purportedly filed as class actions against the defendants.

The suits claim, among other things, that the patent litigation settlements
concerning PROVIGIL violate the antitrust laws of the U.S. and certain state
laws.

The proposed consolidated class action complaints have been designated by
plaintiffs, each of which seeks to certify separate, purported classes of
plaintiffs: direct purchasers of PROVIGIL, and consumers and other indirect
purchasers of PROVIGIL.

The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking monetary damages and/or equitable
relief.

Defendants moved to dismiss both class-action complaints in November 2006,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com-- is an international  
biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, development and
marketing of products to treat human diseases.  The Company’s focuses its
efforts in four core therapeutic areas: central nervous system (CNS)
disorders, pain, cancer and addiction. In addition to conducting an active
research and development program, it markets six products in the United
States and number of products in countries throughout Europe.

The Company’s principal product is PROVIGIL (modafinil) Tablets (C-IV),
which comprised approximately 43% of its total consolidated net sales during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, of which approximately 94% was in the United
States market.  Its product, ACTIQ (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate) (C-
II), accounted for approximately 34% of its total consolidated net sales
during 2006, of which approximately 95% was in the United States market.


CONCORD EFS: Calif. Court Issues Order in ATM Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an
order on the plaintiff’s motion to compel in the purported class
action, "ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation," which was filed against Concord EFS,
Inc., which has merged with First Data Corp.

On July 2, 2004, Pamela Brennan, Terry Crayton, and Darla Martinez filed a
class action complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions.   

Plaintiffs claim the defendants violated antitrust laws by conspiring to
artificially inflate foreign ATM fees that were ultimately charged to ATM
cardholders.  They seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
nature of the case may require or as may seem just and proper to the court.  

Five similar suits were filed and served in July, August and October 2004,
two in the Central District of Los Angeles, California; two in the Southern
District of New York, and one in the Western District of Seattle,
Washington.   

The plaintiffs sought to have all of the cases consolidated by the Multi
District Litigation panel.  The panel denied that request on Dec. 16, 2004
and all cases were transferred to the Northern District Court of California
and assigned to a single judge.  All cases other than Brennan were stayed.  

Subsequently, a seventh lawsuit was filed in the District of
Alaska, which thereafter was also transferred to the Northern
District of California and assigned to the same judge.

In Brennan, on May 4, 2005, the court ruled on defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  The court did not dismiss the
complaint, except for a technical dismissal of the claims against First Data
Corp., Bank One Corp. and JPMorgan Chase.   

On May 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that clarified
the basis for alleging that the holding companies First Data Corp., Bank One
Corp. and JPMorgan Chase were liable.   

On July 21, 2005, Concord filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to
foreclose claims arising after Feb. 1, 2001, the date that Concord acquired
the STAR network.   

On Aug. 22, 2005, the court also consolidated all of the ATM interchange
cases pending against the defendants in Brennan that is now referred to
collectively as the "ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation."  

On Sept. 14, 2006, a hearing on Concord's Motion for Summary Judgment was
held and the Court requested additional briefing.

On Nov. 30, 2006, the Court issued an order that terminated the pending
motion and requested further discovery on the limited issue of
procompetitive justifications for the fixed ATM interchange by March 1,
2007.

A hearing was held on the plaintiff’s motion to compel on May 23, 2007, at
which time the Court directed the defendants to file a motion for summary
judgment.   

On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order on the motion to compel.

The suit is "In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:04-
cv-02676-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Daniel O. Myers, Esq.
         Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook and Brickman, LLC
         1037 Chuck Dawley, Building A,
         Mt. Pleasant, SC 92464
         Phone: 843-727-6500
         Fax: 843-216-6509
         E-mail: dmyers@rpwb.com

              - and -

         Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.   
         Lieff Cabraser Heiman & Bernstein, LLP
         275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000
         Fax: 415-956-1008
         E-mail: jsaveri@lchb.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Buckmaster DeWolf, Esq.
         Peter Edward Moll, Esq.
         Benjamin K. Riley, Esq.
         Brian Wallach, Esq.
         Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP
         301 Ravenswood Avenue
         Menlo Park, CA 94025
         Phone: 650-463-8100
         E-mail: dewolfb@howrey.com
                 mollp@howrey.com
                 rileyb@howrey.com
                 wallachb@howrey.com


CONCORD EFS: Ruling on Motion to Junk Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Shelby County Circuit Court in Tennessee has yet to rule on a motion
seeking for the dismissal of a third amended complaint in a consolidated
securities fraud suit filed against Concord EFS Inc., which has merged with
First Data Corp.

On or about April 3 and 4, 2003, two purported class action complaints were
filed on behalf of the public holders of Concord EFS's common stock,
excluding shareholders related to or affiliated with the individual
defendants.

The defendants in those actions were certain current and former fficers and
directors of Concord.  The complaints generally
alleged breaches of the defendants' duty of loyalty and due care in
connection with the defendants' alleged attempt to sell Concord without
maximizing the value to shareholders in order to advance the defendants'
alleged individual interests in obtaining indemnification agreements related
to the securities litigation discussed above and other derivative litigation.

The complaints sought class certification, injunctive relief directing the
defendants' conduct in connection with an alleged sale or auction of
Concord, reasonable attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other costs and
relief the Court deems just and proper.

On or about April 2, 2003, Barton K. O'Brien filed an additional purported
class-action complaint.  The defendants were Concord and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.  

This complaint contained allegations regarding the individual defendants'
alleged insider trading and alleged violations of securities and other laws
and asserted that this alleged misconduct reduced the consideration offered
to Concord shareholders in the proposed merger between Concord and a
subsidiary of the company.

The complaint sought class certification, attorneys' fees, experts' fees,
costs and other relief the Court deems just and proper.  Moreover, the
complaint also sought an order enjoining consummation of the merger,
rescinding the merger if it is consummated and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages to members of the putative class, and directing the
defendants to account to the putative class members for unspecified damages.

                     Consolidated Lawsuit

These complaints were consolidated in a second amended consolidated
complaint filed Sept. 19, 2003 into one action, "In Re: Concord EFS, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation," in the Shelby County Circuit for the State of
Tennessee.

On Oct. 15, 2003, the plaintiffs in "Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation," moved for leave to file a third amended consolidated complaint
similar to the previous complaints but also alleging that the proxy
statement disclosures relating to the antitrust regulatory approval process
were inadequate.

A motion to dismiss was filed on June 22, 2004 alleging that the claims
should be denied and is moot since the merger has occurred.

On Oct. 18, 2004, the Court heard arguments on the plaintiff's motion to
amend complaint and defendant's motion to dismiss.  

On Sept. 12, 2006, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to file a third
amended complaint.  In early November 2006, Concord filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint.

On June 28, 2007, a hearing was held on Concord’s motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  No order has been issued on this motion yet,
according to First Data Corp.'s Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

First Data Corp. -- http://www.firstdatacorp.com-- operates electronic  
commerce, payment services and customer account management businesses.  FDC
has four main business segments:
First Data Commercial Services Segment, First Data Financial
Institution Services Segment, First Data International Segment and
Integrated Payment Systems Segment, and a fifth segment, known as All Other
and Corporate.


DVI INC: Former Outside Excecs Settle Securities Claims for $3M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in the class action, "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities   
Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336," pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania  entered into a partial settlement with
three of the named defendants in this litigation, former outside directors
Nathan Shapiro, William Goldberg and John McHugh.

The partial settlement terms include releases of the class' claims asserted
against the settling defendants, but not other defendants, brought pursuant
to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Lead plaintiffs have settled their claims against the settling defendants
for cash payment of $3,250,000, which is being funded from the settling
defendants' personal assets. The final amount distributed to class members
will depend upon the amount of interest earned on these funds and the amount
of court-approved attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and Notice and
Administration Costs.

The parties to this litigation do not agree on the amount of damages per
Common Share and per Senior Note that would be recoverable if the class were
to prevail on each claim alleged. The parties also do not agree as to
whether the class suffered damages, the amount thereof and how to measure
damages.

The lead plaintiffs are proposing the partial settlement because, upon
consideration of, among other things, the record, the potential damages, the
strength of the class' claims and the risks and cost of continued
litigation, the partial settlement provides substantial recovery to the
class, is fair, reasonable and adequate, and is preferable to continued
litigation. The settling defendants deny any liability or wrongdoing, but
desire to resolve the claims asserted under the terms set forth herein and,
in more detail, in the Partial Settlement Agreement.

                         Case Background

In 2003, DVI, Inc. was named defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  
  
The suit alleged the company issued a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between Nov. 7, 2001 and June 27, 2003, thereby artificially
inflating the price of DVI's   publicly traded securities.   
  
The complaint alleged that these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented these adverse
facts, among others:
  
      -- that the company had failed to timely write down the   
         value of certain assets which had become impaired;   
   
      -- that the company's accounting and financial reporting   
         policies and procedures for non-systematic (non-  
         recurring) transactions were inadequate;   
  
      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and   
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial   
         condition of the company; and   
  
      -- that as a result, the values of the company's assets,   
         net income and earnings per share were materially   
         overstated at all relevant times.   
  
The class period ended June 27, 2003.  On that date, DVI shocked the
investing public when it announced that the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission had rejected its March 30, 2003 quarterly report because an
ndependent auditor had not reviewed it.
  
The company also disclosed that it was continuing to consider the need for
the accounting change, and, if adopted, its net income for the third quarter
of fiscal 2003, its earnings per share for the first nine months of fiscal
2003 and its net income for the fiscal year 2002 would all be drastically
reduced.   
  
Specifically, $1.4 million, or 44.47%, its earnings per share for the nine
months ended March 31, 2003 was reduced by $0.10, or 44.45% and its net
income for fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 was reduced by $1.395 million or
34.12%, reduced the company's net income for the third quarter of fiscal
2003.
  
Investor reaction was swift and negative, with DVI stock falling from a
close of $5.84 on June 26, 2003 to a close of $4.30 on June 27, 2003, or a
single-day decline of more than 26% on very high trading volume.

The class consists of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of DVI (its common stock and 9 7/8% Senior Notes),
between Aug. 10, 1999 and Aug. 13, 2003, both dates inclusive.

Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on September 26, 2007.  
Deadline to file claims is on December 14, 2007.

A fairness hearing will be held before the Honorable Legrome D. Davis in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 2,
2007 at 9:00 a.m.

The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge Legrome D. Davis.  
  
Representing the defendants are:  
  
          Antonia M. Apps
          Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd and Evans, PLLC
          1615 M. Street, North West, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-326-7900  
  
          Thomas V. Ayala
          Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-5719
          E-mail: tayala@morganlewis.com

          - and -
  
          Gregory Ballard
          Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
          One World, Financial Center
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: 212-504-6701
          E-mail: gregory.ballard@cwt.com
  
Representing plaintiffs is:

          M. Reas Bowman
          Krislov & Associates Ltd
          20 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1350
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-506-0500


ELECTRONIC DATA: Appeal Challenging $137M Deal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the approval by the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas of a $137.5 million settlement in the consolidated
securities fraud class action, “Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS)
Securities Litigation, Case No. 6:03-MD-1512 + Lead Case 6:03-CV-110,”
remains pending.  

Electronic Data Systems, Inc. and certain of its former officers are
defendants in numerous shareholder class actions filed from September
through December 2002 in response to its Sept. 18, 2002 earnings pre-
announcement, publicity about certain equity hedging transactions that it
had entered into, and the drop in the price of EDS common stock.  

The cases allege violations of various federal securities laws and common
law fraud based upon purported misstatements or omissions of material facts
regarding the company's financial condition.  

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities action
filed a consolidated class action complaint. The amended consolidated
complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  

Plaintiffs allege that the company and certain of its former officers made
false and misleading statements about the financial condition of EDS,
particularly with respect to the Navy Marine Corps Intranet contract and the
accounting for that contract.  

On Nov. 1, 2005, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the lead plaintiff and class representative to settle the consolidated
securities action, subject to final approval of the settlement by the
District Court.  The District Court approved that settlement on March 7,
2006.

The terms of the settlement provide for a cash payment of $137.5 million,
substantially all of which was paid during the first quarter of 2006.  

The amount paid by the Company aggregated $77.5 million, with the remainder
paid by its insurers (in addition to amounts paid by such insurers in
respect of legal fees related to this action).

The Company recorded incremental reserves of $24 million in 2005 in
connection with this settlement. The remaining cost of the settlement was
recognized in the Company's financial statements prior to 2004.

Two appeals have been filed with respect to the District Court's approval of
this settlement.  

One appeal challenges the amount of attorneys fees awarded to the counsel
for plaintiffs.  That appeal was dismissed on June 15, 2007.

The other appeal challenges the approval of the settlement on the grounds
that there is a subclass who receives no economic benefit, the release is
overbroad, and the claims form was overly burdensome, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

For more details, contact:  

         EDS Corp. Securities Litigation
         c/o Poorman-Douglas Corporation, Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 3560
         Portland, OR 97208-3560  
         Phone: 888-230-9850
         Fax: 503-350-5890
         E-mail: edssecuritieslitigation@poorman-douglas.com
         Web site: http://www.edssecuritieslitigation.com

         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         12481 High Bluff Drive, Third Floor
         San Diego, CA 92130    
         Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com

              - and -

         Lowenstein Sandler P.C.,
         65 Livingston Avenue
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Web site: http://www.lowenstein.com


ELECTRONIC DATA: Certification of Tex. ERISA Lawsuit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit vacated a decision by the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that granted class-
action status to the lawsuit, "In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Case Mo. 6:03-MD-1512."

Initially, five class actions were filed on behalf of participants in the
EDS 401(k) Plan against the company, certain of its current and former
officers and, in some cases, its directors, alleging the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
made misrepresentations to the class regarding the value of EDS shares.  All
of the foregoing cases have been centralized in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas.   

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated ERISA action each
filed a consolidated class action complaint.  The consolidated complaint in
the ERISA action alleges violation of fiduciary duties under ERISA by some
or all of the defendants and violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the U.S.
Securities Act by selling unregistered EDS shares to plan participants.  

The defendants in the ERISA claims are EDS, certain current and former
officers of EDS, members of the Compensation and Benefits Committee of its
Board of Directors, and certain current and former members of the two
committees responsible for administering the plan.  

On Nov. 8, 2004, the District Court certified a class in the ERISA action on
certain of the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, of all participants
in the EDS 401(k) Plan and their beneficiaries, excluding the defendants,
for whose accounts the plan made or maintained investments in EDS stock
through the EDS Stock Fund between Sept. 7, 1999 and Oct. 9, 2002.  

Also on that date the court certified a class in the ERISA action on the
allegations of violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the U.S. Securities Act of
all participants in the Plan and their beneficiaries, excluding the
defendants, for whose accounts the Plan purchased EDS stock through the EDS
Stock Fund between Oct. 20, 2001 and Nov. 18, 2002.  

On Dec. 29, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit granted the
Company's petition to appeal the class certification order from the District
Court, and oral arguments were heard on the appeal on April 5, 2005.

On Jan. 18, 2007, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision vacating the
district court's class certification decision and remanding the matter to
the district court to re-evaluate whether the action may be maintained as a
class certification in light of the Fifth Circuit's opinion and
instructions, according to the company's Aug. 7, 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 Electronic Data Systems Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No.
6:03-MD-1512," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas under Judge Leonard Davis.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Barry C. Barnett, Esq.
         Susman Godfrey LLP
         901 Main Street, Suite 4100
         Dallas, Texas 75202-3775
         Phone: 214-754-1900
         Fax: 214-754-1933

Representing the defendants are:

         David J. Bailey, Esq.
         Michael McConnell of Jones Day
         1420 Peachtree Street Suite 800
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3053
         Phone: 214/969-3700
         Fax: 12149695100
         E-mail: djbailey@jonesday.com
                 mmcconnell@jonesday.com

              - and -
  
         Richard P. Keeton, Esq.
         Nickens Keeton Lawless Farrell & Flack
         600 Travis Suite 7500
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/571-9191
         Fax: 713/571-9652
         E-mail: rkeeton@nickenskeeton.com


ELI LILLY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. faces two putative class actions in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under the federal securities
laws.

The suits, which were filed against the company and various current and
former directors, officers and employees, are:

       -- “Smith et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.,” filed
          on March 28, 2007, and

       -- “Valentine v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.,” filed
          on April 5, 2007.

In both lawsuits, plaintiffs request certification of a class of purchasers
of the company's stock from March 28, 2002, through Dec. 22, 2006.

The complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding Zyprexa in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek unspecified compensatory damages
and the costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers, develops,  
manufactures and sells products in one business segment, pharmaceutical
products.  The Company also has an animal health business segment.  It
manufactures and distributes its products through owned or leased facilities
in the United States, Puerto Rico and 25 other countries.  Eli Lilly and
Company’s products are sold in approximately 140 countries.  

The Company also conducts research to find products to treat diseases in
animals and to increase the efficiency of animal food production. Its
principal products include Neuroscience products, Endocrine products,
Oncology products, Animal health products, Cardiovascular agents, Anti-
infectives and other pharmaceutical products.  In January 2007, the Company
completed the acquisition of ICOS Corporation.  In April 2007, the Company
completed the acquisition of Hypnion, Inc., a privately held neuroscience
drug discovery company focused on sleep disorder research.


EL PASO: 2008 Hearing Set for “Bank of America” Royalties Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative 2008 class certification hearing was scheduled for the purported
class action, “Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas and Burlington
Resources Oil and Gas Company, L.P.”

El Paso Natural Gas Co. was named a defendant, along with Burlington
Resources, Inc. (Burlington), now a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips, in the
class action.  The suit was filed in October 2003 in the District Court of
Kiowa County, Oklahoma asserting royalty underpayment claims related to
specified shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico.

Plaintiffs assert that royalties were underpaid starting in the 1980s when
the purchase price of gas was lowered below the Natural Gas Policy Act
maximum lawful prices.

They assert that royalties were further underpaid by Burlington as a result
of post-production cost deductions taken starting in the late 1990s.

This action was transferred to Washita County District Court in 2004.  

A tentative settlement reached in November 2005 was disapproved by the court
in June 2007.  

A class certification hearing has been scheduled for January 2008, according
to the company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

El Paso Natural Gas Co. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is engaged in the  
primary business of interstate transportation of natural gas.  It conducts
its business activities through two pipeline systems: The EPNG system, which
consists of approximately 11,000 miles of pipeline with a winter sustainable
west-flow capacity of 4,850 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) and
approximately 800 MMcf/d of east-end deliverability, and The Mojave system,
which consists of approximately 400 miles of pipeline with a design capacity
of approximately 400 MMcf/d.  During the year ended December 31, 2004, the
average throughput on the EPNG system and the Mojave system was 4,074
billion barrels tons per day (BBtu/d) and 161 BBtu/d, respectively.


FIRST HORIZON: Mo. Court Gives Final OK to $36M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A state court in Jackson County, Missouri granted final approval to a $36.3
million settlement of a purported class action filed against First Horizon
Home Loans, a subsidiary of First Horizon National Corp.

The case, filed back in November 2000, generally concerned the charging of
certain loan origination fees, including fees permitted by Kansas and
federal law but allegedly restricted or not permitted by Missouri law, when
First Horizon Home Loans or its predecessor, McGuire Mortgage Co., made
certain second-lien mortgage loans.

Among other relief, plaintiffs sought a refund of fees, a repayment and
forgiveness of loan interest, prejudgment interest, punitive damages, loan
rescission, and attorneys’ fees.

In response to pre-trial motions, the court certified a statewide class
action involving approximately 4,000 loans and made a number of rulings that
could have significantly affected the ultimate outcome of the case in the
absence of an appeal.  Trial had been scheduled for the fourth quarter of
2006.

As a result of mediation, FHN entered into a final settlement agreement
related to the McGuire lawsuit.  In connection with this settlement, FHN
agreed to pay, under agreed circumstances using an agreed methodology, an
aggregate of up to approximately $36 million.  

At the present time, the period during which claims under the settlement can
be made has ended, and the claims that have been received are being
evaluated.  

The total amount currently reserved for this matter, based on the claims
received and FHN’s evaluation of them to date, is approximately $30
million.  

The settlement has received final approval by the court, the court has
entered its order making the settlement final, there have been no appeals,
and the time for any appeals has expired according to First Horizon National
Corp.'s Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

First Horizon National Corp. -- http://www.firsthorizon.com/-- is a bank  
holding company. Through its principal subsidiary, First Tennessee Bank
National Association (the Bank), and its other banking-related subsidiaries,
the Company provides financial services through four business segments:
Retail/Commercial Banking, Mortgage Banking, Capital Markets and Corporate,
which accounted for 63%, 22%, 17% and 2%, respectively, of the Company's
consolidated revenue, during the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  During 2006
approximately 54% of revenues were provided by fee income and approximately
46% of revenues were provided by net interest income.  In May 2007, the
Company’s First Horizon Home Loans mortgage group acquired Republic Mortgage
LLC, including its four branches throughout the Las Vegas area.


GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Certification of Canadian Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. is appealing the certification of a nationwide class of
buyers and lessees in the purported class action, "In re New Market Vehicle
Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases," according to the company's Aug.
7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Some 79 purported class actions were filed in various state and federal
courts on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since
Jan. 1, 2001 (Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2007).  

The defendants include:

     -- General Motors Corp.,  
     -- General Motors of Canada Ltd. along with Ford,  
     -- Daimler Chrysler,  
     -- Toyota,  
     -- Honda,  
     -- Nissan and BMW,  
     -- their Canadian affiliates,  
     -- the National Automobile Dealers Association, and  
     -- the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

The federal court actions were consolidated for coordinated pretrial
proceedings in federal court under the caption "In re New Market Vehicle
Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases" in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maine.  

The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant manufacturers,
aided by the association defendants, conspired among themselves and with
their dealers to prevent the sale to   U.S. citizens of vehicles produced
for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada.   

The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30%
lower than those in the U.S. and that preventing the sale of these vehicles
to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of supracompetitive prices by U.S.
consumers.  In addition, the complaints also alleged unjust enrichment and
violations of state unfair trade practices act.
   
The court ruled on March 21, 2007 that it will certify 20 separate statewide
class actions for damages under various state law theories under Federal
Rule 23(b)(3), covering the period from Jan. 1, 2001 to April 30, 2003.

General Motors has appealed the certification of the damages classes
following the entry of the class certification order and anticipates that
its appeal will be consolidated with its pending appeal of a prior order
certifying a nationwide class for injunctive relief only.

General Motors Corp. -- Net: http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in  
the worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and
parts.  The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles
worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe,
GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific. GM’s finance and
insurance operations are primarily conducted through GMAC LLC (GMAC).  

GMAC was a wholly owned subsidiary, until Nov. 30, 2006, when GM sold a 51%
controlling ownership interest in GMAC.  As a result, the Company holds a
49% ownership interest in GMAC, which provides a range of financial
services.  GM’s total worldwide car and truck deliveries were 9.1 million
during the year ended December 31, 2006.  In January 2007, Isuzu Motors
Limited acquired the 100% stake in a diesel engine development company,
which is a joint venture between Isuzu Motors and General Motors Corp.


GENERAL MOTORS: GMIMCo Faces N.Y. Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Investment Management Corp. is a defendant in a purported
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The purported class action was filed on April 12, 2007, under the
caption, “Mary M. Brewer, et al. v. General Motors Investment Management
Corporation, et al.”

The case was brought by a plaintiff who alleges that she is a participant in
the Delphi Savings-Stock Purchase Program for Salaried Employees and
purports to bring claims on behalf of all participants in that plan as well
as participants in the Delphi Personal Savings Plan for Hourly-Rate
Employees, the ASEC Manufacturing Savings Plan and the Delphi Mechatronic
Systems Savings-Stock Purchase Program against General Motors Investment
Management Corp. (GMIMCo) and State Street Bank.

The complaint alleges that GMIMCo and State Street breached their fiduciary
duties to plan participants by allowing participants to invest in five
different funds that each held primarily the equity of a single company: the
EDS Fund, the DIRECTV Fund, the News Corp. Fund, the Raytheon Fund, and the
GM Common Stock Fund, all of which plaintiffs allege were imprudent
investments because of their inherent risk and poor performance relative to
more prudent investment alternatives.

It also alleges that GMIMCo breached its fiduciary duties to plan
participants by allowing participants to invest in mutual funds offered by
FMR Corp. under the Fidelity brand name.

Plaintiffs allege that by investing in these funds, participants paid
excessive fees and costs that they would not have incurred had they invested
in more prudent investment alternatives.

The complaint seeks a declaration that defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties, an order requiring defendants to compensate the plans for
their losses resulting from their breaches of fiduciary duties, the removal
of defendants as fiduciaries, an injunction against further breaches of
fiduciary duties, other unspecified equitable and monetary relief, and
attorneys fees and costs.  

No determination has been made that the case may be maintained as a class
action, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2007.

The suit is “Brewer v. General Motors Investment Management Corporation et
al., Case No.  1:07-cv-02928-BSJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Barbara S. Jones.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         David Steven Preminger, Esq.
         Rosen Preminger & Bloom LLP
         708 Third Avenue, Suite 1600
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-422-1001
         Fax: 212-363-4436
         E-mail: dpreminger@rpblawny.com

Representing the defendant is:

         James Won Lee, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis LLP
         153 East 53rd Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 446-4800
         Fax: (212) 446-4900
         E-mail: jwlee@kirkland.com


INTEL CORP: Ill. Supreme Court to Review Pentium 4 Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A review by the Illinois Supreme Court of a ruling vacating class
certification of a suit filed by Barbara's Sales against Intel Corp. remains
pending.

In June 2002, plaintiffs filed the putative class action against Intel,
Gateway Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and HPDirect, Inc. in the Third
Judicial Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' advertisements and statements
misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact
that systems containing Intel Pentium 4 processors are less powerful and
slower than systems containing Intel Pentium III processors and a
competitor's microprocessors.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

In July 2004, the court certified against Intel an Illinois-only class of
certain end-use purchasers of certain Pentium 4 processors or computers
containing these microprocessors.

In January 2005, the Circuit Court granted a motion filed jointly by the
plaintiffs and Intel that stayed the proceedings in the trial court pending
review of the Circuit Court's class certification order.

In July 2006, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, vacated the
Circuit Court's class certification order and remanded the case to the
Circuit Court with instructions to reconsider its class certification ruling
applying California law.

In August 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to review the Appellate
Court’s decision, and that review is pending.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 3, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Barbara's Sales, et al. v. Intel Corporation, Gateway Inc.,
Hewlett-Packard Co. and HPDirect, Inc., Docket No. 02-L-788," filed in the
Third Judicial Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
         Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
         Korein Tillery, LLC
         Gateway One on the Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 300
         St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1820  
         Phone: 314-241-4844
         Fax: 314-588-7036
         Web Site: http://www.koreintillery.com  

              - and -

         Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq.
         Robert L. King, Esq.
         Swedlow & King, LLC
         Three First National Plaza, 70 W. Madison St., Ste. 660          
         Chicago, Illinois 60603
         Phone: (312) 641-3750
         Fax: (312) 641-9751

Representing the company is:

         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP
         333 West Wacker Drive
         Chicago, Illinois 60606
         Phone: 312-407-0700
         Fax: 312-407-0411
         Web Site: http://www.skadden.com


INTEL CORP: Still Faces Suits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corp. remains a defendant in several lawsuits, including some class
actions with regards to the higher prices of its microprocessors.

In June 2005, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Intel and
Intel's Japanese subsidiary engaged in various actions in violation of the
Sherman Act and the California Business and Professions Code, including
providing secret and discriminatory discounts and rebates and intentionally
interfering with prospective business advantages of AMD.

AMD's complaint seeks unspecified treble damages, punitive damages, an
injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Subsequently, AMD's Japanese subsidiary also filed suits in the Tokyo High
Court and the Tokyo District Court against Intel's Japanese subsidiary,
asserting violations of Japan's Antimonopoly Law and alleging damages of
approximately $55 million, plus various other costs and fees.

At least 78 separate class actions, generally repeating AMD's allegations
and asserting various consumer injuries, including that consumers in various
states have been injured by paying higher prices for Intel microprocessors,
have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of
California, Southern District of California, and the District of Delaware,
as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee state courts.

All the federal class actions have been consolidated by the Multidistrict
Litigation Panel to the District of Delaware.

All California class actions have been consolidated to the Superior Court of
California in Santa Clara County.

Intel disputes AMD's claims and the class-action claims, and
intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 3, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Intel Corp. -- http://www.intel.com/-- is a semiconductor chipmaker,  
developing advanced integrated digital technology platforms and components,
primarily integrated circuits, for the computing and communications
industries.  Intel's products include chips, boards and other semiconductor
products that are the building blocks integral to computers, servers,
handheld devices, and networking and communications products.  Its component-
level products consist of integrated circuits used to process information,
including microprocessors, chipsets and flash memory.


JERSEY CENTRAL: Continues to Face Suit Over 1999 Power Outages
--------------------------------------------------------------Jersey Central
Power & Light Co. (JCP&L), the New Jersey electric utility operating
subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. continues to face a purported class action
in New Jersey over the July 1999 power outages.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat wave, which
resulted in power outages throughout the service territories of many
electric utilities, including JCP&L's territory.

In an investigation into the causes of the outages and the reliability of
the transmission and distribution systems of all four of New Jersey’s
electric utilities, the  New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU)
concluded that there was not a prima facie case demonstrating that, overall,
JCP&L provided unsafe, inadequate or improper service to its customers.

Two class actions (subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding) were
filed in New Jersey Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L; GPU, Inc.,
former parent of JCP&L, which merged with FirstEnergy on Nov., 7, 2001; and
other GPU companies; seeking compensatory and punitive damages arising from
the July 1999 service interruptions in the JCP&L territory.

In August 2002, the trial court granted partial summary judgment to JCP&L
and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, and strict product liability.

In November 2003, the trial court granted JCP&L's motion to decertify the
class and denied plaintiffs' motion to permit into evidence their class-wide
damage model indicating damages in excess of $50 million.

These class decertification and damage rulings were appealed to the
Appellate Division.  The Appellate Division issued a decision on July 8,
2004, affirming the decertification of the originally certified class, but
remanding for certification of a class limited to those customers directly
impacted by the outages of JCP&L transformers in Red Bank, NJ, based on a
common incident involving the failure of the bushings of two large
transformers in the Red Bank substation resulting in planned and unplanned
outages in the area during a 2-3 day period.

In 2005, JCP&L renewed its motion to decertify the class based on a very
limited number of class members who incurred damages and also filed a motion
for summary judgment on the remaining plaintiffs’ claims for negligence,
breach of contract and punitive damages.

In July 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court dismissed the punitive damage
claim and again decertified the class based on the fact that a vast majority
of the class members did not suffer damages and those that did would be more
appropriately addressed in individual actions.

Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the New Jersey Appellate Division which,
on March 7, 2007, reversed the decertification of the Red Bank class and
remanded this matter back to the Trial Court to allow plaintiffs sufficient
time to establish a damage model or individual proof of damages.  

JCP&L filed a petition for allowance of an appeal of the Appellate Division
ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court which was denied on May 9, 2007.  

Proceedings are continuing in the Superior Court.  FirstEnergy is vigorously
defending this class action but is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2007.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com– is principally a  
holding company and holds, directly or indirectly, all of the outstanding
common stock of its eight principal electric utility operating subsidiaries:
Ohio Edison Co., The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison
Co., Pennsylvania Power Co., American Transmission Systems, Inc., Jersey
Central Power & Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co. and Pennsylvania Electric
Co. FirstEnergy's consolidated revenues are primarily derived from electric
service provided by its utility operating subsidiaries and the revenues of
its other principal subsidiaries: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.; FirstEnergy
Facilities Services Group, LLC; FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp., and
MYR Group, Inc.  The companies' combined service areas encompass
approximately 36,100 square miles in Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  


MATTEL INC: Recalls Toy Cars with Lead Exceeding Safety Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel Inc., of El Segundo, California, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 253,000 units
of “Sarge” die cast toy cars.

The company said the surface paints on the toys could contain lead levels in
excess of federal standards. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and
can cause adverse health effects.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves die cast “Sarge” 2 1/2 inch toy cars. The toy looks like
a military jeep and measures about 2 1/2 inches long by 1 inch high by 1
inch wide. The recalled toy has the markings “7EA” and “China” on the
bottom. The “Sarge” toy car is sold alone or in a package of two, and may
have the product number M1253 (for single cars) and K5925 (for cars sold as
a set) printed on the packaging. The cars marked “Thailand” are not included
in this recall.

These recalled “Sarge” die cast toy cars were manufactured in China and are
being sold at retail stores nationwide from May 2007 through August 2007 for
between $7 and $20 (depending on whether they were sold individually or in
sets).

Picture of recalled “Sarge” die cast toy cars:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07270.jpg

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from children and
contact Mattel. Consumers will need to return the product to receive a
replacement toy.

For additional information, contact Mattel at (800) 916-4997 anytime or
visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.service.mattel.com


OHIO EDISON: Opposes Motion in Lawsuit Over W.H. Sammis Plant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Edison Co., an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary of
FirstEnergy Corp., is opposing a motion that sought to amend a complaint in
the purported class action filed against the company with regards to air
emissions from its W.H. Sammis Plant.

On Aug. 22, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against Ohio Edison in
Jefferson County, Ohio Common Pleas Court, seeking compensatory and punitive
damages to be determined at trial based on claims of negligence and eight
other tort counts alleging damages from W.H. Sammis Plant air emissions.  

The two named plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief to eliminate
harmful emissions and repair property damage and the institution of a
medical monitoring program for class members.

On April 5, 2007, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ request to certify this
case as a class action and, accordingly, did not appoint the plaintiffs as
class representatives or their counsel as class counsel.

On July 30, 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel voluntarily withdrew their request for
reconsideration of the April 5, 2007 Court order denying class certification
and the Court heard oral argument on the plaintiff’s motion to amend their
complaint which Ohio Edison has opposed, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s
Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com– is principally a  
holding company and holds, directly or indirectly, all of the outstanding
common stock of its eight principal electric utility operating subsidiaries:
Ohio Edison Co., The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison
Co., Pennsylvania Power Co., American Transmission Systems, Inc., Jersey
Central Power & Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co. and Pennsylvania Electric
Co. FirstEnergy's consolidated revenues are primarily derived from electric
service provided by its utility operating subsidiaries and the revenues of
its other principal subsidiaries: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.; FirstEnergy
Facilities Services Group, LLC; FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp., and
MYR Group, Inc.  The companies' combined service areas encompass
approximately 36,100 square miles in Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  


ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls Circular Saws to Repair Trigger Switch
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bosch Tool Corp., of Mount Prospect, Illinois, in cooperation with
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 811,000 Skil
brand Circular Saws.

The company said the trigger switch on the circular saw can be locked on or
the switch can be turned on without the use of the safety lock-out. This can
cause unexpected operation of the saw, posing a risk of laceration.

The firm has received five reports of the saw staying on after the user
released the trigger. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Skil brand circular saws with model numbers 5650, 5700,
5750 and 5755. The model number and date code are printed on the nameplate
located on the front of the saw. The recall includes the following date
codes:

          28101 - 29231
          38101 - 39231
          48101 - 49231
          58101 - 59231
          68101 – 69231

No other models or date codes are included in this recall.

These recalled Skil brand circular saws were manufactured in the United
States and are being sold at home centers and independent hardware retailers
nationwide from January 2002 through December 2006 for between $70 and $80.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled saws and
contact the firm for instructions on obtaining a free repair.

For additional information, contact the Robert Bosch Tool Corp. toll-free at
(866) 761-5572 between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
the firm’s Web site: http://www.skil.com.


UNITED STATES: Vets Sue Over “Deficient” Mental Health Care
------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth filed a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, against the Department of Veterans
Affairs for allegedly failing to help veterans of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, Aaron Glantz of
FinalCall.com reports.

The lawsuit seeks to be a nationwide class action on behalf of an estimated
320,000 to 800,000 post-9/11 vets with post-traumatic stress disorder, which
is commonly known as PTSD.

Melissa Kasnitz, an attorney with the Disability Rights Advocates, said that
the VA is abandoning disabled veterans.  The veterans groups say the VA
bureaucracy in Washington has exerted pressure on local officials to deny
valid claims or deliberately underrate the severity of disabilities in an
effort to save money, according to the report. At the same time, VA
officials have not asked Congress for more money.

According to Mr. Glantz, for its part, the VA refused to answer questions
about the lawsuit, but it did release a statement affirming their commitment
to meet the financial and medical needs of the veterans.

The veterans groups are asking the federal courts to force the VA to clear
the backlog of disability claims and make sure that returning veterans
receive immediate medical and psychological help.  They also want the judge
to force the VA to screen all vets returning from combat to identify those
at greatest risk for PTSD and suicide, according to the report.


UNITED STEEL: Retired Union Members Sue Over Health Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
A group of retired M & G Polymers workers, who are seeking to have their
health benefits covered, filed a class-action complaint Aug. 3 in Kanawha
Circuit Court against United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO, District 8
and other employees of USW, Cara Bailey of the West Virginia Record reports.

The suit also names as defendants M & G Polymers’ predecessor companies:
Shell Chemical Co. and The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

M & G Polymers retirees Floyd Sayre, Sam Juniper and Don Rollins claim they
were told when they retired their health benefits would be covered at no
cost.  They received benefits until they received a letter Dec. 15, 2006,
stating that beginning Jan. 1, 2007, they would have to pay for their
benefits.

According to the suit, the class members claim the defendants were negligent
by terminating the no-cost health care benefits, and that they were also
misrepresented by the defendants who negotiated a contract on their behalf.  
They seek unspecified general and punitive damages.

The suit says the class members could affect more than 200 retirees and
families of deceased retirees.

The suit was filed by attorney John A. Proctor.  It has been assigned to
Judge Louis Bloom.


WELLS REAL: Court Denies Expedited Discovery Motion in Ga. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied
plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery in a a purported class action and
derivative complaint against Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (Wells
REIT).

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder filed a purported class action and
derivative complaint, “Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System v. Wells
Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al.,” in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells REIT, and the officers
and directors of Wells REIT prior to the closing of the Internalization
transaction.

The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of those
persons who received and were entitled to vote on the proxy statement filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
         thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
         proxy statement contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT’s strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’
         fees.

On April 9, 2007, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for an order
enjoining the Internalization transaction.  On April 17, 2007, the court
granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, and the case was docketed in the
Northern District of Georgia on April 24, 2007.  On June 7, 2007, the court
granted a motion to designate the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead
counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which contains
the same counts as the original complaint, described above, with amended
factual allegations based primarily on events occurring subsequent to the
original complaint and the addition of a Wells REIT officer as an individual
defendant. The defendants have until August 13, 2007 to move to dismiss,
answer, or otherwise respond to the amended complaint.

On July 9, 2007, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for expedited
discovery, which the plaintiff intended to use to support an anticipated
motion that would seek:

       -- relief from the April 9, 2007 court order,

       -- to void the vote ratifying the Internalization
          transaction, and

       -- to preliminarily enjoin Wells REIT from listing its
          shares on a national exchange.

The suit is “In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities
Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
         Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue, One Haverford Centre
         Haverford, PA 19041-0100
         Phone: 215-642-8500
         E-mail: nick@chimicles.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Cates, Esq.
         King & Spalding, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600
         E-mail: mcates@kslaw.com


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class
action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Countrywide Financial
Corporation common stock during the period between January 31, 2006 and
August 9, 2007.

The complaint charges Countrywide and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Countrywide is
engaged in mortgage lending and other real estate finance-related
businesses, including mortgage banking, banking and mortgage warehouse
lending, dealing in securities and insurance underwriting.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results. As a result of defendants' false statements,
Countrywide stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, reaching a high of $44.94 per share, and certain of the defendants
were able to sell over $440 million worth of their Countrywide shares at
artificially inflated prices.

On July 24, 2007, defendants were forced to publicly disclose that
Countrywide was recording hundreds of millions of dollars of impaired losses
in addition to those recorded in the first quarter of 2007, causing its
stock to drop to $30.50 per share. Later on August 9, 2007, upon the filing
of the Company's Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2007, Countrywide's
stock dropped to $24.71 and then, as the market began to appreciate the
extent of Countrywide's problems, to below $20 per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known to defendants
but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were:

     (a) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the Company's projections and reported
         results issued during the Class Period were based upon
         defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts;

     (b) inflated appraisals of properties on loan applications
         would make Countrywide's losses much larger than
         current reserve levels once real estate values cooled
         off, but the Company was failing to adjust its reserve
         levels to account for this phenomenon;

     (c) the Company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         its allowance for loan losses; and (d) given the
         deterioration and the increased volatility in the
         mortgage market, the Company would be forced to tighten
         its credit guidelines and implement additional lending
         restrictions, which would have a direct material
         negative impact on its loan productions going forward.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Countrywide common stock during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from August 14,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com
          Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE:IMH) securities during a class period of May 10, 2006 to August 15,
2007.

The complaint charges Impac 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 Impac's
financial results and business prospects.

Impac's representations concerning its Alt-A loans are alleged to be
patently untrue, with the Alt-A loans actually being sold to less
creditworthy borrowers, so that the loan portfolio was experiencing the same
risks and discounts in securitization as sub-prime mortgages. At the same
time, Impac overstated its financial results by failing to write down the
value of its loan portfolio, thus falsely inflating the prices investors
paid for Impac securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 16, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          Dustin P. 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


SCHOLASTIC CORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class
action has been commenced behalf of an institutional investor in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Scholastic Corp. between March 18, 2005 and March 23,
2006, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Scholastic and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Exchange Act. Scholastic Corporation, together with
its subsidiaries, engages in the publishing and distribution of children's
books, as well as development of educational technology products in the
United States and internationally.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to
disclose:

     (i) that the Company's Educational Publishing division was
         suffering from a variety of adverse factors which were
         causing it to experience declining results and it was
         not performing according to internal expectations;

    (ii) that the Company's operations in the United Kingdom
         were not performing well and would have to be
         reorganized;

   (iii) that the Company's financial results were materially
         overstated as it was failing to timely write-down the
         value of certain print reference assets and it was
         failing to properly reserve for certain bad debts; and

    (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and its prospects.

On December 16, 2005, Scholastic issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the fiscal second quarter of 2006, the period ending
November 30, 2005. For the quarter, the Company reported net income of $66.9
million. In response to the disappointing earnings announcement, the price
of Scholastic common stock declined from $33.10 per share to $29.30 per
share on heavy trading volume. The complaint further alleges that
Defendants, however, continued to conceal the scope of the problems at the
Company and maintained earnings guidance that they knew could not be met.

Then, on March 23, 2006, Scholastic issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the third quarter of 2006, the period ending February
28, 2006. The Company reported a net loss of $15.5 million or ($0.37) per
share. In response to the Company's announcement, the price of Scholastic
common stock declined from $29.42 per share to $26.04 per share on heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Scholastic between March 18,
2005 and March 23, 2006, inclusive.

For more information, contact:

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


                            *********


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  * * *