CAR_Public/070905.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, September 5, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 176

                            Headlines


ACME SMOKED: Recalls Smoked Salmon on Possible Contamination
AMERICAN PIE: Recalls Turtle Pies for Possible Health Risk
APPLE INC: Settles Calif. Suit Over MacBook Case Discoloration
APPLE INC: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuits Over iPod Nano Defect
APPLE CANADA: Still Faces Canadian Suit Over Faulty iPod Nanos

APPLE CANADA: Oct. 15 Trial Set for iPod Levy Suit in Canada
APPLE COMPUTER: Responds to Cal. Suit Over iTunes-iPod Tie-up
APPLE INC: Cal. Court Junks Claim Over iBook G4’s Logic Board
APPLE INC: Sept. 7 Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
ARAMARK CORP: Pa. Court Dismisses Suit Over Acquisition Proposal

BKF CAPITAL: Jolly Roger Appointed Lead Plaintiff in N.Y. Suit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Settles Suit Over Defibrillators for $16.75M
BP CORP: Trial Ongoing in Kansas Refinery Pollution Lawsuit
CAPALA BROTHERS: N.Y. Lawsuit Alleges Violations of the FLSA
CIRCUIT CITY: 15% “Restocking Fee” Illegal, Calif. Suit Claims

COVENTRY HEALTH: Summary Judgment in Physician’s Suit Affirmed
EDWARD D. JONES: Oct. Hearing Set for Revenue Sharing Suit Deal
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Still Faces Market Timing Suit in Md.
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: “Fisher” Plaintiffs Ask Class Certification
GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls Pocket Knives Posing Laceration Hazard

GOLDEN EAGLE: Accused of Fair Labor Standards Act Violations
M&J ENGRG: Recalls Scuba Masks Swivels to Repair Defect
NATIONAL BEEF: Penna. Lawsuit Alleges Violations of the FLSA
NEWLIFE OF THE PALM BEACHES: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.
OLD NATIONAL: Dismissal of Identity Theft Lawsuit Affirmed

PARAMOUNT APPAREL: Recalls Bucket Hats with Drawstrings
PENNSYLVANIA: Lancaster County Faces Strip Search Lawsuit
QUIXTAR INC: Mich. Court Clarifies TOR on Team-Related Meetings
SHARPER IMAGE: Denies Suit Over Purifiers to Cost $900M

* Ill. Northern District New Haven for FACTA Suits, Report Says


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                            *********


ACME SMOKED: Recalls Smoked Salmon on Possible Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Acme Smoked Fish Corp. is voluntarily recalling 132 lbs. of 4 oz. Smoked
Salmon (Acme NY Original) and 114 lbs. of 8 oz. Smoked Salmon (Acme NY
Original) with a batch code of 9428 and sell-by-date code of 9-26/2007.  This
product was distributed to retail stores in the South Florida Region.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services revealed the presence
of Listeria monocytogenes in one 4 ounce package of "4 oz. Smoked Salmon
(Acme Y Original)" with product code 9428 and sell-by-date code of 9/26/07.

This organism can cause serious complications for pregnant women, young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased 4 oz. Smoked Salmon (Acme NY Original) and/or 8
oz. Smoked Salmon (Acme NY Original) with batch code 9428 and sell-by-date
9/26/07 are urged to contact Acme for further details and refunds.

Consumers with questions may contact the Quality Assurance Department at Acme
Smoked Fish Corp. at 718-383-8585.


AMERICAN PIE: Recalls Turtle Pies for Possible Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
American Pie, LLC of Woodbury, N.Y., is voluntarily recalling 1440 cases of
its Marie Callender Turtle Pies with date codes 07 (from military time 11:45
up to and including 16:00) 143 because the product was inadvertently shipped
prior to the company obtaining satisfactory microbial test results. No
specific pathogens were found.

The recall is being conducted as a precautionary measure. Consumption of this
product may lead to gastrointestinal illness, nausea, or vomiting.

The product was shipped to these locations:

     -- Kroger Supermarkets: Columbus, OH; Houston, TX; Roanoke,
        VA; Dallas, TX; Atlanta, GA; Memphis, TN; Shelbyville,
        TN; Louisville, KY;

     -- Giant Eagle Supermarkets: Akron, Canton, Lake,
        Cleveland, Columbus, Erie, Toledo, Johnston (all in
        Ohio); also New Castle, MD; Pittsburgh, PA; and
        Youngstown, WV; and

     -- Hy-Vee Supermarkets: Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota,
        Maryland, Nebraska, and South Dakota.

There was no direct foreign distribution.

The pies are packaged in 28 oz. boxes with UPC code 12781 10280.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the product had been
distributed without company authorization.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this situation.

Consumers who have purchased Marie Callender Turtle Pies with the above date
codes are urged to return them to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-888-339-7437, x3987.


APPLE INC: Settles Calif. Suit Over MacBook Case Discoloration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. settled a class action filed in a California state court over
discoloration of the MacBook case.

The suit, “Greaves v. Apple Computer, Inc.,” was filed on June 30, 2006 in
the San Diego Superior Court on behalf of a purported class of California
purchasers of the MacBook case.

Plaintiff asserts claims under California Business & Professions Code Section
17500 (false advertising), California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
misrepresentation.  Plaintiff’s complaint seeks damages and equitable relief.

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on Aug. 16, 2006.  The company
filed an answer on Oct. 3, 2006 denying all allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

The parties have reached a settlement and the matter is concluded, 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.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc.,  
designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software,
services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and
markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories,
including the online sale of third-party audio and video products.  


APPLE INC: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuits Over iPod Nano Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. continues to face class actions in California courts over a defect
in its iPod nanos, 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.

Beginning on Oct. 19, 2005, eight complaints were filed in various U.S.
District Courts and two complaints were filed in California State Court
alleging that the Company’s iPod nano was defectively designed so that it
scratches excessively during normal use, rendering the screen unreadable.

                         Federal Actions

The federal actions were coordinated under the caption,  “In re Apple iPod
Nano Products Liability Litigation,” in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Ronald Whyte pursuant
to an April 17, 2006 order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.  

Plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated and Amended Master Complaint on Sept.
21, 2006, alleging violations of California and other states’ consumer
protection and warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment.

The Master Complaint alleges two putative plaintiff classes:

       -- all U.S. residents (excluding California residents)
          who purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured
          or designed using processes necessary to ensure normal
          resistance to scratching of the screen; and

       -- all iPod nano purchasers other than U.S. residents who
          purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured or
          designed using processes necessary to ensure normal
          resistance to scratching of the screen.

The Company answered the Master Complaint on Nov. 20, 2006.  The case is in
discovery.

                       State Court Actions

The two California State Court actions were coordinated on May 4, 2006, and
assigned to the Judge Carl West in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on June 8,
2006, alleging violations of California state consumer protection, unfair
competition, false advertising and warranty laws and claiming unjust
enrichment.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges a putative plaintiff class of all
California residents who own an iPod nano containing a manufacturing defect
that results in the nano being susceptible to excessive scratching.  The
Company answered the Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 6, 2006.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc.,  
designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software,
services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and
markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories,
including the online sale of third-party audio and video products.  


APPLE CANADA: Still Faces Canadian Suit Over Faulty iPod Nanos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Canada, Inc. still faces three lawsuits filed in Quebec and Ontario,
which are alleging that the company’s iPod nano was defectively designed so
that it scratches excessively during normal use, rendering the screen
unreadable.

Two similar complaints:

     * "Carpentier v. Apple Canada, Inc.," and
     * "Royer- Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada,
        Inc.,"

were filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Oct. 27, 2005 and Nov. 9, 2005,
respectively, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of
iPod nano purchasers in Quebec.

The Royer-Brennan file was stayed in May 2006 in favor of the Carpentier
file, in which Apple’s preliminary motion for leave to file evidence will be
heard on Dec. 18, 2006.  No further dates have been set.

Another complaint, entitled, "Mund v. Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer,
Inc.," was filed in Ontario, Canada on Jan. 9, 2006 seeking authorization to
institute a class action on behalf of iPod nano purchasers in Canada.

A similar complaint, Mund v. Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc., was
filed in Ontario, Canada on Jan. 9, 2006 seeking authorization to institute a
class action on behalf of iPod nano purchasers in Canada.

In the two Quebec class actions, a motion to stay the Royer-Brennan case is
stayed in favor of the previously filed Carpentier case.  In the Ontario
Action, Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc., have served Notices of
Intent to defend.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc.,  
designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software,
services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and
markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories,
including the online sale of third-party audio and video products.  Apple
Inc.'s products and services include the iPod line of portable digital music
players.


APPLE CANADA: Oct. 15 Trial Set for iPod Levy Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 15, 2007 trial is scheduled for the purported class action, "St-
Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc."

Plaintiff filed the case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Aug. 5, 2005,
seeking for the refund by the company of the Canadian Private Copying Levy
that was applied to the iPod purchase price in Quebec between Dec. 12, 2003
and Dec. 14, 2004 but later declared invalid by the Canadian Court.  

A class certification hearing took place Jan. 13, 2006.  On Feb. 24, 2006,
the court granted class certification and notice was published during the
last week of March 2006.  

Discovery is closed and a trial is scheduled for Oct. 15, 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.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc.,  
designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software,
services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and
markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories,
including the online sale of third-party audio and video products.  Apple
Inc.'s products and services include the iPod line of portable digital music
players.


APPLE COMPUTER: Responds to Cal. Suit Over iTunes-iPod Tie-up
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. has filed its answer to a consolidated lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accusing it
of illegally tying iTunes music and iPods sales.

Plaintiff filed the suit "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc.,"
formerly “Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.,” on Jan. 3, 2005 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various
claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on the iTunes
Music Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful
acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power.  

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California Business and Professions Code
Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust
enrichment and common law monopolization.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages and other relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Feb. 10, 2005.  A hearing on the
motion took place on June 6, 2005.  On Sept. 9, 2005, the court denied the
motion in part and granted it in part.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 23, 2005 and the company filed
an answer on Oct. 11, 2005.  

On May 8, 2006, the court heard plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs for "Slattery."

In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs (Charoensak
and Rosen).

On Nov. 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying
all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.

                     Tucker Case

Plaintiff filed the "Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc." case as a purported
class action on July 21, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful
tying of music and videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of
iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly
market power.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act,
California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (Cartwright
Act), California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition) and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  Plaintiff
sought unspecified damages and other relief.  

On Nov. 3, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On
Dec. 20, 2006, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.

On Jan. 11, 2007, The Company filed an answer denying all material
allegations and asserting numerous defenses.

On March 20, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases and ordered
plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by April 19, 2007.  

Plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on April 19, 2007 and the Company
filed its answer on June 6, 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 "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:05-cv-00037-JW,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge James Ware with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael David Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group, P.C.
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          Fax: (310) 442-7756
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          The Katriel Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-625-4342
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 231-1058
          Fax: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: jstoia@lerachlaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Caroline N. Mitchell, Esq.
          Jones Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415 875 5712
          Fax: 415 875 5700
          E-mail: cnmitchell@jonesday.com


APPLE INC: Cal. Court Junks Claim Over iBook G4’s Logic Board
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed an
amended complaint in a class action against Apple, Inc. over the failure rate
of its iBook G4’s logic board though the court did give plaintiffs leave to
amend the complaint.

The suit is "Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc.," filed on Nov. 7, 2006 on behalf
of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the iBook G4.  It claims
that the computer’s logic board fails at an abnormally high rate.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200 (unfair competition) and California Business & Professions Code
Section 17500 (false advertising).  Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and
other relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 19, 2007, which the court
granted on March 13, 2007.  

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2007.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 13, 2007.  

The court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint with leave to amend.  

The suit is "Alan Vitt v. Apple Computer Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-07152-GHK-
RC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
under Judge George H. King with referral to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James S. Cahill, Esq.
          Rossbacher Firm, 811 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1650
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2666
          Phone: 213-895-6500
          Fax: 213-895-6161

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Kick Law Offices
          900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 230
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-624-1588

               - and -

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          Wilentz Goldman and Spitzer
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Phone: 732-636-8000
          E-mail: kevin@hagens-berman.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Ronald K. Meyer, Esq.
          Munger Tolles & Olson
          355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100


APPLE INC: Sept. 7 Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 7, 2007 hearing is set for a motion to dismiss a securities fraud
class action filed against Apple Computer, Inc., in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Plaintiff filed the purported class action, "Vogel v. Jobs et al." on Aug.
24, 2006 against the company and certain of the company’s current and former
officers and directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to
maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for those
grants and issuing false financial statements.

The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company’s stock from Dec. 1, 2005 through Aug. 11, 2006, and asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act as well as
control person claims.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the Court appointed the New York City Employees’ Retirement
System as lead plaintiff.  On March 23, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of several
classes of holders of the Company’s stock and asserts claims under Section 14
(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act as well as state law.  

The Consolidated Complaint seeks rescission of amendments to various stock
option and other incentive compensation plans, an accounting and damages in
an unspecified amount.  

The Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint on June 8, 2007.  The hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled
for Sept. 7, 2007.

The suit is "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-05208-JF," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310/209-2468
          Fax: 310/209-2087
          E-mail: service@ssbla.com

               - and -

          Mary Sikra Thomas, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
          1201 N. Market St., Suite 2100
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7000
          E-mail: mthomas@gelaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David Malcolm Furbush, Esq.
          O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
          2765 Sand Hill Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: (650) 473-2600
          Fax: (650) 473-2601
          E-mail: dfurbush@omm.com


ARAMARK CORP: Pa. Court Dismisses Suit Over Acquisition Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas dismissed a lawsuit over a proposal
from members of the ARAMARK Corp.'s management committee to acquire shares in
the company.

On May 1, 2006, two cases were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in New Castle County against the company and each of the company's
directors.

The two cases are putative class actions brought by stockholders alleging
that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company
in connection with the proposal from a group of investors led by Joseph
Neubauer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the company.

On May 22, 2006, two additional cases making substantially identical
allegations were brought against the company and certain of its directors:

      -- one in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia,
         Pennsylvania in which only the company and Mr. Neubauer
         were named as defendants; and

      -- another in the Court of Chancery of the State of
         Delaware in New Castle County in which the company and
         all directors were named as defendants.

All of the cases make claims for monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and expenses.  On June 7, 2006, the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware consolidated the three pending Delaware actions as "In re:
ARAMARK Corp. Shareholders Litigation."

On or around Aug. 11, 2006, the City of Southfield Police and Fire Retirement
System filed a fourth putative class-action complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware in New Castle County purportedly on behalf
of the company's stockholders.  

The complaint names the company and each of the company's directors as
defendants and alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the stockholders in connection with the proposed acquisition of the company's
outstanding shares and making claims for monetary damages, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated
this action with “In re: ARAMARK Corp. Shareholders Litigation.”

The parties subsequently entered into agreements to settle the Delaware
consolidated actions and the action pending in the Pennsylvania Court of
Common Pleas.  

As part of the agreements, each share of Class A common stock beneficially
owned by members of ARAMARK’s management committee at that time (Joseph
Neubauer, L. Frederick Sutherland, Bart J. Colli, Timothy P. Cost, Andrew C.
Kerin, Lynn B. McKee, Ravi K. Saligram and Thomas J. Vozzo) was to be counted
as one vote for purposes of the additional vote to approve the adoption of
the merger agreement.

In connection with settling the Delaware action, counsel for the plaintiffs
agreed to seek court approval of no more than $2.1 million in attorneys’ fees
and expenses, which amount the Company agreed not to oppose.

On April 12, 2007, the Delaware Chancery Court approved the settlement
between the parties in the consolidated action, and awarded plaintiffs’
counsel $2.1 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

In connection with settling the Pennsylvania action, counsel for the
plaintiffs agreed to seek court approval of no more than $1.55 million in
attorneys’ fees and expenses, which amount the Company agreed not to oppose.

On May 16, 2007, the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas dismissed the
Pennsylvania action in connection with the Delaware Chancery Court settlement
approval and awarded the plaintiffs’ counsel $1.55 million in fees and
expenses.

ARAMARK Corp. -- http://www.aramark.com-- provides a range of managed  
services to business, educational, healthcare and governmental institutions
and sports, entertainment and recreational facilities.  It provides services
in two business groups: Food and Support Services, and Uniform and Career
Apparel.  These business groups are organized into four segments: Food and
Support Services-United States, Food and Support Services-International,
Uniform and Career Apparel-Rental, and Uniform and Career Apparel-Direct
Marketing.  The Food and Support Services Group manages a number of
interrelated services, including food, hospitality and facilities services.
The Uniform and Career Apparel Group provides uniforms, career and image
apparel, work clothes and accessories.  In January 2007, the Company
completed the merger, in which it was acquired by an investor group, and
investment funds managed by GS Capital Partners, CCMP Capital Advisors and
J.P. Morgan Partners, Thomas H. Lee Partners and Warburg Pincus LLC.


BKF CAPITAL: Jolly Roger Appointed Lead Plaintiff in N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of New York has
appointed Jolly Roger Offshore Fund Ltd. as lead plaintiff in a class action
filed on May 18, 2007 on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of BKF Capital Group, Inc. between May
10, 2004 and October 18, 2005, inclusive, the New York Law Journal reports.

The lawsuit was filed against BKF, Glenn A. Aigen and John A. Levin (Class
Action Reporter, May 24, 2007).

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning the company.

On or about October 18, 2005, defendants revealed that BKF's financial
reports were not reliable and that the financial reports dating back to the
beginning of 2004 would need to be restated.  These disclosures caused the
price of BKF shares to decline over $7.40 per share in one day, falling over
30%, and closing at just above $17.00 per share.

In his recent decision, Judge Robert Sweet granted Jolly Roger Offshore Fund
Ltd.'s motion for lead plaintiff appointment.

The suit is “Jolly Roger Offshore Fund et al. v. BKF Capital Group, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03923-RWS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Robert W. Sweet.

Representing defendants are:

          David M. Brodsky
          Blair G. Connelly
          Robert John Malionek
          Latham & Watkins LLP
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-906-1628 or (212) 906-1816
          Fax: 212-751-4864 (fax)
          E-mail: david.brodsky@lw.com or blair.connelly@lw.com
                  Or robert.malionek@lw.com

          - and -

          Margaret Antinori Dale
          Louis M. Solomon
          Proskauer Rose LLP (New York)
          1585 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-969-3000
          Fax: 212-969-2900
          E-mail: mdale@proskauer.com or lsolomon@proskauer.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alan Ian Ellman
          Christopher J. Keller
          Andrei V. Rado
          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 907-0700
          Fax: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: aellman@labaton.com or ckeller@labaton.com or
                  arado@labaton.com

          Lewis Stephen Kahn
          Kahn, Gauthier Law Group, L.L.C.
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 455-1400
          Fax: (504) 455-1498
          
          - and -

          Michael Andrew Swick
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          12 East 41st Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 696-3730
          Fax: (504) 455-1498
          E-mail: michael.swick@kglg.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Settles Suit Over Defibrillators for $16.75M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. (NYSE: BSX) said that three of its subsidiaries have
reached an agreement with the Attorneys General of 35 states and the District
of Columbia to settle investigations associated with Ventak Prizm 2DR Model
1861, Contak Renewal Model H135 and Contak Renewal 2 Model H155 devices.

The subsidiaries are Guidant Corp., Cardiac Pacemakers Inc. and Guidant Sales
Corp., now known as Boston Scientific Cardiac Rhythm Management.  Boston
Scientific acquired these Guidant entities last year.

Under the terms of the agreement, these three Boston Scientific subsidiaries
will pay a total of $16.75 million and admit no liability.  They also agreed
to extend the Supplemental Warranty Program for these devices an additional
six months and reaffirmed their commitment to implement changes recommended
by the Independent Panel commissioned by Guidant in 2005, such as having a
Patient Safety Officer and a Patient Safety Advisory Board, and making
enhancements to product performance communications.

"Boston Scientific has been working cooperatively with the state Attorneys
General and is pleased to have reached an amicable agreement," said Jim
Tobin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Boston Scientific.  "This
agreement underscores our commitment to being the industry leader in patient
safety and in communicating with patients and doctors."

Boston Scientific -- http://www.bostonscientific.com-- is a worldwide  
developer, manufacturer and marketer of medical devices whose products are
used in a broad range of interventional medical specialties.


BP CORP: Trial Ongoing in Kansas Refinery Pollution Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against BP Corp. of North America in relation to
pollution at its Neodesha refinery is being tried in Erie, reports say.   The
trial could last three months.

The suit was filed in Wilson County District Court on March 19, 2004.  It
alleges that

     * BP Corp., formerly known as BP Amoco Co.;
     * BP America;
     * BP Products North America;
     * Atlantic Richfield Co., dba Group Environmental
       Management Co.; and
     * BP America Production Co.

falsely represented that contamination left by the refinery that closed in
1970 was not spreading and was being cleaned up.  It seeks punitive damages
plus nearly $477 million in actual damages.

The plaintiffs are identified as "a class of property owners, governmental
entities and business owners who suffered economic loss as a result of damage
to their real property," according to court documents.

Of the actual damages, $280,000,000 are remediation costs, $98,121,384 are
damages to governmental property and $99,529,418 are damages to private
property, according to Anna Fry of Parsons Sun.


CAPALA BROTHERS: N.Y. Lawsuit Alleges Violations of the FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capala Brothers Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 29 in
Brooklyn Federal Court.

Named plaintiffs :

          -- Miroslaw Gortat
          -- Henryk Bienkowski
          -- Grzegorz Drelich
          -- Miroslaw Filipkowski
          -- Artur Lapinski
          -- Jan Swaltek

allege violations of the Fair labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Gortat et al. v. Capala Brothers, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
03629-ILG-SMG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, under Judge I. Leo Glasser, with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Robert Wisniewski
          Robert Wisniewski & Associates P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 612
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-267-2101
          Fax: 212-267-8115
          E-mail: rw@rwapc.com


CIRCUIT CITY: 15% “Restocking Fee” Illegal, Calif. Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit City Stores, Inc. is facing a personal injury class action filed Aug.
10 in Los Angeles Federal Court.

Named plaintiff Roxana Wilson accuses Circuit City of charging an illegal
15% “restocking fee” to discourage customers from returning merchandise.

The suit is “Roxana Wilson v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
05229-DSF-SS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Dale S. Fischer, with referral to Judge Suzanne H.
Segal.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Lionel Z. Glancy
          Marc L. Godino
          Michael M. Goldberg
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150 or 310-201-9150
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com or info@glancylaw.com


COVENTRY HEALTH: Summary Judgment in Physician’s Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 11th Circuit affirmed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in
favor of the company in the suit, “Charles B. Shane, et al., v. Humana, Inc.,
et al.,” which names Coventry Health Care, Inc. as defendant.

The Company was a defendant in the provider track of the “In Re: Managed Care
Litigation” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Multi-District Litigation (MDL), No. 1334.  The action is otherwise
captioned as “Charles B. Shane., et al., v. Humana, Inc., et al.”

The lawsuit was filed by a group of physicians as a class action against
Coventry and nine other companies in the managed care industry.  

The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding and abetting a
scheme to violate RICO.

In addition to these federal law claims, the complaint included state law
claims for breach of contract, violations of various state prompt payment
laws and equitable claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

The trial court dismissed several of the state law claims and ordered all
physicians who had an arbitration provision in their provider contracts to
submit their direct RICO claims and their remaining state law claims to
arbitration.

As a consequence of this ruling, the plaintiffs who had arbitration
provisions voluntarily dismissed their claims that were subject to
arbitration.

In its order, the trial court also held that the plaintiffs’ claims of:

       -- conspiracy to violate RICO and

       -- aiding and abetting violations of RICO were not
          subject to arbitration.  

The trial court then certified various subclasses of plaintiffs with respect
to these two federal law claims.

Seven defendants entered into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs,
which received final approval from the trial court.

On June 16, 2006, the trial court filed an order in the Shane lawsuit which
granted summary judgment on all claims in favor of the Company.

The trial court also granted summary judgment on all claims in favor of two
other defendants.  The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s summary judgment
order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

By an order dated June 13, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial
court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Company.

The Shane lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class action complaints
by other health care providers such as chiropractors, podiatrists,
acupuncturists and other licensed health care professionals.  

Each of these actions has been transferred to the MDL and have been
designated as “tag-along” actions.  The trial court has entered an order
which has stayed all proceedings in the tag-along actions, according to the
company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.cvty.com/-- is a national managed  
healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland, operating health plans,
insurance companies, network rental/managed care services companies and
workers’ compensation services companies.  


EDWARD D. JONES: Oct. Hearing Set for Revenue Sharing Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 18, 2007 hearing is set for final approval of the settlement of a
purported class action filed against Edward Jones & Co., L.P., the principal
operating subsidiary of The Jones Financial Cos., L.L.L.P.

The Jones Financial was sued in nine civil class actions that were eventually
consolidated into three proceedings:

      -- "Bressler, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.";

      -- "Spahn IRA, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P."; and

      -- "Enriquez, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P."


Each of the suits claimed that the defendant failed to adequately disclose
its revenue sharing arrangements with certain designated Preferred Mutual
Fund Families.

In August 2006, Jones Financial announced a preliminary settlement agreement
to resolve all three groups of lawsuits.   Each of the suits claimed that
Jones Financial failed to adequately disclose its revenue sharing
arrangements with certain designated Preferred Mutual Fund Families.

The settlement involves all of the Partnership's present and former clients
who purchased and/or held shares in any of the Preferred Mutual Fund Families
during the period from Jan. 1,
1999 through Dec. 31, 2004.  

Jones Financial has agreed to pay $55 million to former clients and for
attorneys' fees, as well as any costs to administer the settlement.

Additionally, Jones Financial will issue $72.5 million of credit vouchers to
current clients that can be redeemed ratably over a three-year period.  Any
credit voucher not redeemed during the applicable year would expire after
each annual redemption period.  

The $55 million cash component of the settlement and related administrative
costs was charged against previously established legal expense accruals.  

The $72.5 million non-cash credit voucher component will be recognized as a
reduction to revenue in the periods in which they are redeemed by clients.

The company agreed to assume the cost of notice and administration of the
settlement.  The settlement provides for the release of all claims, debts and
causes of action related to certain revenue sharing payments received by
Jones Financial, fees and commissions received by the company for mutual fund
trades, shelf-space arrangements, directed brokerage transactions,
shareholder accounting fees and mutual fund trades generally.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the Court in the Spahn case gave its preliminary approval
for the settlement and directed notice be provided to class members within
120 days.  

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court in the Enriquez case entered an identical order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  The District Court in Bressler
dismissed the lawsuit, however, the plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal.  
The appeal has been stayed pending completion of the settlement.

Once the settlement is finally approved, plaintiffs in Bressler will dismiss
their appeal and the dismissal entered by the
District Court will become final.

Hearings for final approval of the settlement are scheduled for Oct. 18,
2007, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29,
2007.

Edward D. Jones & Co. -- http://www.edwardjones.com-- (better known by trade  
name Edward Jones) is the principal subsidiary of The Jones Financial
Companies.  It operates approximately 9,000 branch offices located throughout
the U.S., mainly in small towns or suburbs and linked by a satellite
network.  It is also active in Canada and the U.K.  Edward Jones, which
advocates a conservative investment strategy, sells securities and insurance
products and distributes mutual funds to nearly seven million clients.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Still Faces Market Timing Suit in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to rule on
motions seeking to dismiss a consolidated market timing/late trading class
action filed against Franklin Resources, Inc. and certain of the Franklin
Templeton
mutual funds, current and former officers, employees, and
directors.

The defendants have been named in multiple lawsuits in different federal
courts in Nevada, California, Illinois, New York, and
Florida. Generally, the cases alleged violations of various federal
securities and state laws.

Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, monetary damages, restitution,
removal of fund trustees, directors, advisers, administrators, and
distributors, rescission of management contracts and 12b-1 plans, and/or
attorneys' fees and costs.

Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to
alleged arrangements to permit market timing and/or late trading
activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the
portfolio securities of certain Templeton Funds managed by the
company's subsidiaries, allegedly resulting in market timing
activity.  

The majority of these lawsuits duplicate, in whole or
in part, the allegations asserted in the administrative
complaint and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's
findings regarding market timing in the SEC Order.  The lawsuits
are styled as class actions, or derivative actions on behalf of
either the named funds or the company.

To date, more than 400 similar lawsuits against at least 19
different mutual fund companies have been filed in federal
district courts throughout the country.  

Because these cases involve common questions of fact, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the creation of a multidistrict litigation
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, entitled "In re
Mutual Funds Investment Litigation."  

The Judicial Panel then transferred similar cases from different districts to
the MDL for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

As of Dec. 20, 2006, these market timing lawsuits are pending
against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, and in some
instances, name certain officers, directors and/or Funds.  The
suits that have been transferred to the MDL include:

      -- “Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         03-770 GPM,” filed on Nov. 19, 2003 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of Illinois;

      -- “Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 03-859 MJR,” filed on Dec. 16, 2003 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
         and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of Florida on March 29, 2004;  

      -- “Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ,” filed on Feb. 6, 2004 in
         the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada;  

      -- “Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04
         0583 JSW,” filed on Feb. 11, 2004 in the U.S. District
         Court for the Northern District of California;

      -- “Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0584 JSW,” filed on Feb. 11, 2004 in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;  

      -- “Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. 8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP,” filed on Feb. 11, 2004 in
         the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
         Florida;

      -- “Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ,” filed on Feb. 12, 2004 in the
         U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada;  

      -- “Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. C 04 0598 MJJ,” filed on Feb. 12, 2004, in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

      -- “McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         C 04 0628 PJH,” filed on Feb. 13, 2004 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- “Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0639 SC,” filed on Feb. 17, 2004 in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;  

      -- “Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04 CV 1330,” filed on Feb. 18, 2004 in
         the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York;

      -- “D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund,
         et al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC,” filed on March 3, 2004
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- “Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0901 JL,” filed on March 5, 2004 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- “Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0902 JL,” filed on March 5, 2004 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- “Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case
         No. C 04 0984 EMC,” filed on March 10, 2004 in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California; and

      -- “Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489,” filed
         on March 30, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs in the MDL filed consolidated amended complaints on Sept. 29,
2004.  On Feb. 25, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss.  The Company’s
and its subsidiaries’ motions are currently under submission with the court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, Case No.
1:04-md-15862-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland under Judge Andre M. Davis.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          H. Adam Prussin, Esq.
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross, LLP
          100 Park Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 1-212-661-1100
          Fax: 1-212-661-8665
          E-mail: haprussin@pomlaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Meredith Nelson Landy, Esq.
          O'Melveny and Myers, LLP
          2765 Sand Hill Rd.
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 16504732671
          Fax: 16504732601
          E-mail: mlandy@omm.com


FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: “Fisher” Plaintiffs Ask Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in one market-timing lawsuit filed against Franklin Templeton
Investments Corp. served the company with a motion for class certification.

Franklin Templeton is a subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc., and the
investment manager of Franklin Templeton's Canadian mutual funds.  It faces
three market-timing class actions filed in Canada.

The suits are seeking, among other relief, monetary damages, an order barring
any increase in management fees for a period of two years following judgment,
and/or attorneys' fees and costs.

The suits are:

       -- "Huneault v. AGF Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 500-06-
          000256-046," filed on Oct. 25, 2004 in the Superior
          Court for the Province of Quebec, District of
          Montreal;

       -- "Heinrichs, et al. v. CI Mutual Funds, Inc., et al.,
          Case No. 04-CV-29700," filed on Dec. 17, 2004 in the
          Ontario Superior Court of Justice; and

       -- "Fischer, et al. v. IG Investment Management Ltd., et
          al. Case No. 06-CV-307599CP," filed on March 9, 2006
          in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

On July 25, 2007, plaintiffs in the Fischer lawsuit served FTIC with a motion
for class certification.

Franklin Resources, Inc. -- http://www.franklintempleton.com-- is an  
investment management company.  Through its wholly owned direct and indirect
subsidiaries, Franklin Resources, Inc. provides investment management and
fund administration services to open-end and closed-end investment companies,
institutional accounts, high-net-worth families, individuals and separate
accounts in the U.S. and internationally.  


GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls Pocket Knives Posing Laceration Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerber Legendary Blades, of Portland, Ore., a division of Fiskars Brands
Inc., of Madison, Wisconsin, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is recalling about 154,000 Gerber EAB (Exchange-A-Blade)
Pocket Knives.

The company said during use, the back of the blade of the knife can slide
past the blade support, posing a laceration hazard to consumers.

Gerber has received eight reports of individuals cutting themselves while
using the knife, including several individuals who required stitches.

The recall involves Gerber EAB Pocket Knives, model numbers 22-41548, 22-
41548CDIP, 22-01548W and 22-41548W. The knives are small, folding utility
knives that can be clipped to the owner’s pocket. The knives are marked with
the “Gerber” trademark.

These recalled pocket knives were manufactured in China and are being sold at
retail stores nationwide, including Wal-Mart, and through on-line stores from
September 2006 through August 2007 for about $11.

Pictures of recalled pocket knives:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07295a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07295b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled knives immediately and
contact Gerber to receive instructions on how to return the knife for a free
replacement knife.

For more information, contact Gerber Legendary Blades toll-free at (877) 204-
5510 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.gerbergear.com.


GOLDEN EAGLE: Accused of Fair Labor Standards Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Eagle Protective Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed Aug. 29 in Miami Federal Court.

Named plaintiff Mirna Hervas accuses the company of violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Hervas v. Golden Eagle Protective Services, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-22263-DLG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Donald L. Graham.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jose O. Diaz
          Diaz Law Firm PA
          717 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 332
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: 305-445-4955
          Fax: 305-442-4323
          E-mail: jose@thediazlawfirm.com


M&J ENGRG: Recalls Scuba Masks Swivels to Repair Defect
-------------------------------------------------------
M&J Engineering, of Poway, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,500 AGA swivels for scuba
diving masks.

The company said the swivel, which is attached to a diving mask, could
separate while diving. This will result in a sudden loss of the diver’s air
supply, causing the diver to engage in emergency ascent. This poses a risk of
decompression sickness due to rapid ascent or drowning.

M&J Engineering has received one report of swivels separating from the masks
while diving. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all SW-3000 2nd stage 360-degree swivels for scuba
diving masks manufactured between January 2004 and February 2005. The swivel
has the date stamped on its body, below the patent number. Swivels that are
already repaired have an arrow stamped on the top right corner of the swivel
body.

These recalled swivels were manufactured in the USA and are being sold at
diving retail stores nationwide between January 2004 and February 2005 for
about $60.

Picture of recalled swivels:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07293.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the scuba diving masks with
the swivel attached and contact M&J Engineering to receive a free repair.

For additional information, contact M&J Engineering toll-free at (888) 794-
8351 Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PT, E-mail:
sales@omniswivel.com or http://www.mj-engineering.com.


NATIONAL BEEF: Penna. Lawsuit Alleges Violations of the FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
National Beef Packing Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 30 in
Williamsport, Pennsylvania, federal court.

Named plaintiff David A. Dunn alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The suit is “Dunn v. National Beef Packing Company, Case No. 4:07-cv-01599-
JEJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania under Judge John E. Jones, III.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Peter D. Winebrake
          The Winbrake Law Firm, LLC
          715 Twining Office Center, Suite 114
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Phone: 215-884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


NEWLIFE OF THE PALM BEACHES: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newlife of The Palm Beaches, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
Aug. 30 in West Palm Beach Federal Court.

Named plaintiff Carmen Wakeland alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The suit is “Wakeland v. Newlife Of The Palm Beaches, Inc., Case No. 9:07-cv-
80787-DTKH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley, with referral to Judge James M.
Hopkins.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Stacey Hope Cohen
          Gregg I. Shavitz
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831 (fax)
          E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com or
                  gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com


OLD NATIONAL: Dismissal of Identity Theft Lawsuit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed a dismissal of a suit
filed by Old National Bancorp customers seeking to recover damages for the
theft of their information.  

The court said Indiana law requires owners of confidential databases to
disclose a security breach, which Old National did, but it does not require
them to take any further action, CourtHouseNews reports.  

The suit was filed by Luciano Pisciotta and Daniel Mills, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division (Case No. 05 C 668)
before Larry J. McKinney, Chief Judge.

The plaintiffs alleged that, through its website, Old National had solicited
personal information from applicants for banking services, but had failed to
secure it adequately.  As a result, a third-party computer “hacker” was able
to obtain access to the confidential information of tens of thousands of Old
National site users.

The plaintiffs sought damages for the harm that they claim to have suffered
because of the security breach; specifically, they requested compensation for
past and future credit monitoring services that they have obtained in
response to the compromise of their personal data through Old National’s
website.  

Old National answered the allegations and then moved for judgment on the
pleadings.  The district court granted Old National’s motion and dismissed
the case.  The plaintiffs timely appealed.  On Aug. 23, the circuit court
issued a ruling affirming the judgment of the district court.


PARAMOUNT APPAREL: Recalls Bucket Hats with Drawstrings
-------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Apparel International Inc., of Bourbon, Missouri, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 500
Toddler and Youth Nylon Bucket Hats.

The company said the hat has a drawstring, posing a strangulation hazard to
young children. No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The hat is a nylon bucket-shaped hat with mesh sides. There are nylon fabric
strips on the side of the hat that snap up. The front of the hat has a zipper
pocket with a silver boat-anchor appliqué with embroidered text below. The
hat adjusts with a bungee drawstring sewn in the crown of the hat. A label
sewn into the back inside of the hat reads “Bass Pro Shops.”

These recalled bucket hats were manufactured in China and are being sold
exclusively at Bass Pro Shops retail stores nationwide from February 2007
through June 2007 for about $8.

Pictures of recalled bucket hats:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07294a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07294b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled hats immediately and contact
Paramount Apparel to receive a refund or replacement item.

For more information, contact Paramount Apparel toll-free at (866) 618-7179
between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the firm’s Web
site: http://www.paramountapparel.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Lancaster County Faces Strip Search Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Lancaster County is facing a class action filed by a resident who claims
the county’s strip search practice is illegal, insensitive, and unnecessary,
P.J. Reilly of Intelligencer Journal reports.

Sajan Kurian filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against and the Lancaster County Prison Board.  He
said the county and the board have a uniform practice and procedure of
forcing those charged with misdemeanors, summary violations and similar
charges to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon transfer and/or
entry into the Lancaster County Prison.

County prison Warden Vincent Guarini assured the county has a "blanket
policy" for strip-searching every person sent to the prison.  He said he has
not seen the suit yet.

The suit “Kurian v. The County of Lancaster et al.” is docketed
2:2007cv03482.  It is before Judge Paul S. Diamond.


QUIXTAR INC: Mich. Court Clarifies TOR on Team-Related Meetings
---------------------------------------------------------------
The group of top ex-Quixtar, Inc. distributors said that a Grand Rapids,
Mich., judge issued on Aug. 28 an amended order of his Temporary Restraining
Order ruling on Aug. 24.  In response to the group's request for a
clarification of the order, the judge ruled that the previously-issued
injunction does not preclude the holding of any Team leadership, educational
and motivational meetings.

The group had sought the clarification in response to Quixtar's email
notification to approximately 75,000 Independent Business Owners (IBOs) who
participate in Team meetings.  In the e-mail, Quixtar informed the IBOs that
they would be in violation of a court order if they continued their Team
participation. Team (Together Everyone Achieves More) is a leadership,
educational and motivational organization owned primarily by Orrin Woodward
and Chris Brady, two of the plaintiffs in the California federal suit.

D.J. Poyfair, attorney for Denver-based Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, the firm
representing the former distributors in the original federal lawsuit, noted
that the ex-distributors to date have prevailed in 12 of 15 matters where
court rulings have been made.

"Though Quixtar has a 3-12 litigation record, it continues to boast loudly in
release after release that it has crushed its opponent -- if a football coach
claimed having a successful season after winning only 3 of 15 games he would
be laughed out of town," said Mr. Poyfair. "It is only within the wacky world
of Quixtar's spin machine that it can claim a winning record in the face of
facts that clearly state otherwise."

            About “Woodward et al. v. Quixtar, Inc.”

On August 9, 2007, a group including eight of the largest Quixtar
distributors filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Quixtar from enforcing its
distributor contracts, including the non-competition and non-solicitation
provisions.  The plaintiffs allege that the company knowingly operates as a
pyramid scheme and prevents its distributors from leaving the organization
through the aforementioned provisions.  The suit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

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

On August 10, 2007, the group sought a preliminary and permanent injunction
restraining Quixtar from enforcing or attempting to enforce the non-
competition and non-solicitation provisions.

More information regarding Woodward v. Quixtar is available at
http://www.FreeTheIBO.com.

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

Representing plaintiffs are:

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

          - and -

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


SHARPER IMAGE: Denies Suit Over Purifiers to Cost $900M
--------------------------------------------------------
Sharper Image said it participated in a fairness hearing on Aug. 17 to review
the settlement of a class action over its purifier product, but denied a
report the settlement may cost it $900 million and could led to its
bankruptcy, reports say.

Sharper Image was named defendant in five purported class actions alleging
inaccurate advertising on behalf of the Ionic Breeze Quadra (Class Action
Reporter, May 19, 2006).

The actions are filed on behalf of purchasers of the Ionic Breeze Quadra in
the state Courts of California (San Francisco) and Florida (Jacksonville), as
well as the U.S. District Courts of Maryland and Florida (Miami).

Defendants and plaintiffs have agreed that the lawsuit be conditionally
settled, compromised, and dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.  Under
the settlement Sharper Image will offer $19 merchandise credits to each of
the roughly 3.2 million consumers who have bought one of its "Ionic Breeze"
purifiers since May 6, 1999.

One Merchandise Credit shall be made available to each settlement class
member, limited to one per household (regardless of the number of Ionic
Breeze's products Purchased by said member or the amount spent on said
products) who is either:

      -- found in the Ionic Breeze Database; or
      -- provides Proof of Purchase as set forth herein.

The credits can be applied toward the purchase of other Sharper Image-branded
products for a year after they're issued.

Besides offering those discounts, Sharper Image agreed to tone down its
advertising claims about the power of the Ionic Breeze and pay up to $1.875
million in fees to the lawyers who filed the suit on behalf of Manual
Figueroa in a Miami federal court.

Sharper Image denied and had asserted a number of defenses to each and every
one of the allegations. It contends that scientific testing has demonstrated
the high quality, efficacy, and safety of the Ionic Breeze.

The Florida suit is "Figueroa v. Sharper Image Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-
cv-21251-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
Court of Florida, under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, with referral to Judge Ted
E. Bandstra.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David L. Aronoff, Esq.
          Thelen Reid & Priest LLP
          333 S Hope Street, 29th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-576-8044
          Fax: 576-8080

          Daniel Dennis Dolan, II, Esq.
          Robert L. Parks, Esq.
          Haggard Parks Haggard & Lewis
          330 Alhambra Circle, 1st Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: 305-446-5700
          Fax: 446-1154
          E-mail: bob@haggardparks.com

          -- and --

          Enrique J. Gimenez, Esq.
          Stephen J. Rowe, Esq.
          Jere F. White, Esq.
          Lightfoot Franklin & White
          400 20th Street North
          The Clark Building, Birmingham, AL 35203-2706
          Phone: 205-581-0774
          Fax: 581-0799

Representing defendants are:

           James S. Toscano, Esq.
           Terry C. Young, Esq.
           Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed
           P.O. Box 2809, Orlando, FL 32802-2809
           Phone: 407-843-4600
           Fax: 843-4444


* Ill. Northern District New Haven for FACTA Suits, Report Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern District of Illinois is now the favorite venue of plaintiffs
suing retailers for alleged willful violations of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act of 2003, an article appearing on Aug. 16 in Mondaq
states.

Courts have seen an explosion of cases against retailers alleging willful
violations of the FACTA since the law became fully effective on Dec. 4, 2006,
the article said.  There have already been 100 companies facing such cases in
2007.  These cases typically seek relief on behalf of nationwide classes of
individuals who received electronically printed credit or debit card receipts
that contained more than the last five digits of the account number and/or
the expiration date of the card.  

FACTA allows prevailing plaintiffs to be awarded actual damages or, in the
case of defendants who willfully fail to comply with the law, statutory
penalties of between $100 and $1,000 per affected consumer -- penalties which
are potentially ruinous, according to the article.

Before, the Ninth Circuit –- in particular, the Central District of
California -- is the venue of choice of many of these cases because of its
less stringent standard for showing of willful behavior than other circuits.  
However, the trend changed after two important events, according to Mondaq.

First, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that disagreed with the 9th
Circuit’s standard for determining recklessness to define “reckless disregard
of the law,” under the interpretation of the term “willfully.”  The
same "willfulness" standard now applies in every district, the article states.

The Court held that an action is not in reckless disregard of FCRA unless
it "is not only a violation under a reasonable reading of the statute’s
terms, but shows that the company ran a risk of violating the law
substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that was merely
careless."

According to the court, an action could not be deemed willful where statutory
text was unclear and companies operated without "the benefit of guidance from
the courts of appeals or the [FTC]."

Second, courts in the Ninth Circuit began denying class certification,
concluding that class treatment was not the superior way of proceeding given
the potentially "annihilating" statutory damages exposure where plaintiffs
suffered no actual injury.

However, some cases in the Seventh Circuit and the Northern District of
Illinois have rejected the argument that disproportionately large statutory
penalties should act as a barrier to class certification.  Seventh Circuit
case law instead suggests that unconstitutionally excessive damages may be
reduced after a class has been certified and a judgment obtained.

Now FACTA suit plaintiffs are filing their cases in the Northern District of
Illinois, according to the article.  As of early August, dozens of new FACTA
cases have been filed in the Northern District of Illinois.  More complaints
are likely to be filed in the future, according to the report.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
   

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

September 8, 2007
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB.Com
Orange County Airport Hilton, Irvine
Contact: http://ceb.com;1-800-232-3444  

September 8, 2007
GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB.Com
Orange County Airport Hilton,  Irvine
Contact: http://ceb.com;1-800-232-3444  

September 14, 2007
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB.Com
PLI California Center, San Francisco
Contact: http://ceb.com;1-800-232-3444  

September 14, 2007
GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB.Com
PLI California Center, San Francisco
Contact: http://ceb.com;1-800-232-3444  

September 15, 2007
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB.Com
Hyatt Regency, Sacramento
Contact: http://ceb.com;1-800-232-3444  

September 15, 2007  
GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB.Com
Hyatt Regency Sacramento
Contact: http://ceb.com;1-800-232-3444  

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 3-4, 2007
WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

October 6, 2007
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB.Com
San Diego County Bar Association, San Diego
Contact: http://ceb.com;1-800-232-3444  

October 6, 2007  
GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB.Com
San Diego County Bar Association,  San Diego
Contact: http://ceb.com;1-800-232-3444  

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

October 13, 2007
GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB.Com
Hyatt Regency Century Plaza,  LA/Century City
Contact: http://ceb.com;1-800-232-3444  

October 13, 2007
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB.Com
Hyatt Regency Century Plaza, Century City
Contact: http://ceb.com;1-800-232-3444  

October 15, 2007
MEALEY'S SCOPE OF COVERAGE CONFERENCE: ALL SUMS VERSUS PRO-RATA ALLOCATION,
METHODS OF EXHAUSTION, REALLOCATION AND

SETTLEMENT CREDITS
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Grand, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 15-16, 2007
DEFENDING CONSUMER PRODUCT FRAUD CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

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

October 29-30, 2007
MEALEY'S SUBPRIME MORTGAGE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The InterContinental Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 6, 2007
MEALEY'S BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE THE RITZ-CARLTON, PHOENIX
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 6 - 7, 2007
CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Chicago
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

November 7-8, 2007
BAD FAITH LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

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
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

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

November 29 - 30, 2007
PREPARING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LIABILITY
American Conference Institute
New Orleans
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

December 10-11, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TRIAL STRATEGIES SEMINAR & EXPO
PREPARING AND DEFENDING THE ULTIMATE CATASTROPHIC PERSONAL INJURY CASE
Mealeys Seminars
Sheraton City Center, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 10, 2007
MEALEY'S SECURITIZATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Marriott Financial Center, NYC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 10-11, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUPERCONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Madison, Washington, D.C.
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-12, 2007
MEALEY'S VIATICAL SETTLEMENTS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Harvard Club, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12-14, 2007
DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Waldorf Astoria, New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480


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

April 10-11, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

October 23-24, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227


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

September 1-30, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 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

September 1-30, 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

September 1-30, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 18, 2007
LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: LIFE IN THE FAST LANE. . .OR THE
ROAD TO DISBARMENT?
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 18, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE SERIES: GLOBAL WARMING & WHAT COMPANIES
NEED TO KNOW TO AVOID LIABILITY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 20, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: DAMAGES CALCULATIONS IN MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 24, 2007
LEXISNEXIS® TELECONFERENCE: MANAGING OUTSIDE COUNSEL COSTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 25, 2007
LEXISNEXIS® TELECONFERENCE: FINDING THE SKELETON IN THE CLOSET - HOW TO
CONDUCT SUPERIOR EXPERT RESEARCH
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 26, 2007
LEXISNEXIS® PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: NEGOTIATION
SKILLS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 4, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: RETAIL & HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY THEFT AND SECURITY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE PUBLIC NUISANCE SUITS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES I: INTRODUCTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 11, 2007
LEXISNEXIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 101 TELECONFERENCE SERIES: TRADEMARK
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 16, 2007
NEW APPLEMAN'S™ INSURANCE COVERAGE TELECONFERENCE: THE IMPACT OF MASS
CATASTROPHES ON INSURANCE COVERAGE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 16, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES II: VALIDITY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 17, 2007
LEXISNEXIS PRACTICE MANAGEMENT TELECONFERENCE: HOW TO CHANGE YOUR PRACTICE
AREA
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 18, 2007
LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WHAT IT TAKES TO PRACTICE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 30, 2007
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LAW TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES
OF GOING IN-HOUSE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 31, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: VIATICAL SETTLEMENTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8, 2007
LEXISNEXIS® INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 101 TELECONFERENCE SERIES: COPYRIGHTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 13, 2007
MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
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.


                            *********


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  * * *