CAR_Public/070831.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 27, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 169

                            Headlines


AIMCO PROPERTIES: Still Faces Several FLSA Violations Lawsuits
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: 6th Circuit Hears ERISA Suit Dismissal Appeal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Accused of Withholding Clients' Credit Info
BEAR STEARNS: Investors of Bankrupt Hedge Funds File Lawsuit
BUY-RITE: Recalls Charm Bracelets Due to High Levels of Lead

CAPT. WILLIAM JACKMAN: Court Okays Deal with Gynecology Patients
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Denied Review of Dodge Durango Suit Ruling
DELPHI CORP: Settles Mich. Securities, Derivative, ERISA Suit
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Opting Out Deadline Extended to Sept. 1
GEORGIA: Suit Seeks to Keep Dental Care for Indigent Children

GPC BIOTECH: Shalov Stone Launches Securities Lawsuit Web Site
HILTON HOTELS: Suits Over Blackstone Merger Consolidated
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Still Faces Multiple Securities Suits in La.
INTEGRATED HEALTH: Chiropractors' Motion to Certify Suit Denied
J2 GLOBAL: Faces Suit Over Alleged Internet Facsimile Monopoly

MILLENNIUM APPAREL: Recalls Clothing Sets with Drawstrings
QUIXTAR INC: Mich. Distributors Seek TOR to Keep TEAM Contracts
RJ REYNOLDS: No Oral Arguments Hearing Set in "Brown" Case Yet
SLM CORP: Seeks Dismissal of FFELP Billing Practices Lawsuit
SOLUTIA INC: Former Officers, Employees Face ERISA Suit in N.Y.

STATE FARM: Ariz. Homeowner Files Breach of Contract Lawsuit
SYMBION INC: Faces Suits in Tenn. Over Crestview Partners Merger
TATTOO PARLOUR: Faces CAD10M Lawsuit Over Defective Sterilizer
TELMEX USA: Faces FCRA Violations Lawsuit in California
TENET HEALTHCARE: RICO Violations Suit by Fla. Hospital Junked

THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.
TOBY NYC: Recalls Kids' Metal Jewelry Due to High Lead Levels
UNITED STATES: Sued Over NCLB Act "Qualified Teacher" Definition
VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Suit Over "AOL Instant Messenger Fees"


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GPC BIOTECH: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit


                            *********


AIMCO PROPERTIES: Still Faces Several FLSA Violations Lawsuits  
--------------------------------------------------------------
AIMCO Properties, L.P. and its subsidiary NHP Management Co.
(NHPMN) still face several purported class actions that are
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Initially, AIMCO Properties and NHPMN were named as defendants
in a lawsuit alleging that the company and NHPMN willfully
violated FLSA by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for
time worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective action under the
FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California,
Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the company and NHPMN
failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were
required to be "on-call."  

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the company and NHPMN
failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance
workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

In addition to the District of Columbia case, in 2005 the
plaintiffs filed class actions with the same allegations in the
Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County) and in
Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court.

On March 28, 2007, the court in the District of Columbia issued
an opinion decertifying the collective action on both the on
call and overtime issues.

The court held that the 1,049 people who had opted into the
collective action were not similarly situated and the case may
not proceed as a collective action.

On July 16, 2007, plaintiffs' counsel filed individual cases on
behalf of at least 700 individual plaintiffs in Federal court in
21 different jurisdictions:

     * Northern District of Alabama;
     * District of Arizona;
     * Northern District of California;
     * District of Colorado;
     * Middle District of Florida;
     * Northern District of Georgia;
     * Northern District of Illinois;
     * Southern District of Indiana;
     * Western District of Kentucky;
     * District of Maryland;
     * Eastern District of Michigan;
     * Western District of Missouri;
     * District of New Jersey;
     * Western District of North Carolina;
     * Southern District of New York;
     * Southern District of Ohio;
     * Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
     * District of South Carolina;
     * Middle District of Tennessee;
     * Eastern District of Texas; and
     * Western District of Virginia.

The cases in Illinois, New York and Texas were styled as class
actions, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

AIMCO Properties Co. L.P. -- http://www.aimco.com-- is the  
operating arm of residential real estate leader Apartment
Investment and Management Co. (AIMCO), a company which is
focused on apartment complexes, which it owns, manages, and
redevelops.  The company owns or manages more than 1,200 garden
style, mid-rise, and high-rise apartment communities located
throughout the US and in Puerto Rico. The company divides its
operations into "conventional" and "affordable" operations (the
latter are often subsidized by government agencies).  AIMCO
controls about 90% of AIMCO Properties.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: 6th Circuit Hears ERISA Suit Dismissal Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has heard oral
arguments on an appeal regarding the dismissal of a purported
class action against American Electric Power Co., Inc., which is
alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
three putative class actions were filed against AEP, certain
executives and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator alleging
violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an
investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP
stock.  The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.  

Defendants are American Electric Power Co., Inc., American
Electric Power Service Corp., E. Linn Draper, Jr., and Thomas V.
Shockley, III.

In July 2006, the court entered judgment denying plaintiff's
motion for class certification and dismissing all claims without
prejudice.

In August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  Briefing of this
appeal was completed in December 2006.  

The Court of Appeals heard oral argument in July 2007, according
to the company's Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley with
referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
         Stull, Stull and Brody
         6 East 45th Street
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230
         E-mail: ssbny@aol.com

         James Edward Arnold, Esq.
         Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-469-1400
         E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com

              - and -         

         Joseph J. Braun, Esq.
         Strauss & Troy - 1
         The Federal Reserve Bldg., 150 E Fourth St., 4th Floor
         Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
         Phone: 513-621-2120
         E-mail: jjbraun@strausstroy.com.   

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
         Charlie L. Divine, Esq.
         Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq.
         Issa Mikel, Esq.
         George S. Wang, Esq.
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
         425 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017-3954
         Phone: 212-455-2000
         Fax: 212-455-2502
         Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Accused of Withholding Clients' Credit Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Express and Citibank are accused of depressing a large
numbers of clients' credit scores by withholding credit account
limits from credit bureaus Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, The
San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The accusation is contained in a class action filed July 25 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

According to the plaintiffs, without credit limits or account
maximums, FICO software of Experian often penalizes the borrower
by reducing scores.

American Express told the San Francisco Chronicle its green and
gold card holders do not have preset spending limits, and
therefore there is no credit limit to report.  Spokeswoman Molly
Faust denied the FICO are artificially depressed.  She also said
that the latest FICO model "differentiates between charge cards
and credit cards."

A Citibank spokesman confirmed, as well, that some cards come
with no preset limits, and therefore limits cannot be reported
to the bureaus, according to the report.

BEAR STEARNS: Investors of Bankrupt Hedge Funds File Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Four law firms have joined together to represent institutional
and retail customers of Bear Stearns and purchasers of Bear
Stearns Companies, Inc.'s (NYSE - BSC) sub-prime mortgage hedge
funds which have recently collapsed.

The funds are the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit
Strategies Master Fund and the High Grade Structured Credit
Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master fund.

On July 31, 2007 the two Bear Stearns hedge funds filed for
bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of New York,
wiping out nearly all investor capital.

The associated law firms are Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari; Maddox
Hargett & Caruso, P.C., David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA and
Page Perry, LLC. The firms represent the interest of
institutional and retail investors in disputes against Wall
Street banks like Bear Stearns.

"This team of attorneys provides small investors and financial
institutions alike with local representation across the
country," said Mark Maddox, a former Indiana Securities
Commissioner, and partner in Maddox, Hargett & Caruso.

"The team has significant experience in individual, multi-party
and class cases and are dedicated to representing investors in
an effort to make them whole.

"Bear Stearns told its clients that the funds were backed by
fixed income securities of which 90% of the portfolio were AAA
to AA- rated by Standard and Poors," Mr. Maddox continued. "The
collapse of the Bear Stearns funds over the last couple of
months is stunning."

On the Net: http://www.bearstearnshedgefundlitigation.com.

For more information, contact:

          Philip M. Aidikoff, Esq.
          E-mail: paidi@aol.com
          Ryan K. Bakhtiari, Esq.
          E-mail: rbakthiari@aol.com
          Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari
          Beverly Hills, California
          Indian Wells, California
          Phone: (800) 382-7969
                 (310) 274-0666

          Mark Maddox, Esq.
          E-mail: mmaddox@mhclaw.com
          Tom Hargett, Esq.
          E-mail: tahargett@mhclaw.com
          Steven Caruso, Esq.
          E-mail: SBCaruso@aol.com
          Phone: (800) 505-5515
                (212) 837-7908

          David P. Meyer, Esq.
          E-mail: dmeyer@dmlaws.com
          David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA
          Columbus, Ohio
          Phone: (866) 827-6537

          Boyd Page, Esq.
          E-mail: jbpage@pageperry.com
          Page Perry, LLC
          Atlanta, Georgia
          Phone: (877) 673-0047
                 (770) 673-0047


BUY-RITE: Recalls Charm Bracelets Due to High Levels of Lead
-------------------------------------------------------------
Buy-Rite Designs Inc., of Freehold, New Jersey, in cooperation
with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
7,900 children's Divine Inspiration charm bracelets.

The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of
lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled charm bracelets have silver-colored charms,
including angels, crosses, and hearts, and clear and pink beads
that hang from a silver-colored chain.

These recalled charm bracelets were manufactured in China and
are being sold at dollar stores and other small retail stores
nationwide from March 2004 through August 2007 for about $1.

Picture of recalled charm bracelets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07281.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled jewelry
away from children and return it to store where purchased for a
full refund. If unable to return it to the store, contact Buy-
Rite for information on how to receive a refund.

For additional information, contact Buy-Rite at (888) 777-7952
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.buyriteinc.com


CAPT. WILLIAM JACKMAN: Court Okays Deal with Gynecology Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Justice David Russell approved
a settlement in which Health Labrador Corp. will pay CAD179,850
in connection with improperly sterilized instruments at its
Capt. William Jackman Memorial Hospital, Jamie Baker of The
Telegram reports.

The class action by 327 women was filed in 2003 after these
women were told about the possible exposure to contagious
diseases such as HIV and hepatitis A and C, while they underwent
tests at the gynecological clinic (Class Action Reporter, May 3,
2007).  None of the patients were infected as a result of being
subjected to the instruments.

The settlement provides CAD450 payment for each woman in the
suit, CAD100 for her spouse, and plaintiff legal fees payment of
up to CAD93,571.50  It also states that Jackman hospital must
publish changes in its policy and procedure in a local paper.  

The report by Jamie Baker also states that the non-monetary
remedies of the settlement provide that that ad include an
apology to the people affected by the case.

A community representative must also be appointed by Health
Labrador to the environmental services team "responsible for
developing infection control processes," and the insurer for
Health Labrador has to conduct an educational seminar about
infection control.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Denied Review of Dodge Durango Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied
DaimlerChrysler Corp.'s petition for review of the class
certification in the matter, "Bussian v. DaimlerChrysler AG et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00387-WLO."

Back in June 2007, Judge William Osteen of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina certified the
case as a class action.  It was filed against DaimlerChrysler AG
over alleged defects in its Dodge Durangos made between 1998 and
2003 (Class Action Reporter, June 21, 2007).

In 2003, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
started investigating Durangos after four drivers reported the
failure of a ball joint in the front suspension.  The agency
said 749 complaints allege that those ball joints are wearing
out prematurely.

In 2004, North Carolina attorney John Bussian filed a lawsuit in
Durham County Superior Court claiming DaimlerChrysler should
repair alleged defects in the Dodge Durangos (Class Action
Reporter, March 12, 2004).  The suit was later moved to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

The case involves all 1998 and 1999 model Durangos and two-wheel
drive versions of the vehicle from 2000 to 2003.  The lawsuit
accuses DaimlerChrysler of putting faulty ball joints on the
trucks.

The class action certification allows residents who can show
"actual injury," to join in the lawsuit.  Judge Osteen's ruling
defines actual injury as having sold the vehicle at a reduced
amount, having had to replace the ball joint or having suffered
property damage as a result of the ball joint's failure.

The company would go on to appeal Judge Osteen's decision, and
on Aug. 13, 2007, the Forth Circuit handed out its verdict.  

In the appeal, both parties had acknowledged the crux of the
test for review was whether or not the certification decision
contained a substantial weakness.

Immediately after the decision, an order was issued in Aug. 21,
2007 in which U.S. Magistrate P. Trevor Sharp approved the
parties' discovery scheduling order, and now discovery into the
merits of the claims has commenced.

The suit is "Bussian v. DaimlerChrysler AG et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-00387-WLO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, under Judge William Osteen.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          John F. Bloss, Sr.
          David M. Clark
          Clark Bloss & Wall, PLLC
          POB 1349
          Greensboro, NC 27402
          Phone: 336-275-7275
          Fax: 336-275-7276
          E-mail: jblosslaw@gmail.com or cbw@cbw-law.com

          - and -

          Jonathan Wall
          Robertson Medlin & Troutman, PLLC
          125 S. Elm St., STE. 100
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Phone: 336-378-9881
          Fax: 336-378-9886
          E-mail: jwall@robertsonmedlin.com

Representing defendants are:

          Christopher Terry Graebe
          Burley Bayard Mitchell, Jr.
          Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
          POB 831
          Rasleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: 919-755-2158 or 919-755-8166
          Fax: 919-755-6769
          E-mail: bmitchell@wcsr.com

          Michael Montecalvo
          Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
          One West Fourth Street
          Winston-Salem, NC 27101
          Phone: 336-721-3770
          Fax: 336-726-6912
          E-mail: mmontecalvo@wcsr.com

          - and -

          Charles A. Newman
          Kathy A. Wisniewski
          Bryan Cave LLP
          One Metropolitan Sq.
          211 N. Broadway, 3600
          ST. Louis, MI 63102
          Phone: 314-259-2000 or 314-259-2523
          Fax: 919-755-6048 or 314-259-2020
          E-mail: cgraebe@wcsr.com or kawisniewski@bryancave.com


DELPHI CORP: Settles Mich. Securities, Derivative, ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in "Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA'
Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-01725-GER," have agreed
to a settlement of the case.

Lead plaintiffs in the case, which is before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, are:

     -- Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma,
     -- Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi,  
     -- Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft m.b.H., and
     -- Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP

The class action was brought against Delphi, which is currently
in bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11, certain of its
current or former officers and directors and certain investment
banking firms.  The settlement includes a comprehensive
settlement with Delphi's insurers.

The action has been litigated on behalf of a proposed Class of
investors who purchased or acquired publicly traded shares,
bonds, or notes of Delphi and securities issued by Delphi Trust
I and Delphi Trust II between March 7, 2000 and March 3, 2005,
inclusive.

The Settlement, upon approval by both the District Court and the
Bankruptcy Court, would end the securities litigation with
respect to the Company and all Individual Defendants named in
the action.  

The settlement shall also resolve claims against the investment
banking firms named as defendants in the action, which pursuant
to Delphi's reorganization plan, will be released having also
contributed to the settlement consideration to be paid to the
Class.

The Action would continue with respect to:

     -- Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Delphi's outside auditor during
        the Class Period; as well as

     -- three independent companies alleged to have participated
        with Delphi in transactions designed to mask Delphi's
        financial problems during the Class Period:

        * JPMorgan Chase & Co (as successor in interest to Bank
          One Corp.);
        * SETECH Inc.; and
        * BBK, Ltd.

None of these parties will be released from liability for these
claims in connection with the Settlement.

The consolidated suit is "Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative
and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-01725-GER,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen.

Representing some of the plaintiffs are:

         Cari C. Laufenberg, Esq.
         Keller Rohrback
         1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-623-1900
         Fax: 206-623-3384
         E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com

              - and -

         Sara L. Madsen, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal
         100 S. Washington Ave., Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981
         E-mail: slmadsen@locklaw.com

Representing the company are:

         Stuart Baskin, Esq.
         Shearman & Sterling
         599 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-848-4000
         Fax: 212-848-7179
         E-mail: sbaskin@shearman.com

              - and -

         Joseph E. Papelian, Esq.
         Delphi Corporation Legal Staff,
         5825 Delphi Drive
         Troy, MI 48098-2815
         Phone: 248-813-2000
         E-mail: joseph.e.papelian@delphi.com


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Opting Out Deadline Extended to Sept. 1
----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of Arizona, Maricopa County
extended from July 16 to Sept. 1, 2007 the deadline for former
Phelps Dodge shareholders to object or opt out of the settlement
of a class action filed by shareholders of Phelps Dodge in
Arizona in connection with the company's merger transaction with
Freeport-Mcmoran Copper & Gold Inc.

Freeport-McMoRan is named a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the Superior Court of the state of Arizona,
County of Maricopa.  The suit (Case No. CV2006-017963) was
brought on behalf of a purported class of all of the
shareholders of Phelps Dodge Corp.

Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the Phelps
Dodge board of directors in connection with the merger
transaction.  

The complaints allege, among other things, that the named
defendants engaged in self-dealing, obtained personal benefits
for themselves not shared equally by Phelps Dodge shareholders
and failed to disclose all material information concerning the
transaction to Phelps Dodge shareholders.

Additionally, plaintiffs also allege that the company aided and
abetted such alleged violations of fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief
barring consummation of the transaction and directing that the
defendants obtain a transaction, which is in the best interests
of Phelps Dodge shareholders.

In March, Freeport-McMoRan and Phelps Dodge reached an agreement
in principle to settle three purported class actions filed by
shareholders of Phelps Dodge in Arizona and New York state
courts (Class Action Reporter, March 15, 2007).

The Court preliminarily approved the terms of the settlement on
May 21, 2007, and notice thereof subsequently was provided to
class members. The final approval hearing will be held on
September 10, 2007.

The Court extended the deadline at the parties' request, in
order to provide class members with additional time to consider
the terms of the proposed settlement.

Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. (NYSE: FCX) on the Net:
http://www.fcx.com.

For more information, contact:

          Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP
          610 West Ash Street, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 525-3990
          Fax: (619) 525-3991

          - and -
                 
          The Weiser Law Firm, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 225-2616
          Fax: (610) 225-2678


GEORGIA: Suit Seeks to Keep Dental Care for Indigent Children
-------------------------------------------------------------
State Representative Ed Lindsey filed a class-action complaint
on Aug. 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia asking that the state's community health commissioner
and two managed care organizations to preserve the children's
access to dental care, reports say.

Named defendants in the suit are:

          -- Rhonda Medows - Georgia Department of Community
             Health Commissioner;
          -- WellCare of Georgia Inc.;  
          -- Peach State Health Plan Inc.;  
          -- Avesis Third Party Administrators Inc.; and  
          -- Doral Dental Services of Georgia LLC

Parents of children who receive Medicaid or PeachCare dental
treatment from a large dental care provider are asking for a
federal court injunction they say is needed to keep benefits in
place for more than 50,000 low-income children, Belinda Foskey
of Today's MGT said.

The lawsuit claims that means more than 50,000 low-income
children will be unable to obtain dental care.

The lawsuit requests an injunction that would prevent WellCare
and Peach State Health Plan from terminating the contracts of
dental providers Kool Smiles and Help A Child Smile, at least
until the organizations can demonstrate that the contract
terminations will not interfere with the requirements for
operating Medicaid dental programs.

The contracts allow the providers to provide dental care for
children enrolled in Medicaid or PeachCare, which is Georgia's
health insurance program for low-income children.

Some parents of children who use Kool Smiles say they've looked
for alternate dentists, but most either don't accept PeachCare
and Medicaid, or they don't provide adequate service, Odette
Yousef of WABE reported.

Georgia Department of Community Health Commissioner Rhonda
Medows disputes that claim.  She said no child in Medicaid or
PeachCare programs has lost dental benefits or been dropped due
to the contract disputes.

The suit is "Ellis et al. v. Medows et al., Case No 4:07-cv-
00167-ODE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, under Judge Orinda D. Evans.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Edward H. Lindsey, Jr.
          Robert Malcolm Darroch
          Goodman McGuffey Lindsey & Johnson
          3340 Peachtree Road, N.E.
          2100 Tower Place
          Atlanta, GA 30326-1084
          Phone: 404-264-1500 or 404-926-4117
          Fax: 404-265-1737
          E-mail: elindsey@gmlj.com or rdarroch@gmlj.com

          - and -

          Dorothy Anne Jarrell Presley
          Mabry & McClelland
          2200 Century Parkway, N.E., Tenth Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30345-3105
          Phone: 404-325-4800


GPC BIOTECH: Shalov Stone Launches Securities Lawsuit Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP created the Web site
http://www.gpcclassaction.comto address investor interest in  
the GPC Biotech AG securities fraud class action.

Shalov Stone filed a securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New against GPC
Biotech AG and certain of its executive officers, on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GPC
securities between December 5, 2005, and July 24, 2007,
inclusive (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2007).

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

The new Web site includes information about the case, a copy of
the complaint, and instructions on how to join the class action.
Following the publicity generated by the AHM class action, other
lawyers have issued press releases about the litigation, even
though many did not file cases of their own.

Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP commenced one of the first
lawsuits relating to GPCB and is continuing to conduct an
extensive investigation of the company.

For additional information about the lawsuit, contact:

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


HILTON HOTELS: Suits Over Blackstone Merger Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
Hilton Hotels Corp. faces several purported class actions over a
merger agreement it entered with entities controlled by
investment funds affiliated with The Blackstone Group L.P.

Between July 5 and July 17, 2007, twelve purported stockholder
class actions related to the Merger Agreement with BH Hotels LLC
and BH Hotels Acquisition, Inc., entities controlled by
investment funds affiliated with The Blackstone Group L.P.

Seven of these lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles:

       -- "Guiseppone v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case
          No. BC373765)," filed on July 5;

       -- "Garber v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case No.
          BC373766)," filed on July 5;

       -- "Staehr v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case No.
          BC373798)," filed on July 5;

       -- "Simon v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case No.      
          BC373834)," filed on July 6;

       -- "Frechter v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case
          No. BC373836)," filed on July 6;

       -- "Kops v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case No.
          BC373945)," filed on July 6; and

       -- "Hawaii Reinforcing Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund, et
          al. v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case No.
          BC374209)," filed on July 13.

Four lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, in and for New Castle County:

       -- "Shaev v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Civil
          Action No. 3072-VCN)," filed on July 5;

       -- "Oh v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Civil Action
          No. 3091-VCN)," filed on July 13;

       -- "Lasker v. Bollenbach, et al. (Civil Action No. 3092-
          VCN)," filed on July 13; and

       -- "Levine v. Bollenbach, et al. (Civil Action No. 3100-
          VCN)," filed on July 17.

On Aug. 1, 2007, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated these
actions into a single proceeding entitled, "In re Hilton Hotels
Corporation Shareholders Litigation (Civil Action No. 3072-
VCN)."

One lawsuit was filed on July 12 in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, captioned, "Duchman v.
Hilton Hotels Corp., et al. (Case No. CV 07 4542)."

Each of the twelve lawsuits names the company's and each of its
directors as defendants.  Each of the lawsuits except the Simon,
Duchman, Lasker, and Levine actions also names Blackstone Group
L.P. as a defendant.

These lawsuits, which contain substantially similar allegations,
claim that our directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
company and its stockholders in connection with negotiating and
approving the Merger Agreement, that various terms of the Merger
Agreement are preclusive and/or unfair, and that the
consideration to be received by the company's stockholders under
the Merger Agreement is inadequate.

In all but the Simon, Duchman, Lasker, and Levine actions,
Blackstone is alleged to have aided and abetted the other
defendants' alleged fiduciary breaches.

The lawsuits seek a variety of equitable and injunctive relief,
including enjoining defendants from completing the Transaction,
rescission of any consummated transaction, attorneys' fees and
expenses, and in the Simon, Duchman, and each of the Delaware
actions, unspecified compensatory damages in the event the
Transaction is completed.


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Still Faces Multiple Securities Suits in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. continues to face several
purported securities fraud class actions that were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

On Jan. 18, 2007, Anthony Caiafa filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against
Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. and Todd M. Hornbeck, its
Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer.

On Jan. 24, 2007, Thomas Schedler filed a similar action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
against Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., Todd M. Hornbeck and
James O. Harp, Jr., its Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer.

On Jan. 26, 2007, Michael D. Fontenelle filed another similar
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana against Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. and Todd M.
Hornbeck.

On Feb. 8, 2007, Oakmont Capital Management, LLC filed a similar
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana against Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., Todd M.
Hornbeck, James O. Harp, Jr. and Carl G. Annessa, its Executive
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer.

These lawsuits purport to be filed as a class action on behalf
of the plaintiffs and other similarly situated purchasers of our
securities from Nov. 1, 2006 to Jan. 10, 2007.

In their complaints, the plaintiffs allege that Hornbeck
Offshore Services, Inc. and the other defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by allegedly making false
and misleading statements, and/or by omitting to state material
facts necessary to make the statements not misleading, in
connection with its forward earnings guidance and its Jan. 10,
2007 announcement of preliminary financial results for the
fourth quarter of 2006 that fell short of such guidance and
indicated a reduction in 2007 guidance.

The company reported no development in the matter in it's Aug.
7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

The first identified complaint is "Anthony Caiafa, et al. v.
Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-889-3700
         Fax: 212-684-519
         E-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com

         Gardy & Notis, LLP
         440 Sylvan Avenue
         Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
         Phone: 201-567-7377
         Fax: 201-567-7337
         E-mail: info@gardylaw.com

         Paskowitz & Associates
         60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Phone: 212.685.0969
         Fax: 212.685.2306
         E-mail: classattorney@aol.com

         Roy Jacobs & Associates
         350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000
         New York, NY 10118
         E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com
              - and -

         Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
         2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
         Walnut Creek, CA 94598
         Phone: 925.945.0200
         Fax: 925.945.8792
         E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


INTEGRATED HEALTH: Chiropractors' Motion to Certify Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge David Herndon refused to certify as class
action a suit filed against Integrated Health Plan over alleged
breach of contracts, Steve Korris of the Madison County Record
reports.

Integrated Health Plan is a preferred provider organizations in
Florida.  It has 39 employees.

The suit was filed by Lakin Law Firm on behalf of Illinois
chiropractors Ann Stock and Richard Coy.  

Judge Herndon wrote in his Aug. 22 order that, "...given the
variations in contracts and state specific laws and regulations
governing different lines of insurance, the Court has determined
that the issues are too complex for this matter to be certified
as a class action."

He directed the defendant's lawyer to submit a proposed order by
Aug. 31.

Representing Health Plan is Michael Kendall of Boston.


J2 GLOBAL: Faces Suit Over Alleged Internet Facsimile Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global Communications, Inc. faces a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
alleging that the company has attempted to monopolize and/or
monopolized the market for Internet facsimile services to home
and small offices in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.  

The suit was filed on June 29, 2007 by Justin Lynch.  The claims
in it relate in substantial part to the patent infringement
actions by the company against various companies.

The suit seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees and costs, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Justin Lynch v. j2 Global Communications Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04304-DDP-AJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Dean D.
Pregerson with referral to Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 5th Avenue, Ste 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          Wexler Toriseva Wallace
          1610 Arden Way, Suite 290
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Phone: 916-568-1100
          E-mail: mjt@wtwlaw.us


MILLENNIUM APPAREL: Recalls Clothing Sets with Drawstrings
----------------------------------------------------------
Millennium Apparel Group, of New York, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
4,700 Basic Editions-brand girls' clothing sets.

The company said the recalled shirts have drawstrings at the
waist. Children can get entangled or caught in a vehicle door
and can be dragged, posing a serious risk of injury or death. In
February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children
from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments.  No injuries have been reported.

The two Basic Edition-brand girls' sets have fully tunneled
waist drawstrings and two-fer style layered shirts. One set has
a light green screen print top with "Varsity Club Winning
Attitude" text, over a white shirt, paired with turquoise cuff
shorts. The second set has an orange screen print top with
"Paradise University Girls Club" text, over a white shirt paired
with light green knit shorts. Both sets were sold in the
following girls' sizes: 4/5, 6/6X, 7/8, and 10/12.

These recalled girls' clothing sets were manufactured in Egypt
and are being sold exclusively at Kmart stores nationwide from
March 2007 through May 2007 for between $10 and $13 per set.

Pictures of recalled girls' clothing sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07284a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07284b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings to
eliminate the hazard.

For additional information, contact Kmart at (800) 659-7026
between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday, or visit
Kmart's Web site: http://www.kmart.com


QUIXTAR INC: Mich. Distributors Seek TOR to Keep TEAM Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a Michigan class action that accuses Quixtar Inc.
of engaging in a Ponzi scheme requested temporary and
preliminary injunctive relief to prevent the company from
interfering with plaintiffs' business relationships until a
distributor class action filed in the Central District of
California is resolved.

Quixtar -- the Internet-based successor to Amway -- retaliated
by firing every distributor who signed on to a class-action
complaint in Los Angeles that accused Quixtar's business plan of
being a Ponzi scheme, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Earlier, 16 distributors of Quixtar filed the complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
accusing the company of running an illegal pyramid recruitment
scheme under the guise of a multi-level, home-based "business
opportunity" (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2007).  It claims
Quixtar products are so expensive it's impossible to make a
living selling them, but Amway's founding family continues to
profit by recruiting distributors.

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

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

The Michigan plaintiffs are requesting temporary and preliminary
injunctive relief pursuant to MCR 3.310, pending resolution of
the distributor class action filed in the Central District of
California.

They allege that Quixtar sent an email to all TEAM affiliated
Platinum-level Independent Business Owners (IBOs) and above on
Aug. 17, 2007, requiring a "signed commitment" as to whether the
IBOs individually intend to continue their businesses with
Quixtar in "full compliance" with some newly established
criteria.  The new provisions require all Platinums and above to
discontinue their use of TEAM materials and to disavow the TEAM
business model.

The plaintiffs further claim that the email sent by Quixtar to
the Platinums and above is unambiguous threat that, either the
IBOs and their downlines, including plaintiffs, swear allegiance
to Quixtar and the new rules it has unilaterally imposed, or
they will be terminated.

These plaintiffs fear their contracts will be terminated if they
do not swear allegiance to Quixtar.

They are concerned that Quixtar will retaliate against them if
they notify Quixtar that they are filing this request for
injunctive relief. Quixtar has terminated all named plaintiffs
in the distributor class action and is threatening to terminate
the Plaintiffs for their past association with TEAM.  The
Plaintiffs do not feel they can peaceably notify Quixtar and
still retain their businesses.

Plaintiffs pray that the court:

     -- grant a Temporary Restraining Order and thereafter a
        preliminary injunction enjoining Quixtar during the
        pendency of the parties' distributor class action from
        interfering with the plaintiffs' business relationships
        and expectancies by releasing unsubstantiated and
        disparaging information about the TEAM business
        materials or training methods;

     -- grant a TRO and thereafter a preliminary injunction
        enjoining Quixtar during the pendency of the parties'
        distributor class action from suspending, terminating,
        or taking any other action adverse to the plaintiff's
        distributorships for their unwillingness to enter into
        comply with Quixtar's demands or to the new contractual
        terms with Quixtar that interfere or restrict
        plaintiffs' ability or freedom to do business with any
        TEAM affiliate or TEAM affiliated IBO;

     -- grant a TRO and thereafter a preliminary injunction
        enjoining Quixtar while the plaintiffs exhaust their due
        process and administrative right under the applicable
        Rules of Conduct from suspending, terminating, or taking
        any other action adverse to the plaintiffs'
        distributorships for their unwillingness to enter into
        comply with Quixtar's demands or to the new contractual
        terms with Quixtar that interfere or restrict
        plaintiffs' ability or freedom to do business with any
        TEAM affiliate or TEAM affiliated IBO;

     -- grant a TRO prohibiting Quixtar from taking any action
        to suspend or terminate any plaintiff unless and until
        it has complied with the dispute resolution procedures
        of Quixtar's contract and with such plaintiff;

     -- grant a TRO and thereafter a preliminary injunction
        enjoining Quixtar during the pendency of the parties'
        distributor class action from suspending the earned
        bonus payments for any IBO in good standing; and

     -- grant such further relief as the court deems just and
        equitable.

The suit is "John Mar Mossner et al. v. Quixtar, Inc., Case No.
07-08751-CK," filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Kent
in the State of Michigan, under Judge Paul J. Sullivan.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Thomas V. Hubbard
          Ledyard Building, Suite 300
          125 Ottawa Avenue NW
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2898
          Phone: 616-454-8300
          Fax: 616-454-0036


RJ REYNOLDS: No Oral Arguments Hearing Set in "Brown" Case Yet
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has yet to schedule oral arguments
with regards to a review of a ruling decertifying the class in
"Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.," which names R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., (RJR Tobacco), as a defendant.

The suit was filed in June 1997 in the Superior Court, San Diego
County, California.

On April 11, 2001, the court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for certification of a class composed of residents of
California who smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes
from June 10, 1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed
to the defendants' marketing and advertising activities in
California.  

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., (B&W), seeking to recover restitution,
disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief under
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.
and Section 17500 et seq.  

Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants violated Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition.  

The court, however, refused to certify the class under the
California Legal Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law
claims.  

Following the November 2004 passage of a proposition in
California that changed the law regarding cases of this nature,
the defendants filed a motion to decertify the class.  

On March 7, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion.  The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 19, 2005.  On Sept.
5, 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judge's
order decertifying the class.  

On Oct. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review
with the California Supreme Court.  The petition for review was
granted on Nov. 1, 2006.   

Briefing is complete.  Oral argument has not been scheduled,
according to the Reynolds American, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2007.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--  
is primarily a holding company.  The company's wholly owned
operating subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa
Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane, Limited (Lane) and R.J.
Reynolds Global Products, Inc.  


SLM CORP: Seeks Dismissal of FFELP Billing Practices Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported class
action filed against it in California federal court over its
Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) billing practices.

The suit, "Chae, et al. v. SLM Corp. et al.," was filed on April
14, 2007.  It was served to the Company by several borrowers.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business &
Professions Code 17200, breach of contract, breach of covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, violation of consumer legal
remedies act and unjust enrichment.

The complaint challenges the Company's FFELP billing practices
as they relate to use of the simple daily interest method for
calculating interest.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 21, 2007, with a
hearing on the motion expected in late August, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

SLM Corp., -- http://www.salliemae.com/-- also known as Sallie  
Mae, is engaged in education finance.   The company is a holding
company that operates through a number of subsidiaries.  The
Company's primary business is to originate and hold student
loans by providing funding, delivery and servicing support for
education loans in the U.S. through its participation in the
Federal Family Education Loan Program and through offering non-
federally guaranteed Private Education Loans.  

The Company provides an array of credit products and related
services to the higher education and consumer credit communities
and others through two primary business segments: Lending
business segment and Debt Management Operations business
segment.


SOLUTIA INC: Former Officers, Employees Face ERISA Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former officers and employees of Solutia, Inc., and Solutia's
Employee Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and Savings Funds
Committee faces a purported class action alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The suit, "Reiff v. Metz," was filed on June 25, 2007 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
purported class representative in "Reiff" is a current Solutia
employee.

The suit is "Reiff v. Metz et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06011-LAP,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Loretta A. Preska.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Sarraf Gentile, LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 868-3610
          Fax: (212) 918-7967
          E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com


STATE FARM: Ariz. Homeowner Files Breach of Contract Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. is facing a class action for
alleged breach of insurance contract in relation to the repair
of polybutylene pipe system of a Pima County (Ariz.) resident.

Plaintiff Rosemary Guadiana had a polybutylene pipe system in
her home.  It is now known that polybutylene is not a suitable
material for water pipes because oxidants in public water
supplies, such as chlorine, cause the piping system to become
brittle resulting in micro-fractures which eventually cause the
system to fail and leak.

Because the defect in a PB pipe is the very chemical nature of
the piping system itself, there is no feasible way to repair the
system other than replacing the PB piping with a more suitable
type of pipe.

On September 9, 2004, plaintiff said she sustained water damage
in her home caused by a leak in her plumbing system.  Plaintiff
had an insurance policy with defendant which defendant admitted
covered the cost of tearing out and replacing any part of the
building necessary to repair the system or appliance.

Because of the nature of the defect in Plaintiff's PB piping
system, the "system" that needed to be repaired was the entire
PB Pipe system, not just the specific part of the PB Pipe system
which was leaking.

Defendant acknowledged that the PB Pipe system is defective and
cannot be repaired and that the entire PB Pipe system must be
replaced, but it refused to pay for the cost of tearing out and
replacing the PB Pipe system, according to the complaint.

Defendant takes the position that its policy only provides
coverage to tear into the "part of the building necessary to
repair the portion of the pipe from where the water escaped."

Defendant's interpretation ignores the plain meaning of the word
"system" and its refusal to pay the costs involved with removing
and replacing the entire defective system violated its insurance
policy which constitutes its contract with Plaintiff, according
to the suit.

Accordingly, it is alleged that defendant's action constitutes
breach of contract.

The plaintiff brought the action for herself and on behalf of a
proposed class consisting of all policyholders who:

     -- own or owned real property located in the U.S. who was
        insured by defendant;

     -- submitted to defendant a claim for a covered loss to the
        insured real property during the period from four years
        prior to the filing of the Original Complaint in this
        case to the present, which claim included a claim for
        costs for tearing out and replacing part of the building
        necessary to replace the entire polybutylene piping
        system; and

     -- received a payment from Defendant which covered only
        costs for tearing out and replacing only the part of the
        building necessary to repair part of the polybutylene
        piping system.

Plaintiff and the class members seek damages for the unpaid
portions of the claims they submitted to defendant for the cost
of tearing out and replacing all parts of their buildings that
were required to replace PB piping systems after they suffered a
water-related, covered loss, plus pre-judgment interest, at the
highest rate allowed by law, on the damages awarded.

Plaintiff and the class members seek additional exemplary
damages due to the fact that defendant's implementation of this
PB piping replacement policy allegedly constitutes bad faith.

The case is docketed 4:2007cv00326.  It was filed in the U.S.
District Court District of Arizona on July 9, 2007.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Michael Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia Chapman, Esq.
          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          Richard D. Daly, Esq.
          Caddell & Chapman, P.C.
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010-3027
          Phone: (713) 751-0400
          Fax: (713) 751-0906


SYMBION INC: Faces Suits in Tenn. Over Crestview Partners Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Symbion, Inc. is facing two lawsuits filed in connection with it
planned merger with an affiliate of Crestview Partners, LP,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2007.

On May 17, 2007, C. Steadman Morris, III filed a class action
petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee
against Symbion and all of the directors of Symbion.

On May 29, 2007, the plaintiff filed to have the lawsuit
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and an order of
dismissal was granted on June 5, 2007.

On May 30, 2007, Tracy Swiderski filed a class action petition
in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee against
Symbion and all of the directors of Symbion.

On July 23, 2007, attorneys for Ms. Swiderski filed an amended
complaint alleging, among other things, that the Symbion
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Symbion's
stockholders in approving the merger agreement and that the
Symbion directors engaged in self-dealing.

In addition, the amended complaint alleges that the proxy
statement relating to the merger that the company filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not provide full
disclosure of all material information.

The relief sought under the amended complaint includes, among
other things, class certification, an injunction preventing the
merger, and the awarding of attorneys' fees to the plaintiff.

Symbion, Inc., -- http://www.symbion.com/-- through its wholly  
owned subsidiaries, owns interests in partnerships and limited
liability companies that own and operate surgical facilities in
joint ownership with physicians and physician groups, hospitals
and hospital networks in 23 states.


TATTOO PARLOUR: Faces CAD10M Lawsuit Over Defective Sterilizer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Colleen Arsenault, on behalf of Kaleb Beaulieu, filed in
Whitby court, Canada a $10 million class action against an
Oshawa tattoo parlor after the health department found that a
unit used to sterilize instruments and equipment on site was
intermittently malfunctioning, Jennifer Stone of the
Newsdurhamregion.com reports.

The Durham Region Health Department closed the tattoo parlor
from Aug. 1 to 9 after launching an investigation into potential
exposure to non-sterile equipment by clients. It re-opened after
passing a number of tests on the previously malfunctioning
sterilizing equipment that had forced the closure.

The health department then used waiver forms filled out by
clients to send letters to those who received services at
Longhorn between Nov. 17, 2006 and Aug. 1, 2007.  The use of
non-sterile equipment could lead to transmission of diseases
like hepatitis C and HIV.

The complaint claims "compensatory damages for negligence and
breach of contract" of $3 million and "punitive, exemplary or
aggravated damages" of $7 million.

According to the report, the suit has not been certified in
court as a class action, nor have any of the allegations been
proven in court. Longhorn has not yet filed a statement of
defense.

Messages left at the Oshawa tattoo parlour owner Hugh Towie
received no reply, the report said.


TELMEX USA: Faces FCRA Violations Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Telmex USA, L.L.C. is facing a class action accusing it of
defrauding people who buy its prepaid telephone cards,
CourtHouse News Service.

The suit was filed by Nora Monday in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on July 19.  It alleges
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The case is docketed 2:07-cv-04687-GAF-FMO.  It is under Judge
Gary A. Feess, with referral to Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150

          -- and -
          
          Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
          Freed and Weiss
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-220-0000


TENET HEALTHCARE: RICO Violations Suit by Fla. Hospital Junked
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
dismissed a purported class action filed against Tenet
Healthcare Corp., which was filed in March 2005 by Boca Raton
Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCHI).

The suit is principally alleging that Tenet's past pricing
policies and receipt of Medicare outlier payments violated the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
causing harm to plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts of damages (including treble
damages under RICO), restitution, disgorgement and punitive
damages.

In December 2006, the district court denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification, which decision the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declined to review.

On Aug. 1, 2007, the district court granted the company's motion
for summary judgment on all claims, thereby dismissing this
case, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. v. Tenet   
Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 05-80183-CIV," filed in the   
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under   
Judge Patricia A. Seitz.  

Representing the plaintiff are:  

         Greenberg Traurig, P.A
         1221 Brickell Avenue
         Miami, Florida 33131
         Phone: 305-579-0500
         Fax: 305-579-0717
         Web site: http://www.gtlaw.com

             -and -

         Melvyn I. Weiss, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         Tower One, 5200 Town Center Road, Suite 600
         Boca Raton, Florida 33486
         Phone: 561-361-5000
         Telecopier: 561-367-8400
         Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendant are:   

         Kenny Nachwalter, Esq.
         Seymour Arnold Critchlow & Spector, P.A.
         1100 Miami Center, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard,   
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: (305) 373-1000
         Fax: (305) 372-1861

              -and -

         Holland & Knight, LLP
         701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
         Miami, Florida 33131
         P.O. Box 015441, Florida, 33101
         Phone: 305-374-8500
         Fax: 305-789-7799
         Web site: http://www.hklaw.com


THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces several purported
securities fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, according to the company's
Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

The suits were filed on July 5 and July 18, 2007 alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  They were filed
against the company, its chief executive officer Harold E.
Selick and its former chief financial officer Janet I. Swearson.

The securities lawsuits, which the company expects will be
consolidated into a single proceeding, allege claims arising
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock from the date of the Company's
initial public offering of securities on Feb. 4, 2005 through
July 14, 2006.

Plaintiffs allege generally that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the Company's Phase II and
Phase III clinical trials of Lonidamine (TH-070).

Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.thresholdpharm.com
-- is a biotechnology company.  The Company focuses on the
discovery and development of drugs.  Based on Metabolic
Targeting, an approach that targets fundamental differences in
metabolism between normal and certain diseased cells.  


TOBY NYC: Recalls Kids' Metal Jewelry Due to High Lead Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------
TOBY N.Y.C., of New York, in cooperation with U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 14,000 TOBY & ME
jewelry sets.

The company said the recalled metal jewelry sets contain high
levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and
can cause adverse health effects.  No injuries have been
reported.

The three recalled jewelry sets include: a princess pink and
clear crystal bead necklace and bracelet set with a painted
metallic crown pendant; a pink and white pearl necklace and
bracelet set with a painted metallic poodle pendant; and a pink
pearl necklace, earrings and ring set. All sets are sold in a
pink gift box with "TOBY & ME" printed on the front and "TOBY &
ME" hangtags attached to the packaging.

These recalled jewelry sets were manufactured in China and are
being sold at T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and A.J.Wright from August
2006 through May 2007 for about $8.

Pictures of the recalled jewelry sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07280a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07280b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07280c.jpg

Consumers should immediately take the recalled jewelry away from
children and contact TOBY N.Y.C. for information on receiving a
full refund or replacement item.

For additional information, contact TOBY N.Y.C. toll-free at
(866) 235-0588 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or email the firm at info@tobynyc.com.


UNITED STATES: Sued Over NCLB Act "Qualified Teacher" Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Students, parents, the California Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now and another group have filed a
class action claiming the Education Department's "No Child Left
Behind Act" is a fraud, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiffs claim U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
eviscerated the Act that seeks to have all students "proficient"
in reading and math by 2014 by issuing a regulation defining as
"highly qualified" more than 10,000 novice teachers in
California "who are merely participating in alternative
preparation routes".  The complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug.
21.

Plaintiffs say, "Congress expressly mandated that only teachers
that have completed their teacher preparation programs and have
received full state certification are to be deemed 'highly
qualified'."

Plaintiffs want the court, among others, to enter a declaratory
judgment that defendants' regulation defining a "highly
qualified" teacher as one who "is participating in an alterative
route to certification program," is unlawful and void for the
reason that Defendants' regulation contravenes the definition of
"highly qualified" established by Congress in the No Child Left
Behind Act.

They also want the court to enjoin defendants from submitting
the 2005-2006 report to Congress on teacher quality and the
percentage of classes nationwide taught by "highly qualified"
teachers; as well as any further outstanding reports or future
reports due to Congress relating to "highly qualified" teachers
under NCLB-that fail to designate teachers participating in
alterative certification programs as not "highly qualified.

Also, they want the court to order defendants to notify states
that the regulation defining a "highly qualified" teacher as one
who "is participating in an alterative route to certification
program" is unlawful and void.

Plaintiffs also want reimbursement of litigation costs, and
attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Renee et al. v. Spellings et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
04299-EMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, under Judge Edward M. Chen.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          John T. Affeldt
          Tara Elizabeth Kini
          Jenny Pearlman
          Public Advocates, Inc.
          131 Steuart Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 431-7430

          David B. Cook
          Goodwin Procter LLP
          901 New York Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: (202) 346-4000
          Fax: (202) 346-4444
          
          Nicole Elise Perroton
          Elizabeth Frances Stone
          Patrick Shaun Thompson
          Goodwin Procter LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-733-6069 or (415) 733-6054 or 415-733-6054
          Fax: 415-677-9041
          E-mail: nperroton@goodwinprocter.com or
                  estone@goodwinprocter.com

          - and -

          Jeffrey Simes
          Goodwin Procter LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212/813-8879
          Fax: 212/355-3333


VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Suit Over "AOL Instant Messenger Fees"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Wireless and Cellco Partnership are facing a class-
action complaint filed Aug. 22 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleging the companies overcharge for
text messaging, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

"Verizon Wireless represents that customers will be charged only
for messages sent or received," the complaint states. "Contrary
to Verizon's representations, after a Verizon Wireless consumer
logs in to AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) on a Verizon Wireless
cell phone, Verizon Wireless imposes charges which Verizon
Wireless claims are for instant messages, but actually are
imposed simply as a result of logging in, and this occurs even
if the user does not send or receive any instant messages.

Allegedly, when customers complain about these charges, Verizon
Wireless 'upsells' customers to more expensive monthly packages
and thus profits further from these improper charges."

Named plaintiff Albert Halprin brings this action on behalf of
all persons whom Verizon Wireless charged for use of AOL instant
messenger from Aug. 17, 2001 to the present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) whether Verizon Wireless has charged plaintiff and
         class members for instant messages that have not
         actually been sent or received;

     (b) whether Verizon Wireless' charges for instant
         messaging, are charges and/or practices in connection
         with communication service, subject to the requirements
         of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section
         201(b);

     (c) whether Verizon Wireless' charges for instant messaging
         are unjust and/or unlawful under Section 201(b);

     (d) whether VErizon Wireless' imposition of charges for
         instant messaging, is an act or practice in the conduct
         of trade or commerce;

     (e) whether the imposition of charges for instant
         messaging, is deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable
         because Verizon Wireless charges consumers for instant
         messages that are not actually sent or received;

     (f) whether Verizon Wireless' practice of upselling
         consumers to more expensive monthly plans, based on
         complaints about instant messaging charges, is
         deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable because Verizon
         Wireless charges consumers for instant messages that
         are not actually sent or received;

     (g) whether, as a direct and proximate result of Verizon
         Wireless' deceptive and unfair acts and practices,
         plaintiff and class members suffered an ascertainable
         loss;

     (h) whether Verizon Wireless has committed deceptive acts
         or practices within the meaning of the New Jersey
         Consumer Fraud Act by engaging in the acts and
         practices alleged;

     (i) whether Verizon Wireless has breached its contracts
         with plaintiff and class members by charging for
         instant messages that are not in fact sent or received;

     (j) whether Verizon Wireless breached its contracts with
         plaintiff and class members by its practice of
         upselling consumers to more expensive monthly plans;

     (k) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         injunctive relief; and

     (l) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is "Halprin v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, Case No.
3:07-cv-04015-JAP-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, under Judge Joel A. Pisano, with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Lisa J. Rodriguez
          Trujillo, Rodgriguez & Richards, LLP
          8 Kings Highway West
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 795-9002
          E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


GPC BIOTECH: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities of GPC
Biotech AG from December 5, 2005 through July 24, 2007,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges GPC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. GPC is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and commercialization of new drugs to
treat cancer. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the U.S. Federal Drug Administration ("FDA") had
         previously expressed disapproval regarding the
         Company's choice of methodology and a primary endpoint
         in the satraplatin studies;

     (2) that the Company continued to evaluate satraplatin
         using the disputed endpoint;

     (3) that the Company disregarded the FDA's previously
         expressed concerns about the disputed primary endpoint,
         and submitted the satraplatin study results to the FDA
         with the disputed primary endpoint supporting its
         satraplatin New Drug Application ("NDA");

     (4) that the FDA's evaluators would be unable to determine
         disease progression from the Company's NDA submission;
         and

     (5) that the interim data submitted with the NDA would not
         allow the FDA to conclude that satraplatin was more
         effective than placebo in terms of overall survival.

Throughout the Class Period, the Company reported positive
results from its satraplatin Phase 3 trial, and indicated that
data from the trial would form the Company's New Drug
Application (NDA) with the FDA. The Company reported a 40
percent reduction in risk of disease progression for study
participants who received satraplatin, and reported that the
study data showed that the results for PFS were highly
statistically significant.

The Company's investors were shocked on July 20, 2007, when the
FDA released its "Briefing Document" in advance of the FDA's
Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee's meeting to consider the
satraplatin NDA. Therein, the FDA cited five "issues" that it
had with the Company's satraplatin NDA.

On this news, the Company's shares declined $7.80 per share, or
over 24.5 percent, to close on July 20, 2007 at $24.00 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume. On the following
trading day, the Company's shares declined an additional $3.05
per share, to close on July 23, 2007 at $20.95 per share.

Then on July 24, 2007, the FDA's advisory panel voted 12-0 to
recommend delaying a decision on satraplatin until the Company
gathered additional data to determine whether satraplatin
actually helped men with prostate cancer live longer. In
response, the Company disclosed that it did not expect to have
the necessary survival analysis for another year. On this news,
the Company's shares declined an additional $7.19 per share, or
35.36 percent, to close on July 25, 2007 at $13.16 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

For more information, contact:

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


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all common stock
purchasers of Limelight Networks, Inc. pursuant or traceable to
the Company's June 8, 2007 Initial Public Offering through
August 8, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Limelight and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Limelight is a provider of high-performance content
delivery network services. More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's revenues were subject to seasonal
         fluctuation;
     (2) that the Company was experiencing severe pricing
         pressure for its services;
     (3) that the Company was experiencing a declining customer
         demand, which would affect the Company's revenues in
         subsequent financial quarters;
     (4) that the Company was experiencing rising expenses; and
     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls.

On June 8, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO. In connection
with the IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and
Prospectus with the SEC. The IPO was a financial success for the
Company and certain selling stockholders, as they were able to
sell 16 million shares of the Company's stock to investors at a
price of $15.00 per share, for gross proceeds of $240 million.

The Company shocked investors on August 9, 2007 when it reported
disappointing financial results for its second quarter of 2007.
The Company disclosed for the first time that its revenues were
subject to seasonality, and that it had experienced a drop-off
in media customers in the quarter due to the seasonality that
media companies experience after the television season ends.
Finally, the Company admitted that it was experiencing price
pressures in certain customer segments. On this news, shares of
the Company's stock declined $5.81 per share, or over 39
percent, to close on August 9, 2007 at $8.99 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 12,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *