CAR_Public/070906.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, September 6, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 177

                            Headlines


BLUE CROSS: Accused of Deceptive Insurance Sales Practices
BUMBLE BEE: Faces Lawsuit in Ga. Over Recalled Canned Goods
CANADA: Soldier Seeks Certification of Suit Over Pension Cuts
DELPHI CORP: Settles Mich. Pension, Securities Suits for $340M
INTEGRATED DEVICE: Still Faces Cal. SRAM Antitrust Lawsuit

INTER-TEL INC: Del. Court Mulls Injunction Motion in “Mercier”
INTER-TEL INC: Del. Court Stays Suits Over Mitel Networks Merger
KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Certification of Calif. Labor Lawsuit
KPMG LLP: Employees in Canada Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LIFE IS GOOD: Recalls Kid's Hoodies for Strangulation Hazard

MICROSOFT CORP: $180M Ia. Antitrust Suit Deal Gets Final Okay
MORGAN STANLEY: Suit Alleges Fraudulent Sale of “Snowball Notes”
PEOPLES ENERGY: Ill. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Consumer Suit
PEOPLES GAS: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. Suit Over Connections Fees
PHLX: Settles for $80M Suit Over Rejected Archipelago Bid

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Sued Over Non-Disclosure of IRA Costs
SOUTH DAKOTA: Minnehaha Wants Teens’ Certification Motion Junked
TS TRUCKING: Faces Consolidated Labor Lawsuit in Va. Court
UNITED PARCEL: Faces “Potts” Racial Discrimination Suit in Ill.
UST INC: Settles Wisc. Suit Over Smokeless Tobacco Products

WAL-MART: Recalls Torch Lamps with Head that can Come Loose
WEBSENSE INC: Settles Employees' Overtime Lawsuit in California
WILLIAM LYON: Counsel Fees in Securities Suit Deal Appealed
WILLIAM LYON: Calif. Litigation Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed
WILLIS GROUP: Settles Gender Bias Lawsuit by Female Officers

WILLIS GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of RICO Violations Lawsuits
ZURICH FINANCIAL: $30M Settlement of Converium Spinoff Suit Ok’d


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN HOME: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
JONES SODA: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
RAIT FINANCIAL: Berger & Montague Files Pa. Securities Suit


                            *********


BLUE CROSS: Accused of Deceptive Insurance Sales Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois is facing a class-action complaint in the
Circuit Court of Third Judicial Circuit Madison County, Illinois alleging
unfair and deceptive practices in connection with the sale and issuance of
health insurance policies by the defendant, Joe Harris of the Courthouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Mark Gause says defendant collects premiums for family
insurance from people even though they are ineligible for family coverage.

Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to Section 2-801 of the Illinois Code
of civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons who purchased health care
benefits policies from defendant or were insured under health care benefits
policies issued by defendant at any time from Sept. 1997 to the present; such
individuals having policies with "Family coverage" and who had their claims
or their covered dependent's claims wrongfully denied an/or premiums
wrongfully withheld when no coverage was provided or would have been provided
if a claim was made.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant failed to give reasonable, timely, or
         adequate notice to policy holders notifying them that
         certain covered dependent's coverage may cease or
         terminate due to certain factors such as limiting age,
         marriage, school attendance, full-time employment, or
         continuing disability;

     (b) whether defendant wrongfully denied claims of covered
         dependents citing ineligibility for coverage due to
         certain factors such as limiting age, marriage, school
         attendance, full-time employment, or continuing
         disability;

     (c) whether defendant wrongfully refused ineligible covered
         dependents the right to change to a separate Individual
         Coverage policy with the same or similar benefits
         without evidence of insurability and a waiting period;

     (d) whether defendant wrongfully refused to return portions
         of previously paid premiums to policyholders when it is
         asserted that certain covered dependents were
         ineligible for coverage or would have asserted that
         certain covered dependents were ineligible had a claim
         been made; and

     (e) whether defendant wrongfully accepted and received
         premium payments for certain covered dependents when it
         knew or should have known that such covered dependents
         were ineligible for benefits under the policy.

Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

      -- awarding compensatory damages in excess of $50,000;

      -- awarding punitive damages;

      -- enjoining defendant from engaging in such deceptive
         acts and practices that are the subject matter of the
         suit;

      -- awarding costs to the plaintiff and the class; and

      -- awarding such other and further relief as the court may
         consider proper including reasonable attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Mark Gause et al. v. BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois, Case No.
07-L-765," filed in the Circuit Court of Third Judicial Circuit, Madison
County, Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David M. Hicks
          David M. Hicks, P.C.
          7720 Stonebridge Golf Drive
          Maryville, IL 62062
          Phone: 618-343-0901
          Fax: 618-301-3360


BUMBLE BEE: Faces Lawsuit in Ga. Over Recalled Canned Goods
------------------------------------------------------------
Bumble Bee Foods is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 31 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia accusing it of selling
canned goods contaminated with Clostridium botulin, a potentially lethal
bacteria, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The contaminated foods were reportedly marketed under the “Castleberry Foods”
name in Georgia.

Named plaintiff Mary Ann Massey brings this action on behalf of all consumers
who have purchased canned goods manufactured by BBF with "best by" dates from
APR30 2009 through MAY22 2009 during the period of May 1, 2006 to the present
date.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and its agents have been unjustly
         enriched by selling canned goods manufactured by BFF
         with "best by" dates from APR30 2009 through MAY22 2009
         during the period of May 1, 2006 to the present date;

     (b) whether plaintiff and members of the putative class are
         entitled to restitution for foregoing the use and
         enjoyment of the defendant's product;

     (c) whether defendants and its agents failed to timely warn
         the public and/or concealed the knowledge of
         adulterated canned goods manufactured by BFF with "best
         by" dates from APR30 2009 through MAY22 2009 during the
         period of May 1, 2006 to the present date;

     (d) whether defendants and its agents systematically
         produce and sold canned goods manufactured by BFF with
         "best by" dates from APR30 2009 through MAY22 2009
         during the period of May 1, 2006 to the present date,
         that was defective and unreasonably dangerous when put
         to its intended use;

     (e) whether defendants and its agents systematically
         produced and sold canned goods products that were not
         fit for the particular consumption of human beings;

     (f) the appropriate relief and/or measure of damages and
         disgorgement of profit for the manufacture and/or sale
         of canned goods by the defendants from May 1, 2006 to
         the present date.

Plaintiffs demand for compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount
to be determined by a jury.

The suit is “Massey v. Bumble Bee Foods, L.L.C., Case No. 1:07-cv-02122-WSD,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under
Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          William Gregory Dobson
          Dobson & Shim
          830 Mulberry Street
          Suite 201 Robert E. Lee Building
          Macon, GA 31201
          Phone: 912-745-7700
          E-mail: wmdobson@bellsouth.net


CANADA: Soldier Seeks Certification of Suit Over Pension Cuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
A former soldier, who worked as a mechanic at a Canadian Forces
Base located in Petawawa in Ontario, filed a motion asking a federal court to
certify as class action a suit he filed over clawbacks in his disability
pension benefits, The Canadian Press reports.

Peter Driscoll, a lawyer representing Dennis Manuge, said the papers were
filed in federal court and he expects a hearing to be held sometime this
fall, hopefully early November, the report states

Mr. Manuge is seeking punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages for
deductions to his pensions that the military ombudsman has declared unfair.  
He argues that the clawback deprives former soldiers of their charter right
to live free from discrimination.

Mr. Manuge met an accident while working at the army base in October 2000.  
In 2002, while still in the army, he started receiving a $444 monthly
disability pension equivalent to 20 per cent of his pay.  But the pension was
reduced when he was released from duty in December 2003 for medical reasons.  

The reduction was because the monthly Pension Act disability pensions he
received were considered a 'relevant source of income' and as such, were
deducted from the amount that would otherwise be paid to him.  

The pension scheme has been instituted since October 2000.  The military
ombudsman's office has recommended that the military stop clawing back the
money and that former personnel who had their benefits reduced due to
disability pensions be reimbursed.

Mr. Manuge is claiming that about $10,000 was clawed back from his disability
pension for two years after he was released from the military.  


DELPHI CORP: Settles Mich. Pension, Securities Suits for $340M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Corp. (PINKSHEETS: DPHIQ) has reached a settlement agreement with the
lead plaintiffs in class actions brought by participants in its employee
retirement plans and purchasers of its debt and equity securities from March
2000 to March 2005.

Under the settlement agreements, which remain subject to federal bankruptcy
court and federal district court approval, the class of participants in
Delphi's employee retirement plans will receive an allowed interest in
Delphi's Chapter 11 case in the amount of $24.5 million and $22.5 million in
cash from insurance carriers.

Additionally, the class of purchasers of Delphi's debt securities will
receive an allowed claim and the class of purchasers of Delphi's equity
securities will receive an allowed interest in the combined amount of $204
million in Delphi's Chapter 11 case as well as approximately $90 million in
cash from other defendants and insurance carriers.  The allowed amounts in
Delphi's Chapter 11 cases will receive the same plan currency and the same
treatment as Delphi's general unsecured creditors.

The lawsuits followed the company's announcement in March 2005 that it would
restate its financial results. These settlements would resolve these class
actions against Delphi and certain of the other defendants in the lawsuits.  
The final settlements provide a dismissal with prejudice of these class
action lawsuits and a full release as to certain named defendants, including
Delphi, Delphi's current directors and officers, and certain third-party
defendants and will also resolve certain derivative and other claims in
Delphi's chapter 11 cases.

"Last year, Delphi settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
now we are pleased to have reached settlement agreements in these cases,
which we believe will allow us to close this chapter in our history and move
forward," said David M. Sherbin, Delphi vice president and general
counsel.  "This is another important step in our transformation process,
which ultimately brings us closer to emergence from bankruptcy."

These settlements are subject to the approval of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York. The District Court has scheduled a hearing on
Nov. 13, 2007 to consider final approval of the settlements.  Delphi expects
to file an approval motion in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on Sept. 7, 2007,
which would be scheduled for final hearing at the Sept. 27, 2007 omnibus
hearing.


INTEGRATED DEVICE: Still Faces Cal. SRAM Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
over Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) products.

On Oct. 24, 2006, the Company was served with a civil antitrust complaint
filed by Reclaim Center, Inc., as plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company and 37 other entities
on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers of SRAM products.

The Complaint alleges that the Company and other defendants conspired to
raise the prices of SRAM, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the
California Cartwright Act, and several other states’ antitrust, unfair
competition, and consumer protection statutes.

Shortly thereafter, a number of other plaintiffs filed similar complaints.  
Given the similarity of the complaints, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the cases to a single judge in the Northern District
of California and consolidated the cases for pretrial proceedings in February
2007.  The consolidated cases are captioned, “In re Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation.”  

Plaintiffs have not yet filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, 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 July 1, 2007.

Integrated Device Technology, Inc. -- http://www.idt.com--designs, develops,  
manufactures and markets a range of semiconductor solutions for the advanced
communications and computing industries.  The Company operates in three
business segments: Networking, Timing and Memory Interface, and Standard
Products and Other.  The Networking segment includes network search engines
(NSEs), switching solutions, integrated communications processors, flow-
control management (FCM) devices, first-in/first out (FIFOs), and multi-
ports. The Timing and Memory Interface segment includes clock management,
dual in-line memory modules (DIMM) support and other timing solution
products. T he Standard Products and Other segment include high-speed static
random access memory (SRAM), military applications, digital logic products,
telecommunications and video products.  On July 31, 2006, the Company
acquired the PC Audio business from SigmaTel, Inc.


INTER-TEL INC: Del. Court Mulls Injunction Motion in “Mercier”
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware has yet to rule on a motion
for preliminary injunction in the purported class action, “Mercier v. Inter-
Tel (Delaware), Inc., et al., No. 2226-VCS.”

Inter-Tel and certain members of the Board of Directors are defendants in a
stockholder class action filed on June 15, 2006 in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.

On March 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and on May
25, 2007, the plaintiff filed supplement to the SAC alleging that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties because they failed to properly
pursue a higher bid for sale of Inter-Tel.

The proposed supplement to the Second Amended Complaint sought an injunction
prohibiting Inter-Tel from consummating the proposed merger with Mitel and
sought an order requiring the defendants to conduct an auction of Inter-Tel
open to Steven G. Mihaylo, Vector Capital Corp., and all other potentially
interested bidders.

It further sought an injunction against enforcement of Inter-Tel’s business
combination charter amendment approved by stockholders on May 31, 2006 (BCCA)
or, alternatively, a declaration that Mitel is an interested stockholder
under the BCCA and that the proposed merger with Mitel cannot be consummated
because the required vote cannot be obtained.

Finally, it sought a declaration that representations and covenants in the
merger agreement with Mitel are invalid, and damages in an unspecified
amount.

On May 24, 2007, the plaintiff filed motions seeking a preliminary injunction
and summary judgment on the claims in the Second Amended Complaint.

On June 4, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited
Proceedings, which sought to set a briefing schedule for a preliminary
injunction and allow discovery on an expedited basis regarding alleged
failure of Inter-Tel’s Board of Directors to maximize stockholder value,
among other claims.

On July 12, 2007, the plaintiffs (now including the Arizona Shareholder
Action plaintiffs) filed a Second Supplement to the Second Amended Complaint
alleging, in addition to their prior claims, that it was improper for the
stockholder meeting scheduled for June 29, 2007, to be rescheduled for Aug.
2, 2007.

On July 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction,
and the parties have conducted expedited discovery.

The motion seeks to enjoin the consummation of the merger on the grounds that
Inter-Tel improperly rescheduled the stockholder vote.

Inter-Tel, Inc. -- http://www.inter-tel.com-- gives corporate networks a  
certain ring. The company offers a wide array of communications systems,
software, and services aimed at small and midsized businesses.  Its AXXESS
communications platform integrates Internet protocol (IP), wireless, and
traditional telephony, connecting on-site and remote employees on a single
virtual network.  The company also sells conferencing and messaging
applications, as well as call center software that monitors phone activity
and links incoming customer service calls to customer account information.  
Inter-Tel also provides network design, equipment leasing, and support
services.


INTER-TEL INC: Del. Court Stays Suits Over Mitel Networks Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware granted a motion by Inter-Tel,
Inc. to stay suits in relation to its proposed merger with Mitel Networks
Corp., pending motion in “Mercier v. Inter-Tel (Delaware), Inc., et al., No.
2226-VCS.”

On April 30, 2007, two shareholder class actions were filed in the Superior
Court of the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa, against Inter-Tel and the
Board of Directors.

The suits are:

       -- “Joel Gerber v. Inter-Tel Incorporated, et al., Case
          No. CV2007-007444,” and

       -- “Farr v. Inter-Tel, Inc., et al., Case No. CV2007-
          007655.”

Another lawsuit was filed on May 22, 2007 in the same court, entitled, “Suan
Investments, Inc. v. Stout, et al., Case No. CV2007-009603.”

The actions combined allege that the Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care in connection with the proposed
merger with Mitel Networks by purportedly standing on both sides of the
transaction, engaging in self-dealing, obtaining unspecified personal
benefits, approving the merger without regard to the fairness of the
transaction to Inter-Tel stockholders, failing to exercise independent
business judgment, and imprudently accepting and relying upon advice as to
the fairness of the consideration for the proposed merger with Mitel from a
financial advisor with allegedly conflicted interests.

They further allege that the proposed merger is a product of a flawed process
that was not designed to ensure the sale of Inter-Tel for the highest value.  

The Gerber action requests an injunction prohibiting Inter-Tel from
consummating the proposed merger, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Farr action seeks an injunction prohibiting Inter-Tel from consummating
the proposed merger with Mitel and, to the extent consummated, rescission of
the proposed merger with Mitel and any of the terms of the Mitel merger
agreement, as well as the imposition of a constructive trust for improper
benefits allegedly received by defendants.  The complaint also requests
attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Suan action seeks an injunction prohibiting Inter-Tel from consummating
the merger, rights of rescission against the merger agreement entered into
with Mitel, an accounting for plaintiff’s alleged damages, and attorneys’
fees and costs.

On June 15, 2007, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay pending
resolution of the Delaware matter, entitled, “Mercier v. Inter-Tel
(Delaware), Inc., et al., No. 2226-VCS,” and ruled that the plaintiffs’
motions to expedite the proceedings were, accordingly, moot.

The plaintiffs then sought to intervene in the Delaware action and on June
22, 2007, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the plaintiffs’ motion to
intervene, 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.

Inter-Tel, Inc. -- http://www.inter-tel.com-- gives corporate networks a  
certain ring. The company offers a wide array of communications systems,
software, and services aimed at small and midsized businesses.  Its AXXESS
communications platform integrates Internet protocol (IP), wireless, and
traditional telephony, connecting on-site and remote employees on a single
virtual network.  The company also sells conferencing and messaging
applications, as well as call center software that monitors phone activity
and links incoming customer service calls to customer account information.  
Inter-Tel also provides network design, equipment leasing, and support
services.


KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Certification of Calif. Labor Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc. is appealing a ruling that granted class-action status
to a lawsuit brought on behalf of the company's employees working in the
State of California.

The claims in the lawsuit relate to alleged misclassification of personal
attendants as exempt and entitled to overtime under state law and alleged
technical violations of a state law pertaining to information furnished on
employee pay stubs.

A hearing relating to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was held on
March 5, 2007, and on April 30, 2007, the Court certified the class.  

As to the April 30 order, the Company has both filed with the trial court a
motion for reconsideration and a writ with the California Court of Appeal
seeking an interlocutory appeal, 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 July 1, 2007.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a global  
temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and territories
throughout the world.


KPMG LLP: Employees in Canada Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP, in conjunction with Kenneth
Alexander of Ball and Alexander, Barristers and Solicitors, filed a class
action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against KPMG LLP, a member of
the international firm of KPMG.

The suit claims overtime compensation for employees of KPMG were wrongfully
denied, or never properly compensated for their overtime work.

The class includes all employees of KPMG such as lawyers, non-CA staff and
others, that worked more than 44 hours in a week, were not paid overtime pay,
and are not exempt under applicable regulation.

Juroviesky and Ricci LLP are seeking to pursue statutory and common law
remedies against the Defendant for breach of the Employment Standards Act,
and Breach of Contract.

For more information, contact:

          Henry Juroviesky
          Juroviesky and Ricci LLP
          Tel: (416) 481-0718
          Fax: (416) 481-1792
          Email: info@jrclassactions.com
          Website: http://www.jrclassactions.com


LIFE IS GOOD: Recalls Kid's Hoodies for Strangulation Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Life is Good Inc., of Boston, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 400 Zippity Hoodie and
Sherpa Full Zip Children’s hooded sweatshirts with drawstrings.

The company said the sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood, posing a
strangulation hazard to children. 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, such as jackets and sweatshirts. No
injuries have been reported.

The recall includes Girls “Zippity Hoodie” (style GHZCOLL) and Girls “Sherpa
Full Zip Hoodie” (style GHZBASH) children’s sweatshirts. Style numbers are
printed on the hang tag of the garments. The sweatshirts are brown, pink or
light blue and “Life is Good” is printed on the front of the sweatshirts. The
sweatshirts were sold in children’s sizes small to large.

These recalled hoodies were manufactured in China and are being sold at
independent retailers in Boston and Chatham, Massachusetts and Flagstaff,
Arizona from July 2007 through August 2007 for between $40 and $50.

Picture of recalled hoodies:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07573.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard and contact Life is Good to receive a
refund or store credit.

For additional information, contact Life is Good toll-free at (888) 339-2987
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or contact the firm via e-
mail: Customer_Service@lifeisgood.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: $180M Ia. Antitrust Suit Deal Gets Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Polk County District Court granted final approval to the $180 million
settlement of an antitrust class action filed against Microsoft Corp., John
Stokdyk of the Accounting Web reports.

The suit was filed in 2000.  It claimed that Microsoft engaged in illegal
monopolization and anticompetitive conduct between 1994 and 2006 that caused
customers to pay more for software.

Plaintiffs claim that Microsoft violated Iowa antitrust laws. Because of
this, the lawsuit claims that consumers and businesses paid more for
Microsoft Software.  Microsoft denies the claims and says it developed and
sold high quality software products at fair and reasonable prices.

The class includes all individuals and businesses that purchased a license
for Microsoft software for use in Iowa from someone other than Microsoft
between May 18, 1994, and June 30, 2006.  The class also includes Iowa State
and its local governments that purchased a license for Microsoft software for
use in Iowa from someone other than Microsoft between July 1, 2002 and June
30, 2006.

Microsoft settled the case for about $179.95 million.

Class members are entitled to receive:

     - $16 for each copy of Windows or MS-DOS;
     - $25 for each copy of Microsoft Excel;
     - $29 for each copy of Microsoft Office; and
     - $10 for each copy of Microsoft Word, Works and Home
       Essential software.

Payment will be in the form of cash or vouchers that can be used towards the
purchase of computers, peripheral computer hardware, and software from any
manufacturer, not just Microsoft.

Half of any funds that are not claimed will be provided as vouchers for
hardware, software and technology services to Iowa public schools.  One
hundred percent of the volume license vouchers claimed but not redeemed will
also be provided to Iowa public schools.

In May, the Polk County District Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2007).

Lead plaintiffs in the suit are Joe Comes of Riley Paint Inc., an Iowa
corporation, Skeffington's Formal Wear of Iowa Inc., and Patricia Anne Larsen.

The case is "Joe Comes, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No.
CL82311" filed in Iowa District for Polk County.

The Settlement on the Net: http://www.IowaMicrosoftCase.com

Plaintiffs' lawyer information:
     
          Roxanne B. Conlin
          Roxanne B. Conlin and Associates, P.C.
          319 7th Street, Suite 600
          Des Moines, Iowa 50309-3826
          Phone: 515-283-1111
          Fax: 515-282-0477
          Web Site: http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David B. Tulchin, Esq.
          Sullivan and Cromwell LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2498
          Phone: (212) 558-4000
          Fax: (212) 558-3588
          Web Site: http://www.sullcrom.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Suit Alleges Fraudulent Sale of “Snowball Notes”
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed
Aug. 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging it defrauded investors and violated securities laws by
selling “snowball notes,” the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Lead plaintiffs David Mesri, as Trustee of the Mesri 2001 Irrevocable Trust,
and Rayburn Enterprises Limited, bring this action on behalf of all who
purchased or otherwise acquired "Snowball notes" issued by Bayerische
Landesbank and underwritten by Morgan Stanley between Aug. 30, 2004 and
present, and were damaged as a result.

Snowball notes are “hybrid investments” or “structured securities,” which are
combinations of straight debt instruments and derivatives. Their interest
payments are tied to the London Interbank Offered Rate.

This action arises from Morgan Stanley's issuance of false and misleading
offering of Snowball notes, and specifically, Morgan Stanley's failure to
disclose material information in connection with the pricing of the Snowball
notes. Had Morgan Stanley disclosed all material facts concerning the priving
of the Snowball notes, Morgan Stanley would have been unable to market the
Snowball notes to the investing public. Thus plaintiffs and the class were
directly damaged by defendants' behavior, and are entitled to relief under
the law.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by
         defendants' omissions as alleged;

     (b) whether the written offering documents issued by Morgan
         Stanley for the Snowball notes omitted material
         information;

     (c) whether defendants acted with scienter in omitting
         material information;

     (d) whether the market prices of the Snowball notes were
         artificially inflated due to the material omissions
         complained of; and

     (e) whether the members of the class have sustained
         damages, and if so, the appropriate measure thereof.

Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

     -- certifying the class and appoint plaintiff as class
        representative pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 23;

     -- awarding compensatory damages against defendants,
        jointly and severally, including disgorgement of all
        unjust enrichment, and for damages suffered as a result
        of defendants' violations of the securities laws;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class prejudgment and post-
        judgment interest, as well as the fees and expenses
        incurred in this action, including reasonable allowance
        of fees for plaintiffs' attorneys and experts;

     -- granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive
        relief as permitted by law, equity, and statutory
        provisions sued on herein, including attaching,
        impounding, imposing a constructive trust upon or
        otherwise restricting the proceeds of defendants'
        trading activities or their assets so as to assure that
        plaintiff and the class have an effective remedy; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as the court may
        deem just and proper.

The suit is "David Mesri et al. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Case No.
CV07-05699 MRP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Philip M. Aidikoff
          Robert A. Uhl
          Ryan K. Bakhtiari
          Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, California 90212
          Phone: 310-274-0666
          Fax: 310-859-0513
          Website: http://www.securitiesarbitration.com

          - and -

          Neville L. Johnson
          Douglas L. Johnson
          Justin M. Righettini
          Johnson & Johnson, LLP
          439 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Email: njohnson@jjllplaw.com or djohnson@jjllplaw.com
                 or jrighettini@jjllplaw.com
    

PEOPLES ENERGY: Ill. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cook County (Ill.) Circuit Court has yet to rule on a motion seeking for
a dismissal of a lawsuit that accuses Peoples Energy Corp. of violating the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in relation to
matters at issue in the utilities’ fiscal year 2001 Gas Charge reconciliation
proceedings.

In February 2004, customers of The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co. and North
Shore Gas Co. (NSG) filed a purported class action in Cook County Circuit
Court against Peoples Energy, Peoples Gas, North Shore.

The suit, “Alport et al. v. Peoples Energy Corp.,” seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.  Peoples Gas and North Shore have been
dismissed as defendants and the only remaining counts of the suit allege
violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
that Peoples Energy acted in concert with others to commit a tortious act.  
Peoples Energy denies the allegations and is vigorously defending the suit.

On Sept. 25, 2006, the court granted in part Peoples Energy's motion to
dismiss the case by limiting the potential class members in the suit to those
persons who were customers during the time that Peoples Energy’s joint
venture with Enron was in operation and did not receive part of the
settlement proceeds from the reconciliation cases.

However, the court denied Peoples Energy’s motion to dismiss the case to the
extent that the complaint seeks punitive damages (regardless of whether such
customers received part of the settlement proceeds from the reconciliation
cases).

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and a motion for class
certification and on April 25, 2007 the Court denied, without prejudice,
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

On June 29, 2007, Peoples Gas and North Shore filed a motion to dismiss the
proceeding for failure to join a necessary party.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on July 11, 2007.  

Subsequently, Peoples Gas' and North Shore's motion to delay responding to
the amended complaint until the court rules on the motion to dismiss was
granted.

Peoples Energy Corp. -- http://www.pecorp.com-- is a holding company and  
does not engage directly in any business of its own. It operates through its
regulated utility subsidiaries, The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., and North
Shore Gas Co.  Peoples Energy's other subsidiaries are Peoples Energy
Resources Co., LLC, Peoples Energy Services Corporation, Peoples Energy
Production Co. and Peoples District Energy Corp.  It has five segments: Gas
Distribution, Oil and Gas Production, Energy Marketing, Energy Assets, and
Corporate and Other.

    
PEOPLES GAS: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. Suit Over Connections Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Gas Light and Coke, Co. and several other companies are seeking for
the dismissal of an amended class action complaint that accuses them of
improperly charging connection and disconnection fees to several Chicago-
based builders.

In June 2005, the purported class action was filed against the company by
Birchwood Builders, LLC in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  It
named as defendants:

       -- Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co.; and
       -- North Shore Gas Co.

The suit generally accuses defendants of fraudulently and improperly charging
fees to customers with respect to utility connections, disconnections,
reconnections, relocations, extensions of gas service pipes and extensions of
distribution gas mains and failing to return related customer deposits.

Peoples Gas and North Shore filed two motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  On
Jan. 25, 2007, the judge entered an order dismissing the complaint, but
allowing the plaintiffs the option of filing an amended complaint, except as
to the plaintiffs’ seeking of declaratory relief, which was dismissed with
prejudice.  The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs could file their claims
directly with the Illinois Commerce Commission.  

On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the Circuit
Court.  Peoples Gas and North Shore intend to respond by filing a motion to
dismiss, 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.

Peoples Energy Corp. -- http://www.pecorp.com-- is a holding company and  
does not engage directly in any business of its own. It operates through its
regulated utility subsidiaries, The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., and North
Shore Gas Co.  Peoples Energy's other subsidiaries are Peoples Energy
Resources Co., LLC, Peoples Energy Services Corporation, Peoples Energy
Production Co. and Peoples District Energy Corp.  It has five segments: Gas
Distribution, Oil and Gas Production, Energy Marketing, Energy Assets, and
Corporate and Other.


PHLX: Settles for $80M Suit Over Rejected Archipelago Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. on behalf of Class A shareholders of Philadelphia
Stock Exchange (PHLX) has finalized terms to settle a pending class action
filed by ex-seatholder Chuck Ginsburg.

Named defendants are Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Citadel
Derivatives Group LLC, Credit Suisse First Boston Next Fund Inc., Citigroup
Financial Products Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co., and UBS Securities LLC.

The suit accuses chief executive Meyer Frucher of serving his own interest by
rejecting a $50 million bid by Archipelago in 2004 in favor of another deal
that would give him a generous equity bonus.  It also says that PHLX gave up
nearly 90 percent of its equity when it accepted a capital infusion from
Merrill, Citadel, UBS and Credit Suisse, among others.  This it did after
rejecting another offer –- that of electronic options and futures trading
powerhouse Timberhill, according to the lawsuit.

Lawrence Deutsch of Berger & Montague, who represented the class,
explains: "The settlement includes a return to the Class A Shareholders of
14% of the shares held by the six defendant firms and the cancellation of 14%
of the restricted stock units issued to Meyer Frucher, the Chairman of the
Exchange, plus $17.1 million in cash. Depending upon market value of the
PHLX, this settlement is valued in the range of $67-$80 million or more. We
are pleased by this settlement which is a fine result for our class. This
result also upholds the rights of all shareholders to successfully challenge
a board's actions in a dilutive transaction."

The case was settled just prior to the scheduled commencement of trial in
Chancery Court in Delaware. Counsel for the class of PHLX shareholders are
attorneys Lawrence Deutsch and Robin Switzenbaum of the law firm of Berger &
Montague, P.C. and attorneys Joseph Rosenthal and Jessica Zeldin of the
Delaware law firm of Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.

PHLX shareholders who may be eligible to participate in the settlement will
receive by mail a notice advising them of the full terms and conditions of
the settlement.

If the court approves the terms of the settlement, the proceeds of the
settlement will be distributed in accordance with a plan to be proposed by
class counsel subject to court approval.

Plaintiff's Class Counsel:

          Lawrence Deutsch, Esquire
          Robin Switzenbaum, Esquire
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 800-424-6690 or 215-875-3000
          Fax: 215-875-5715
          E-Mail: ldeutsch@bm.net or rswitzenbaum@bm.net
          Website: http://www.bergermontague.com


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Sued Over Non-Disclosure of IRA Costs
----------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group Inc. is facing complaints filed Aug. 28 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa alleging securities fraud
and violations of federal statutes governing employee retirement plans, S.P.
Dinnen of the DesMoinesRegister.com reports.

The Iowa-based plaintiffs -- Jerri Young and Patricia Walsh –- allege that
sales people of the nation’s largest administrator of 401(k) plans illegally
induced them to transfer money from investments in low cost 401(k) accounts
to higher cost Individual Retirement Accounts.

According to the suit, Principal had sent letters to pre-retirees in 401(k)
plans that were administered by the firm, "misleading them to believe they
were dealing with their account manager ..," the MutualFundWire said.

Plaintiffs allege that Principal failed to disclose that the phone number
included in the letters was the phone number of sales agents at Princor
Financial Services Corp. -- a dealer unit of Principal, instead of
Principal's 401(k) department.

Plaintiffs further allege that those sales agents tried to convince them to
roll over their 401(k) assets into a Principal IRA with a class of mutual
funds called "J shares." Such shares are the only ones the sales agents can
sell to plan participants who roll over their assets, even though Principal
has many classes of less expensive mutual funds it sells to everyone else.

The petition claimed that Principal and its counselors had a legal
responsibility to act in the best interest of the plaintiffs, but instead
worked to enrich themselves.

The lawsuit asked that Principal be forced to disgorge any profits it made
off of plaintiffs or any other investor in a similar situation.

Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of costs and expenses charged after the
assets were moved to the IRA minus fees that would have been charged if the
assets remained in the 401(k) accounts.

The ERISA suit is “Young, et al v. Principal Financial Group, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 4:07-cv-00386-RP-CFB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, under Judge Robert W. Pratt, with referral to
Judge Celeste F. Bremer.

The securities suit is “Young et al v. Principal Financial Group, Inc. et
al., Case No. 4:07-cv-00387-JAJ-RAW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa, under Judge John A. Jarvey, with referral to
Judge Ross A. Walters.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Timm W. Reid
          Richard H. Doyle, IV
          James A. Albert
          Brian P. Galligan
          Galligan, Doyle, Reid & Galligan, P.C.
          300 Walnut Street
          The Plaza, Suite 5
          Des Moines, IA 50309-2239
          Phone: 515 282-333
          Fax: 515 282-0318
          E-mail: treid@galliganlaw.com or doyle@galliganlaw.com
                  or jalbert@galliganlaw.com or
                  bgalligan@galliganlaw.com


SOUTH DAKOTA: Minnehaha Wants Teens’ Certification Motion Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minnehaha County officials are fighting a motion to certify a suit filed by
three teens strip-searched at the county juvenile detention center, Sioux
City Journal reports.  

The county says each case should be considered on its own merits and not
allowed as a class action because the facts of each search are too varied to
make a broad ruling.  

"In order to establish liability, each claim will require individualized
evidence concerning the circumstances surrounding the particular admission,
admittee, search and the person performing the search," Gary Thimsen wrote in
a response to the request for certification of class-action status, according
to the report.

In each case, the type of search, the juvenile's age and the effect of the
search on the juvenile would all need to be examined, he added.  Federal
Judge Lawrence Piersol has still to decide whether to certify the suit or not.

One of the plaintiffs is a Rochester resident, Jillian Clark, who was
arrested for shoplifting at a department store in Sioux Falls nearly seven
years ago (Class Action Reporter, July 10, 2007).  She was 17 at the time.

The other two plaintiffs are Nicole Stauffacher, detained for shoplifting in
1997, and Ross Engelbrecht, who was arrested at 17 for underage alcohol
consumption.

The suit seeks compensatory damages.

Representing the plaintiffs is Juliet Berger-White is:

          Hughes Socol Piers, Esq.
          Resnick & Dym, Ltd.
          70 West Madison, Suite 4000
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          (Cook Co.)
          Phone: 312-580-0100
          Telecopy: 312-580-1994


TS TRUCKING: Faces Consolidated Labor Lawsuit in Va. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
T.S. Trucking is facing a suit filed in Warren Circuit Court by two truck
drivers claiming they were not properly paid for work rendered to the
company, reports say.

Dennis Richards is suing the company for regular and overtime wages for work
he performed before and after his driving duties.

According to a WBKO report, T.S. Trucking said if it was work done outside
his regular duties, they shouldn't have to pay him. But Mr. Richards argued
if that's the case, they shouldn't have made him perform the work.

Another suit, filed by Jeffrey Burke -- who drives for T.S. Trucking on
prevailing wage jobs -- claims the company did not pay him the prevailing
wage for the driving he did.

Warren Circuit Judge Steve Wilson has now issued an order combining both
lawsuits into a class action.  The judge is allowing anyone who has driven
for T.S. Trucking in the past five years to be a party to this lawsuit.

The class action includes current and former employees of TS Trucking from
July 2002 until August 2007.


UNITED PARCEL: Faces “Potts” Racial Discrimination Suit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 10
in Chicago Federal Court.

Named plaintiff Shauntel Potts accuses UPS of harassing, discriminating
against and firing black employees.

The suit is “Potts v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-03949,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kathleen Currie Chavez
          Chavez Law Firm P.C.
          28 North First Street, #2
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Phone: (630)232-4480
          E-mail: gkeg4@aol.com

          Peter Lawrence Currie
          The Law Firm of Peter L. Currie, P.C.
          536 Wing Lane
          St. Charles, IL 60174
          Phone: (630) 862-1130
          Fax: (630) 845-8982
          E-mail: plclaw05@aol.com

          - and -

          Robert M. Foote
          Stephen William Fung
          Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, LLC
          28 North First Street, Suite #2
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Phone: (630) 232-6333
          E-mail: rmf@foote-meyers.com or sfung@foote-meyers.com

Representing defendant is:

          Gary R. Clark
          Quarles & Brady LLP
          500 West Madison Street, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60661-2511
          Phone: (312) 715-5000
          E-mail: gclark@quarles.com


UST INC: Settles Wisc. Suit Over Smokeless Tobacco Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Michael Dwyer has granted preliminary approval
to a settlement of a purported class action filed against UST Inc. over its
smokeless tobacco products.  The agreement could cost the company up to $65
million, according to a report by Marie Rhode of the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel.

Deadline to file claims is on July 28, 2008.  A final hearing is scheduled
for Dec. 4.

Following a previous antitrust action brought against the Company by a
competitor, Conwood Company L.P, the Company was named as a defendant in
certain actions brought by indirect purchasers (consumers and retailers) in a
number of jurisdictions.  

As indirect purchasers of the Company’s smokeless tobacco products during
various periods of time ranging from January 1990 to the date of
certification or potential certification of the proposed class, plaintiffs in
those actions allege, individually and on behalf of putative class members in
a particular state or individually and on behalf of class members in the
applicable states, that the Company has violated the antitrust laws, unfair
and deceptive trade practices statutes and/or common law of those states.

In 2002 a Wisconsin lawsuit was brought on behalf of Jason Feuerabend, a
snuff user who runs a dry cleaner, and all others who bought UST products
between January 1990 and May 7, 2004.

Mr. Feuerabend's lawsuit contended that he paid too much for his snuff
because of UST's monopolistic tactics.

In connection with these actions, plaintiffs sought to recover compensatory
and statutory damages in an amount not to exceed $75 thousand per purported
class member or per class member, and certain other relief.  The indirect
purchaser actions, as filed, were similar in all material respects.

Prior to 2007, actions in all but four of the jurisdictions were resolved,
either through court-approved settlements or dismissals, including a
dismissal in the New Hampshire action that is currently on appeal by the
plaintiffs.

As the case headed to trial in mid- to late 2007, the sides went to mediation
and settlement discussions. UST's board of directors approved a proposed
settlement in April.

In May, UST settled purported class actions over smokeless tobacco products
that were filed in California and Wisconsin (Class Action Reporter, May 29,
2007).

Under the settlement, Wisconsin snuff users could each receive $816 in
coupons that will enable them to buy the smokeless tobacco at a huge discount
over the next 20 years. To get the coupons, consumers must be adults and
swear that they bought UST snuff between 1990 and 2004.

UST coupons will be either $6 off for three-pack of tins or $1.50 off single
tins, about half off the current price of a tin of snuff.  Mr. Feuerabend
will receive $10,000 as a result of the settlement.  Lawyers who brought the
suit are to receive $17 million.

UST denies any wrongdoing or that smokeless tobacco causes health problems.

UST, Inc. -- http://www.ustinc.com/-- a holding company for its wholly owned  
subsidiaries: U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company and International Wine & Spirits
Ltd.  The company is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of consumer
products in three operating segments: Smokeless Tobacco Products, Wine and
All Other Operations.  The Smokeless Tobacco Products segment manufactures
and markets smokeless tobacco products. The Wine segment produces and markets
varietal and blended wines, and imports and distributes wines from Italy.  
UST Inc.'s international operations, which market moist smokeless tobacco,
are included in the All Other Operations segment.


WAL-MART: Recalls Torch Lamps with Head that can Come Loose
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 138,000 ceramic oil
torch lamps.

The company said the ceramic torch head can come loose or be dislodged during
use, allowing it to break and spill torch fuel. This poses a risk of cuts,
fire or burn injuries and property damage.

The firm has received 107 reports of the ceramic torch head separating from
its base. There are two reports of injuries including cuts to the hands of a
consumer who was picking up broken pieces, and a child who received a cut to
the scalp from a falling torch head and a skin rash from the spilled oil.

The recalled oil torch lamp is 6-feet tall with a green, bowl-shaped, ceramic
open-flame lamp that is attached to a brown cast iron pole and stand. A flame
snuffer is attached to the lamp by a chain. The lamp and pole can be
disconnected from the base and the pole placed directly in the ground. The
product was sold as a set of four torches.

The recalled oil torch lamps were manufactured in China and are being sold at
Sam’s Clubs nationwide from February 2007 through July 2007 for about $60.

Pictures of recalled oil torch lamps:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07572a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07572b.jpg

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled torch lamps and return
them to Sam’s Club for a full refund. Sam’s Club is contacting consumers who
purchased the torch lamps directly.

For additional information, contact the firm’s recall hotline at (800) 828-
9316 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
web site: http://www.walmartstores.com


WEBSENSE INC: Settles Employees' Overtime Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Websense Inc. has reached a settlement in a purported class action filed by a
certain Jason Tauber in California Superior Court for the County of San Diego
on Sept. 29, 2006.

The complaint, "Tauber v. Websense" alleges that the plaintiff and a putative
class of certain software engineers and computer professionals who worked for
the company as exempt employees during the period from Sept. 15, 2002 through
the present should have been classified as non-exempt employees under
California law and should have been paid for overtime.

The complaint also alleges related wage and hour violations of the California
Labor Code arising from the alleged misclassification and that the failure to
pay overtime constitutes an unfair business practice under California
Business and Professions Code SS17200.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for unpaid overtime, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs, statutory penalties for alleged
violations, and other proper relief.  

The parties to the action executed a stipulation of settlement to settle all
claims made in the putative class action.  The stipulation of settlement is
still subject to court approval.

Websense, Inc. -- http://www.websense.com-- provides Web filtering and Web  
security software products that enable organizations to protect employees and
confidential information from external Web-based attacks, such as spyware and
phishing, as well as analyze, report and manage how employees use computing
resources and the Internet.  In January 2007, Websense acquired PortAuthority
Technologies, Inc. (PortAuthority), its technology development partner for
information leak prevention solutions.  As a result, in addition to Web
filtering and Web security software products, the Company offers software
that helps prevent the loss of confidential information from internal
threats, such as ineffective business process controls, employee error and
malfeasance.


WILLIAM LYON: Counsel Fees in Securities Suit Deal Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Supreme Court referred for en Banc review an appeal on the fee
award to plaintiffs counsel in the settlement of the consolidated stockholder
class action, "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case
No. 05-CC-00092."

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced a tender
offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the company's common stock not
already owned by the principal holder.  Initially, the price offered in the
tender was $93 per share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

Initially, two purported class actions were filed, purportedly on behalf of
the public stockholders of the company, challenging the tender offer and
challenging related actions of the company and the directors of the company.  

The suits are:

       -- "Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
          Action No. 2015-N" was filed on March 20, 2006, and

       -- "Michael Crady, et al. v. General William Lyon, et
          al., Civil Action No. 2017-N" was filed on March 21,
          2006.  

Both suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in
and for New Castle County.

On March 21, 2006, plaintiff in the "Brown" action filed a first amended
complaint.  The Delaware Complaints name the company and the directors of the
company as defendants.

These complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs in connection with the
tender offer and other related corporate activities.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the tender offer and, among other things, to
obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to the litigation.

On March 23, 2006, the company announced that its board had appointed a
special committee of independent directors who are not members of the
company's management or employed by the company to consider the tender
offer.  The members of the Special Committee are Harold H. Greene, Lawrence
M. Higby, and Dr. Arthur Laffer.

The company also announced that the Special Committee had retained Morgan
Stanley & Co. as its financial advisor and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its
legal counsel.

                  Consolidation and Settlement

On March 24, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the Delaware
Complaints into a single case entitled, "In re: William Lyon Homes
Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2015-N."

On April 10, 2006, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action executed a
Memorandum of Understanding, detailing a proposed settlement subject to the
Delaware Chancery Court's approval.

Pursuant to the MOU, General Lyon increased his offer of $93 per share to
$100 per share, extended the closing date of the offer to April 21, 2006,
and, on April 11, 2006, filed an amended Schedule Tender Offer.

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action have determined that the
settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of
plaintiffs and the putative Class."

The Special Committee also determined that the price of $100 per share was
fair to the shareholders, and recommended that the company's shareholders
accept the revised tender offer and tender their shares.

Thereafter, General Lyon also decided to further extend the closing date of
the tender offer from April 21, 2006 to April 28, 2006.

                    Certification, Dismissal

On April 23, 2006, Delaware Chancery Court conditionally certified a class in
the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The parties to the Consolidated Delaware
Action agreed to a Stipulation of Settlement, and on Aug. 9, 2006, the
Delaware Chancery Court certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware
Action, approved the settlement, and dismissed the Consolidated Delaware
Action with prejudice as to all defendants and the class.

On Feb. 16, 2007, the fee award to Plaintiffs’ counsel was appealed to the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.  On July 18, 2007, a three-judge
panel of the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral argument, and, on July 19,
2007, referred the matter for consideration by the Court en Banc.  

William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com-- is primarily engaged in the  
design, construction and sale of single-family detached and attached homes in
California, Arizona and Nevada. The Company offers a range of homes designed
to meet the specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily
emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer markets.  As of
Dec. 31, 2006, the Company marketed its homes through 53 sales locations in
both its wholly-owned projects and projects being developed in consolidated
joint ventures.  


WILLIAM LYON: Calif. Litigation Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action that challenges a tender offer by one of William
Lyon Homes, Inc.'s stockholders continue to be stayed.

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced a tender
offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the company's common stock not
already owned by the principal holder.  Initially, the price offered in the
tender was $93 per share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

On that same day, the complaint, "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. William
Lyon Homes, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CC-00047," was filed in the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of Orange.  On April 5, 2006,
plaintiff in the Alaska Electrical action filed an amended complaint.   

The complaint in the California Action names the company and certain of its
directors as defendants and alleges, among other things, that the defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties to the public stockholders.  

Plaintiff in the California Action also sought to enjoin the tender offer,
and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to
the litigation.  

On April 20, 2006, the California court denied the request of plaintiff in
the California Action to enjoin the Tender Offer. Plaintiff filed a motion to
certify a class in the California Action, which was later taken off calendar,
and the company filed a motion to stay the California Action.  

On July 5, 2006, the California Court granted the company's motion to stay
the California Action.  

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.

William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com-- is primarily engaged in the  
design, construction and sale of single-family detached and attached homes in
California, Arizona and Nevada. The Company offers a range of homes designed
to meet the specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily
emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer markets.

    
WILLIS GROUP: Settles Gender Bias Lawsuit by Female Officers
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a nationwide gender discrimination class action
filed against Willis Group Holdings Ltd. in federal district court.

The case was commenced in 2001 on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of
present and former female officer and officer equivalent employees alleging
that the company discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and
seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has denied plaintiffs' motions to certify a nationwide class or to
grant nationwide discovery, but has certified a class of female officers and
officer equivalent employees based in the company's Northeast (New York, New
Jersey and Massachusetts) offices.  The class consists of approximately 200
women.  

In June 2007 the parties reached a settlement in principle on the class
claims and with the two remaining named plaintiffs on their individual claims
for an amount that will not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations.

The parties must agree on the terms of the written settlement agreement
including the terms of the injunctive relief that the Company will agree to
provide under the settlement, 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.

Willis Group Holdings Limited -- http://www.willis.com-- is the ultimate  
holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and
subsidiaries) from the United Kingdom to Bermuda.  The Company provides a
range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to
worldwide clients.  


WILLIS GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of RICO Violations Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Ltd. is seeking for the dismissal of two consolidated
lawsuits pending against it in New Jersey federal court alleging, among
others, violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Since August 2004, various plaintiffs have filed purported class actions
against the company in:

     -- the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
        York,

     -- the Northern District of Illinois,

     -- the Northern District of California,

     -- the New Jersey District Court, and

     -- the Circuit Court for the 18th Judicial Circuit in and
        for Seminole County, Florida Civil Division

The suits were filed under a variety of legal theories, including state tort,
contract, fiduciary duty and statutory theories, and federal antitrust and
RICO theories.

Other than a federal suit in Illinois that was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff in May 2005, all of the federal actions have been consolidated into
two actions in federal court in New Jersey.  

One of the consolidated actions addresses employee benefits, while the other
consolidated action addresses all other lines of insurance.

In addition to the two federal actions, the company was also named as a
defendant in purported class actions in the 18th
Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida Civil
Division and Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court Department of the
Trial Court.  In June 2006, the plaintiff in the Massachusetts state action
voluntarily dismissed its complaint with prejudice.

Both the consolidated federal actions and the Florida state action name
various insurance carriers and insurance brokerage firms, including the
company, as defendants.  

The complaints seek monetary damages and equitable relief and make
allegations regarding the practices and conduct that has been the subject of
the investigation of state attorneys general and insurance commissioners,
including allegations that the brokers have breached their duties to their
clients by entering into contingent compensation agreements with either no
disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and entered into other improper
activities.

They also allege the existence of a conspiracy among the insurance carriers
and brokers and the federal court complaints allege violations of the federal
RICO statue.

In April 2007, the Judge in the two consolidated federal actions dismissed
the antitrust and RICO claims based on a failure to state viable claims.  
Plaintiffs have filed amended pleadings and defendants have renewed their
motion to dismiss, 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.

Willis Group Holdings Limited -- http://www.willis.com-- is the ultimate  
holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and
subsidiaries) from the United Kingdom to Bermuda.  The Company provides a
range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to
worldwide clients.  It provides specialized risk management advisory and
other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including
the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries


ZURICH FINANCIAL: $30M Settlement of Converium Spinoff Suit Ok’d
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote granted preliminary approval to a settlement
of a suit filed against Zurich Financial Services in relation to the spinoff
of its former reinsurance unit Converium Holding AG in 2001, Reuters reports.

Under the agreement, Zurich has agreed to pay $30 million to all persons or
entities purchasing Converiums common stock and/or American Depository Shares
between Dec. 11, 2001, and Sept. 2, 2004.  Zurich did not admit liability for
the claims brought by Converiums shareholders.

The suit charged that Zurich Financial knew at the time of its initial public
offering of re-insurer Converium in 2001 that Converium was under-reserved
for the amount of claims it would have to ultimately pay, and would have to
take "hundreds of millions of dollars in charges to meet previously
undisclosed liabilities."

Converium is currently in the process of being taken over by Frances Scor SA.

The class includes investors who bought Converium stock between December 11,
2001 and Sept. 2, 2004, according to the complaint.

The lead plaintiffs in the case are Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi, a pension fund, and Avalon Holdings Inc., a private
institutional investor based in Greece.

The settlement is subject to approval of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN HOME: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action in the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased or can trace their purchases
of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (PINKSHEETS: AHMIQ) common stock
to the Company's April 30, 2007 secondary public offering.

The Complaint charges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and
15 of the Securities Act, because the Offering Materials contained a number
of untrue statements of material fact and misleading omissions. As a result,
class members purchased the Complaint AHM common stock at an inflated price
and suffered damages when the price plummeted in July and early August 2007.

The Offering Materials consisted of:

     (a) the Registration Statement dated December 15, 2004, and
         made effective as of April 30, 2007, by the Prospectus
         Supplement;

     (b) the Prospectus dated January 6, 2005, offering
         $761,875,000 of securities for sale, and made effective
         as of April 30, 2007, by the Prospectus Supplement;

     (c) the Prospectus Supplement dated April 30, 2007 (the
         "Prospectus Supplement") issued in connection with the
         offering of four million (4,000,000) shares of AHM
         common stock; and

     (d) all documents incorporated by reference into each and
         every document listed in (a)-(c)of this paragraph
         (collectively referred to as the "Offering Materials").

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

For more information, contact:

          Bradley P. Dyer
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818
          Fax: (212) 682-1892


JONES SODA: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Jones Soda Company common stock
during the period between March 9, 2007 and August 2, 2007.

The complaint alleges that as a result of Jones Soda's release of its fourth
quarter 2006 results after the close of trading on March 8, 2007, and
defendants' very bullish statements to analysts and the investment community
after releasing those results, including announcing Jones Soda was expanding
the sales channels of its Jones Soda product in 12-ounce cans to major
retailers such as Wal-Mart, Kroger, Safeway and Kmart, Jones Soda stock
traded up from its closing price of under $14 per share on March 8, 2007 to
close above $17 per share on March 9, 2007.

Specifically, defendants stated that through Jones Soda's expanded sales
network and advertising activities then underway, Jones Soda was on track to
obtain 25% of the $66 billion canned soda market during the first half of
2007. Defendants' continued bullish statements in subsequent weeks drove the
stock price above $32 per share by April 16, 2007. On August 2, 2007,
however, the Company reported significantly lower-than-expected canned soda
sales and difficulty getting the new canned soda product onto retailers'
shelves.

According to the complaint, despite earlier promises to have the new canned
product onto retailer shelves in advance of the Memorial Day holiday and to
use a huge national advertising blitz to increase brand recognition that
weekend to increase sales and market share, defendants would admit they
lacked the requisite sales and distribution resources to execute the launch,
failed to obtain shelf-space at the national chains and essentially bumbled
the launch of Jones Soda 12-ounce cans, forcing them to cancel the
advertising campaign.

As a result, the Company's first half 2007 financial performance
significantly underperformed the investment community's expectations. Jones
Soda's stock price plunged 23% to $11.70 per share, down more than 65% from
its Class Period high.

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

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com


RAIT FINANCIAL: Berger & Montague Files Pa. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Berger & Montague, P.C. commended a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock RAIT Financial Trust between January
10, 2007 through July 31, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendant violated the federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in press
releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the
Class Period.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
failed to disclose:

     (i) that through its recently acquired Taberna subsidiary
         the Company was exposed to high risk debt instruments
         from distressed lenders, including a high concentration
         of debt from a single borrower;

    (ii) that the Company failed to adequately reserve for
         losses; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to
         generate future revenue would be in serious doubt.

Moreover, the values of the Company's assets, net income and earnings were
materially overstated at all relevant times.

On July 31, 2007, RAIT issued a press release announcing that "all issuers of
RAIT's trust preferred securities, other than American Home Mortgage
Investment Corp. ("AHM"), made their payments due on July 30, 2007. RAIT has
net equity exposure to AHM of approximately $95 million, or $1.56 per share
of book value, resulting from trust preferred financing provided AHM in
2005."

In response to this announcement, the price if RAIT common stock fell $5.72
per share, or approximately 36%, to close at $10.36 per share, on extremely
heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 26, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Arthur Stock, Esquire
          Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (888) 891-2289
          Fax: (215) 875-5715
          E-mail: investorprotect@bm.n


                            *********


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  * * *