CAR_Public/070910.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, September 10, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 179

                            Headlines



ALOHA HOUSEWARES: Recalls Electric Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
B&F SYSTEM: Recalls Emergency Tool Kits for Fire, Shock Hazards
CENTENNIAL COMMS: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Certify Fraud Suit
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Homebuyers’ Fraud Lawsuit in Tenn.
FLORIDA: Trial of Suit Over Canker Eradication Program Set Oct.

GOLD FIELDS: Continues to Face Suits by Quapaw Tribes in Okla.
MARS PETCARE: Recalls Dog Food on Possible Contamination
MERRILL LYNCH: $125M Research Reports Suit Settlement Approved
NAM TAI: N.Y. Court Denies Class Status for N.Y. Securities Suit
NCS PEARSON: Settles SAT Scoring Error Lawsuit for $2.85M

NISSAN: Tex. Judge’s Son Withdraws Suit Over Odometers
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Lawsuit Over 2006 Derailment in Ala.
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Montana Power Shakeup
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Awaits Ruling on Fees in S.D. Securities Suit
OHALEE INC: Recalls FA-A70 Youth ATVs Lacking Parts, Label

PHH CORP: Md. Court Partially Dismisses Suit Over $1.8B Buyout
PHH CORP: Continues to Faces Several N.J Securities Fraud Suits
PLEXUS CORP: Faces Wis. Suits Over England Plant Closure
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Faces Suit in Ore. Over Patient Data Theft
QC HOLDINGS: Settles Lawsuit by Loan Applicant in Arizona

QC HOLDINGS: Mo. Court Mulls Arbitration Bid in Customers' Suit
QC HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans
RAIT FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in E.D. Pa.
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: New Plaintiffs Named in Discrimination Suit
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Auditor, Underwriters Settle Suit for $19M
TOYS R US: Recalls Coloring Cases that Exceed Lead Standard

* Bryan Cave Hires Senior Associate for U.K. Practice


                   New Securities Fraud Cases                         
     
AMERICAN MORTGAGE: Murray Frank Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
QIAO XING: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
TWEEN BRANDS: Schiffrin Barroway Files O. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ALOHA HOUSEWARES: Recalls Electric Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aloha Housewares, Inc. of Arlington, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 281,000 “Aloha Breeze”
portable electric heaters.

The company said the heater can overheat, posing a fire hazard. Aloha
Housewares has received seven reports of heaters melting, smoking or catching
fire, including one report of minor property damage. No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled electric heaters are white-colored with the name “Aloha Breeze”
printed on the front. The recall includes model number 05226 with date codes
of 07/05, 08/05 and 11/05. The model number and date code are printed on the
silver label located on the bottom of the heater.

These recalled portable electric heaters were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Wal-Mart stores nationwide from July 2005 to July 2007 for
about $15.

Pictures of recalled portable electric heaters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07296a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07296b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled heaters immediately and
contact the firm for instructions on receiving a free replacement.

For additional information, call Aloha Housewares at (800) 295-4448 between
9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or send an e-mail to
ahitexaslg@aol.com


B&F SYSTEM: Recalls Emergency Tool Kits for Fire, Shock Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------
B&F System Inc., of Dallas, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 43,000 emergency tool kits.

The company said booster cables in the recalled kits can have undersized
wiring and inadequate connections, posing a fire and shock hazard to
consumers.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled emergency tool kits have booster cables in combination with
other tools and safety equipment. The recall includes the following models:

          -- #MTHEK41 - Yorkcraft 41 piece SAE & Metric kit
          -- #MTHEKSM - Yorkcraft 6 piece kit
          -- #MTHEKREF - Yorkcraft 15 piece kit
          -- MTHEK15 - Yorkcraft 15 piece kit
          -- #MTEKIT2 - Yorkcraft Emergency Tool Kit

These recalled emergency tool kits were manufactured in China and are being
sold at flea markets and various Internet sites nationwide from June 2003
through May 2007 for between $5 and $45.

Picture of recalled emergency tool kits:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07297.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the booster cables in the recalled kits
immediately and contact the firm to receive a refund for the cost of the
cables.

For more information, contact B&F System toll-free at (877) 586-2926 between
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.bnfusa.com


CENTENNIAL COMMS: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Certify Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The decision of a court with respect to class certification of a suit over
billing practices filed against Centennial Communications Corp. in Louisiana
state court is still pending.

In one of several lawsuits against the company, plaintiffs have alleged
breach of contract, misrepresentation or unfair practice claims relating to
its billing practices, including rounding up of partial minutes of use to
full-minute increments, billing send to end, and billing for unanswered and
dropped calls.  

The plaintiffs in these cases have not alleged any specific monetary
damages.  They are seeking certification as a class action.

A hearing on class certification in one of these cases was held on Sept. 2,
2003 in a state court in Louisiana.  Subsequent to such hearing, a new judge
was assigned to the case and the plaintiffs renewed their motion seeking
class-action status in December 2004.  In 2006, a new judge was assigned to
the case.

The decision of the court with respect to class certification is still
pending.

The company reported no new development in the matter in its Aug. 9, 2007
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2007.

Centennial Communications Corp. -- http://www.centennialcom.com-- is a  
regional wireless and broadband telecommunications service provider serving
over 1.1 million wireless customers and approximately 419,500 access line
equivalents in markets covering approximately 12.6 million Net Pops in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Homebuyers’ Fraud Lawsuit in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------
Homebuyers filed a class action against Countrywide Home Loans and
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Westley Chrisman and his wife Linda Peels Chrisman accuse
the lender of:

     (1) defrauding homebuyers by demanding extra money on
         monthly mortgage payments;

     (2) crediting too much money to interest and not enough to
         principal to make it appear that the plaintiffs were
         in arrears; and

     (3) then threatening them with foreclosure.

Plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of all persons who obtained home loans of
any type from any original lender (including but not limited to CHL), which
loans and/or the servicing rights thereto were acquired by, retained by,
and/or assigned to CHL and/or CS any time from Sept. 1, 2001 through March
18, 2005, inclusive.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether CHL and CS fraudulently concealed from
         plaintiffs and the classes the true nature of
         adjustments made for to their principal account
         balances;

     (b) whether CHL and CS in violation of a statutory or legal
         duty concealed from plaintiffs and the classes the true
         nature of adjustments made for to their principal
         account balances;

     (c) whether the principal account adjustment facts CHL and
         CS concealed from the plaintiffs and the classes are
         material facts;

     (d) whether, as a result of CHL's and CS's concealment of
         and/or failure to disclose material facts, plaintiffs
         and the classes acted to their detriment or failed to
         act to their detriment;

     (e) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or
         unfair and/or deceptive acts  or practices when they
         failed to allocate 100% of payments received to
         principal and interest;

     (f) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or
         unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they
         failed to allocate the proper amount of payments
         received to principal;

     (g) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or
         unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they
         collected more from each post-reset date payment that
         they legally were entitled to because the reset monthly
         payments were overstated as a result of being
         calculated using wrongly overstated principal balances;

     (h) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or
         unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they
         made it appear that accounts of the class were
         seriously in arrears when in fact they were not;

     (i) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or
         unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they
         assessed against and/or collected from the classes late
         charges in excess of amounts allowed by law, the Notes,
         and/or the operative facts;

     (j) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or
         unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they
         allocated improper and excessive amounts of payments
         received to interest;

     (k) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or
         unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they
         changed due dates and payment receipt dates;

     (m) whether CHL, and/or CS engaged in unfair competition or
         unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when in the
         course of their early collection acts, they wrongly and
         without factual bases therefor, demanded extra-
         contractual prepayments;

     (n) whether CHL, and/or CS engaged in unfair competition or
         unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they
         engaged in early collection acts;

     (o) whether CHL, and/or CS violated the Fair Debt
         Collection Practices Act when they engaged in early
         collection acts;

     (p) whether CHL, and/or CS engaged in a civil conspiracy
         with respect to their early and other collection acts;

     (q) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
         compensatory damages and the amount of such damages;

     (r) whether as a result of CHL's and CS's recklessness and
         fraudulent, knowing, and/or intentional acts,
         plaintiffs and the class are entitled to punitive
         damages, and the amount of such damages;

     (s) whether CHL and CS should be declared financially
         responsible for notifying all class members of the harm
         they have suffered and their rights under this action;

     (t) whether the early collection practices of CHL and CS
         were unfair or deceptive; and

     (u) whether CHL and CS violated the rights of class members
         when defendants exacted late fees and charges upon the
         sale of a class members' property instead of collecting
         late fees from a debtor during the life of the loan qas
         required by applicable law.

Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

     -- certification of the class and any subclasses that the
        court deems appropriate;

     -- compensatory damages in an amount sufficient to
        compensate the plaintiffs and the class for the actual
        damages incurred by them as a result of the acts and
        omissions of CHL and CS;

     -- statutory damages to the extent allowed by law for the
        plaintiff and the class for the acts and omissions of
        CHL and CS;

     -- consequential damages to the extent allowed by law for
        the plaintiffs and the class for the consequential
        damages suffered by them as a result of the acts and
        omissions of CHL and CS;

     -- under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the
        consumer protection statutes of other states, damages as
        allowed by those statutes, including punitive or
        exemplary damages, double or treble damages, penalties,
        attorneys fees, and expenses of litigation;

     -- prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate;

     -- punitive or exemplary damages for the willful,
        intentional, malicious, and/or reckless actions of CHL,
        and CS according to the proof;

     -- reasonable attorneys fees and expenses of litigation as
        allowed by all applicable laws, and/or from the common
        fund for payment of damages and costs, and payment for
        all expenses associated with administration of the
        common fund;

     -- a declaration of the financial responsibility of CHL
        and/or CS, for the cost of class notification regarding
        the acts and omissions of CHL and CS;

     -- a declaration that the early collection and other acts
        of CHL, and/or CS are illegal and an injunction against
        them all preventing them from perpetrating such acts in
        the future;

     -- an order requiring CHL and CS to correct the accounts of
        the plaintiffs and the class;

     -- election of remedy where appropriate by plaintiffs be
        allowed;

     -- a trial by a jury of 12 persons; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court deems just
        and appropriate.

The suit is "Westley Chrisman et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Richard Baker, ESq.
          Law office of Richard Baker
          706 Walnut Street, Suite 301
          Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
          Phone: 865-633-6066

          - and -

          David B. Hamilton
          William P. Price, III, J.D., C.P.A.
          1810 Merchant Drive
          Knoxville, TN 37912
          Phone: 865-219-9250


FLORIDA: Trial of Suit Over Canker Eradication Program Set Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against the state in 2002 over its canker eradication
program is scheduled to go to trial on Oct. 15, Palm The (Fla.) Beach Post
reports.

Thousands of Palm Beach County homeowners who lost healthy citrus trees to
the program have been notified of the trial, the report said.  Deadline to
request for exclusion in the class is Oct. 12.  The class includes all
property owners who lost trees that were not infected, but that were within
1,900 feet of a canker-infected tree.  The class period is from Jan. 1, 2000
to January 2006 when the canker eradication program was ended.

The October trial will decide on liability; damages would be determined
during a subsequent trial.  A 12-member jury will decide the "full
compensation" due to the homeowners.

The canker program attempted to stop the spread of the bacterial disease
throughout the Florida citrus industry by eradicating infected trees as well
as healthy ones that were considered exposed to the bacterium.

The suit argued that the Florida Department of Agriculture did not adequately
compensate owners of healthy citrus trees for their removal.  It was filed
against the state Department of Agriculture on behalf of David and Lillian
Mendez of Palm Beach County.

The plaintiffs' lead attorney is Robert Gilbert of Coral Gables.


GOLD FIELDS: Continues to Face Suits by Quapaw Tribes in Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Fields Mining, LLC, a subsidiary of Peabody Energy Corp., and two other
companies continue to face two class actions seeking medical monitoring and
relocation programs for people allegedly exposed to lead.

Plaintiffs have asserted claims predicated on allegations of intentional lead
exposure by the defendants and are seeking compensatory damages, punitive
damages and the implementation of medical monitoring and relocation programs
for the affected individuals.

Gold Fields is also a defendant, along with other companies, in several
personal injury lawsuits involving over 50 children, arising out of the same
lead mill operations.  

Plaintiffs in these actions are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for
alleged personal injuries from lead exposure.

In December 2003, the Quapaw Indian tribe and certain Quapaw land owners
filed a class action against Gold Fields and five other companies.  
Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety
of theories.  

Gold Fields has filed a third-party complaint against the U.S., and other
parties.  In February 2005, the state of Oklahoma on behalf of itself and
several other parties sent a notice to Gold Fields and other companies
regarding a possible natural resources damage claim.

All of the lawsuits are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma.

The company reported no development in the case at 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 "Cole, et al. v. Asarco Inc., et al., Case no. 4:03-cv-00327-JOE-
PJC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
under Judge James O. Ellison.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tammy R. Dodson, Esq.
         Donnamarie Antoinette Landsberg, Esq.
         Speer Law Firm PA
         104 W 9th St., Ste. 305
         Kansas City, MO 64105
         Phone: 816-472-3560
         Fax: 816-421-2150
         E-mail: tdodson@speerlawfirm.com

              - and -

         Tony Wayne Edwards, Esq.
         Stipe Law Firm
         P.O. BOX 1369
         McAlester, OK 74501-1369
         Phone: 918-423-0421
         Fax: 918-423-0266
         E-mail: twedwards@stipelaw.com

Representing the Company are:

         Stacy L. Acord, Esq.
         Robert Joseph Joyce, Esq.
         Archer Scott McDaniel, Esq.
         Chris A. Paul, Esq.
         Joyce Paul & McDaniel, PC
         1717 S. Boulder, Ste. 200
         Tulsa, OK 74119
         Phone: 918-599-0700
         Fax: 918-732-5370
         E-mail: sacord@jpm-law.com
                 rjoyce@jpm-law.com
                 Smcdaniel@jpm-law.com
                 cpaul@jpm-law.com

              - and -

         Mark Douglas Anstoetter, Esq.
         Stanley D. Davis, Esq.
         John K. Sherk, Esq.
         Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
         2555 Grand Blvd.
         Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
         Phone: 816-474-6550
         Fax: 816-421-5547
         E-mail: manstoetter@shb.com
                 sddavis@shb.com


MARS PETCARE: Recalls Dog Food on Possible Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------
Mars Petcare US, Inc. is voluntarily recalling select five pound bags of
Krasdale Gravy dry dog food sold in:

          -- Connecticut,
          -- Massachusetts,
          -- New Jersey,
          -- New York, and
          -- Pennsylvania

The pet food is being recalled because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, which can cause serious infections in dogs and
cats, and, if there is cross contamination, in people, especially children,
the aged, and people with compromised immune systems.

The recalled product should not be sold or fed to pets. Pet owners should
dispose of product in a safe manner (example, a securely covered trash
receptacle) and return the empty bag to the store where purchased for a full
refund.

Salmonella can potentially be transferred to people handling this pet food,
especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the product or any surfaces exposed to the product. Healthy
people potentially infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for
some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody
diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more
serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis,
muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact their
healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody
diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite,
fever and abdominal pain. Well animals can be carriers and infect other
animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

          Recalled pet food
          Product: Krasdale Gravy dry dog food
          Size: 5 pound bag
          UPC Code: 7513062596
          Best Buy Date: July 16 & 17, 2008
          Best Buy Date Location: Back of bag
          Affected Stores: Various stores located in
                           Connecticut, Massachusetts, New
                           Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Mars Petcare is issuing this action out of an abundance of caution and it
sincerely regrets any inconvenience to pet owners as a result of this
announcement. This voluntary recall has been issued because the FDA detected
Salmonella in a sample of Krasdale Gravy dry dog food with best buy dates of
July 16 & 17, 2008 during a recent review.

This product UPC has been blocked from retail sale at these locations.

Additional information about the product is available on
http://www.marspetcare.com.Pet owners who have questions about the voluntary  
recall should call (866) 298-8332, or visit the web site for more information.


MERRILL LYNCH: $125M Research Reports Suit Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final
approval to a $125,000,000 settlement of a suit related to research reports
issued by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. regarding securities of:

    Company                    Ticker Symbol      Class Period

    Aether Systems               AETH    11/15/1999 - 02/07/2001
    B2B Internet HOLDRs Trust    BHH     02/24/2000 - 04/08/2002
    CMGI, Inc.                   CMGI    03/23/1999 - 11/14/2000
    Doubleclick, Inc.            DCLK    11/29/1999 - 04/15/2001
    ETOYS, Inc.                  ETYS    06/17/1999 - 11/08/2000
    EXCITE@HOME                  ATHM    06/07/1999 - 04/26/2001
    Exodus Communications, Inc.  EXDS    12/08/1999 - 06/19/2001
    GoTo.com, Inc.               GOTO    01/11/2001 - 06/06/2001
    Homestore.com, Inc.          HOMS    09/08/1999 - 09/21/2001
    InfoSpace, Inc.              INSP    12/06/1999 - 01/22/2001
    Internet Architecture
      HOLDRs Trust               IAH     02/24/2000 - 04/08/2002
    Internet Capital Group, Inc. ICGE    08/30/1999 - 11/08/2000
    Internet HOLDRs Trust        HHH     09/23/1999 - 04/08/2002
    Internet Infrastructure
      HOLDRs Trust               IIH     02/24/2000 - 04/08/2002
    iVillage, Inc.               IVIL    11/09/1999 - 05/07/2001
    Lifeminders Inc.             LFMN    09/28/2000 - 01/31/2001
    Looksmart, Ltd.              LOOK    05/25/2000 - 01/11/2001
    Openwave Systems, Inc.       OPWV    10/16/2000 - 08/13/2001
    PETS.COM, INC.               IPET    03/08/2000 - 11/07/2000
    Quokka Sports, Inc.          QKKA    08/23/1999 - 01/09/2001

Merrill Lynch was named in dozens of class actions since 2001 that challenged
the objectivity of the company's research recommendations related to
securities of Internet companies.

The stipulation of settlement provides for a cash payment of $125 million
plus accruing interest. The settlement fund will amount to more than $133
million, the judge said in his order.

The class consists of all persons who purchased the common stock (or
depository receipts) of these companies during the periods
listed or who purchased, in a private placement, Quokka Sports,
Inc. 7% convertible subordinated promissory notes due Sept. 15,
2005.

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

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel is:

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022

Attorneys for defendants Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce
Fenner & Smith Inc. and certain Individual Defendants are:

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
          Skadden Arps Slate Meacher & Flom LLP
          Four Times Square, New York, NY  10036


NAM TAI: N.Y. Court Denies Class Status for N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied
plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for the consolidated
suit, "Rocco v. Nam Tai Electronics et al., Lead Case No. 03-cv-01148-JES."

Originally, the suit was commenced on Feb. 20, 2003 against the company and
certain of its directors.  The named plaintiffs purport to represent a
putative class of persons who purchased the company's common shares from July
29, 2002 through Feb. 18, 2003.

Plaintiffs have asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allege that misrepresentations and/or
omissions were made during the alleged class period concerning the partial
reversal of an inventory provision and a charge to goodwill related to the
firm's LCD Products segment.

The company has filed an answer to the amended and consolidated complaint and
oral argument on the plaintiffs' most recent motion for class certification
was held on Feb. 1.

The court recently decided that Lead Plaintiff Douglas Ward has the right to
proceed to prosecute the case as an individual claim or he can seek leave to
appeal the decision of the Court.

A conference with the Court has been scheduled for October 23, 2007. The
Company plans to continue to provide updates of material developments in
these proceedings as they occur.

The suit is "Michael Rocco v. Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. et al.,
Civil Action No. 03-CV-1148," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Samuel Howard Rudman
          David AVI Rosenfeld
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins,
          LLP
          200 Broadhollow Road, Ste 406
          Melville, NY, 11747, USA
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173
          E-mail: Srudman@cauleygeller.com or
                  Drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com

          - and -

          Laurence D. Paskowitz
          Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP
          100 Park Ave.
          New York, NY, 10017, USA
          Phone: 212-907-0881
          Fax: 212-883-7081

Representing the company is:

          Stuart W. Gold
          Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP
          825 Eighth Ave.
          New York, NY, 10019, USA
          Phone: (212) 474-1000
          Fax: (212) 474-3700
          E-mail: Sgold@cravath.com


NCS PEARSON: Settles SAT Scoring Error Lawsuit for $2.85M
----------------------------------------------------------
Testing organizations the College Board and NCS Pearson, Inc. have agreed to
pay a total of more than $2.85 million to students whose October 2005 SAT
tests were scored incorrectly.

The payment was arranged to settle a class action involving approximately
4,400 students who received low scores as a result of the scoring error. Each
student will collect a minimum of $275 and have the ability to apply for a
larger sum if they believe their damages are greater than that amount.

The settlement would reimburse students for the cost of taking the SAT and
sending the scores to colleges. Any remaining money would be given to a
charity chosen by a judge.

Joe Snodgrass, a St. Paul attorney who represents some students, said the two
firms representing students had agreed to share a maximum of $900,000 in
attorney fees.  The settlement needs ratification by Judge Joan Ericksen of
the U.S. District Court in St. Paul during a hearing scheduled for Nov. 29.

For more information, contact:

          T. Joe Snodgrass, Esq.
          Larson King, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place, 30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
          (Ramsey Co.)
          Phone: 651-312-6500
          Toll Free: 877-373-5501
          Telecopier: 651-312-6618


NISSAN: Tex. Judge’s Son Withdraws Suit Over Odometers
------------------------------------------------------
Attorney T. John Ward Jr. of Longview, Texas has withdrawn a class action
alleging Nissan’s odometers are designed to inflate driven mileage, Michelle
Massey of The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Ward's motion to withdraw did not explain his reason for leaving the
Nissan class action, but the report noted that the withdrawal came after The
New York Sun raised questions to him and his co-counsel whether the case
might benefit from rulings by his father Judge T. John Ward, who is presiding
over a nearly identical case against Honda in the same judicial district.

Co-Counsel David Miller of Addison told the New York Sun that he saw no
conflict with the younger Ward in the Nissan case, according to the report.

The suit against Nissan was brought on behalf of plaintiff Rebecca Womack and
others similarly situated in the Marshall division of the Eastern District of
Texas.  The class action alleges Nissan designed 2004 and newer vehicles with
odometers that inflate driven mileage by at least 2 percent by installing a
computer software within the vehicles that alters the odometer beyond
manufacturer's design tolerance.

Through these "intent to defraud" actions plaintiffs argue that their
warranties were shortened by 700 to 1,600 miles and the vehicles' resale
value was lower.  Plaintiffs allege violation of the Federal Odometer Act.  

The suit is “Womack v. Nissan, Case No.: 2:06cv00479,” with Judge David
Folsom presiding.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Lawsuit Over 2006 Derailment in Ala.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. has reached an agreement on Aug. 27 to settle a suit
over a January collision of two trains in Lincoln, Ala., Amanda Gardner of
Daily Home Online reports.

Two trains collided on Jan. 18, 2006 in the area, spilling cyanide that
threatened a one-mile area around the explosion site with eminent danger if
the chemical had mixed with water.

The settlement was reached on behalf of business owner Deborah J. Brasher and
certain people in Lincoln.  It groups the affected people into different two
classes: the Evacuation Zone and Exposure Zone.

A hearing to consider the approval of the settlement and the right to appear
and object will be held Nov. 2 at 9 a.m. in the Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse
in Birmingham.

Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com-- through its subsidiaries,  
engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products,
and finished goods primarily in the United States and parts of Canada.


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Montana Power Shakeup
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana refused to dismiss
Northwestern Corp. as a defendant in the class action, "McGreevey, et al. v.
The Montana Power Co., et al., Case no.
2:03-cv-00001-SHE."

The company was one of several defendants named in the class action, which
was filed by former shareholders of The Montana Power Co., most of whom
became shareholders of Touch America Holdings, Inc. as a result of a
corporate reorganization of the Montana Power Co.

The suit claims that the disposition of various generating and energy-related
assets by The Montana Power Co. were void because of the failure to obtain
shareholder approval for the transactions.

Plaintiffs in the suit are thus seeking to reverse those transactions, or
receive fair value for their stock as of late 2001, when plaintiffs claim
shareholder approval should have been sought.

The company is named as a defendant due to the fact that it purchased The
Montana Power L.L.C., which plaintiffs are claiming is a successor to the
Montana Power Co.

In June 2006, the company and the "McGreevey" plaintiffs entered into an
agreement to settle the claims that were brought.

In November 2006, a Bankruptcy Court finally approved this agreement and the
claims were discharged.  The plaintiffs' attorneys and the company filed a
joint motion to dismiss the claims against the company in the McGreevey
lawsuits and no objections were filed.

On March 16, 2007, the federal court denied the motions to dismiss the
company from the McGreevey lawsuits questioning the benefits of the
settlement to be received by the class members in the settlement and the
authority of the plaintiffs' counsel to have negotiated the settlement
without a class having been certified by the federal 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 "McGreevey, et al. v. Montana Power Co., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-
00001-SEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana
under Judge Sam E. Haddon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Wade Dahood, Esq.
         Knight Dahood Mclean Everett & Dayton
         P.O. Box 727
         Anaconda, MT 59711-0727
         Phone: 406-563-3424
         Fax: 406-563-7519

         Milton Datsopoulos, Esq.
         Datsopoulos Macdonald & Lind
         201 W. Main, Central Square Building, Suite 201
         Missoula, MT 59802
         Phone: 406-728-0810
         Fax: 406-543-0134

         Sean S. Frampton, Esq.
         Morrison & Frampton
         P.O. Box 1090
         Whitefish, MT 59937
         Phone: 406-862-9600
         Fax: (406) 862-9611

              - and -

         Allan M. McGarvey, Esq.
         McGarvey Heberling Sullivan & McGarvey,
         745 S. Main Street
         Kalispell, MT 59901-2529  
         Phone: 406-752-5566
         Fax: 406-752-7124
         E-mail: amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Awaits Ruling on Fees in S.D. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NorthWestern Corp., d/b/a NorthWestern Energy, is awaiting a ruling by the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota regarding plaintiff
attorneys’ fees in a shareholder class action pending against the company.

In November 2005, the company and its directors were named defendants in a
shareholder class action and derivative action, "City of Livonia Employee
Retirement System v. Draper, et al."

The plaintiff claims, among other things, that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties by not sufficiently negotiating with Montana Public Power
Inc. and Black Hills Corp., two entities that had made public, unsolicited
offers to purchase
NorthWestern.

On April 26, 2006, Livonia amended its complaint to add allegations that
company directors had erred in choosing the Babcock & Brown Infrastructure
Limited (BBI) offer because it was not the most attractive offer they had
received for the company.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement which provides that
NorthWestern will redeem the existing shareholder rights plan either
following shareholder approval of the Merger Agreement with BBI or upon
termination of the Merger Agreement with BBI -- whichever occurs first.

The Board may adopt a new shareholder rights plan if the shareholders approve
adoption of such a plan in advance or, in the event that circumstances
require timely implementation of such a plan, the Board seeks and receives
approval from shareholders within 12 months after adoption.

After limited confirmatory discovery, the settlement agreement has been
filed.  In December 2006 the federal court indicated it would not approve the
settlement because it did not provide any benefit to the class members.

Based on the federal court's order, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the
lawsuit with prejudice on the condition that the federal court would retain
jurisdiction over any award of attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have filed a motion, seeking discovery in advance of its
motion for an award of attorneys' fees.  The motion was denied.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs seeking $9.9
million to which the company have responded arguing that plaintiffs' lawyers
are entitled to no fees.

The plaintiffs filed a reply in May 2007.  On May 24, 2007, the company
notified the federal court of the MPSC unanimous direction to its staff to
draft an order rejecting the proposed BBI transaction, noting that unless the
BBI transaction was approved, the plaintiffs’ argument for benefit to the
estate would be moot and suggested that the federal court delay any ruling
until the Montana Public Service Commission (MPSC) reaches a final decision
on the BBI transaction.

On July 25, 2007, the company advised the federal court that the Merger
Agreement was terminated based on the action by the MPSC denying
consideration of the revised proposal and denying approval of the
transaction.

The company is awaiting a decision by the federal court and it believes that
any award of attorneys' fees would be reimbursed by insurance proceeds,
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.

The suit is "City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.
Draper, et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-04178-LLP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota under Judge Lawrence L.
Piersol.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Randall J. Baron, Esq.
         Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Timothy J. Dougherty, Esq.
         Dougherty & Dougherty
         P.O. Box 1004
         Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1004
         Phone: 335-8586

Representing the defendants are:

         Filiberto Agusti, Esq.
         Scott T. Bielicki, Esq.
         David F. Rifkind, Esq.
         Andrew Sloniewsky, Esq.
         Steptoe and Johnson, LLP
         1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: 202-429-6428, 202-429-6751, 202-429-8094 and
         202-429-6759
         E-mail: fagusti@steptoe.com, sbielicki@steptoe.com,
         drifkind@steptoe.com and asloniewsky@steptoe.com

              - and -

         Roberto Antonio Lange, Esq.
         Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith
         P.O. Box 1030
         Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1030
         Phone: 336-2880
         Fax: 335-3639
         E-mail: rlange@dehs.com


OHALEE INC: Recalls FA-A70 Youth ATVs Lacking Parts, Label
----------------------------------------------------------
Ohalee Inc., of City of Industry, California, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 36 Ohalee FA-A70 Youth
All-Terrain Vehicles.

The company said these youth ATVs lack front brakes and a tire pressure
gauge, the date of manufacture is not printed on side of the tires, and the
front suspension is solid and does not allow for travel. Additionally, the
flag pole bracket is not the correct size, and the handlebars do not have
padding covering sharp edges. There is no storage location for the owner’s
manual, and the manual itself does not contain complete information on the
safe operation and maintenance of the ATV. These defects could result in an
unsafe riding condition, posing a risk of injury to young drivers.

No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Ohalee FA-A70 Youth ATVs, which has the
name “Ohalee” on the right and left side of each ATV. The 70cc size ATVs were
available in the following colors: red, blue, and black.

These recalled Youth ATVs were manufactured in China and are being sold by
Odes Motorcycle Industry nationwide from June 2006 through December 2006 for
about $360.

Picture of recalled Youth ATVs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07576.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the ATVs and contact the
retailer for a full refund. Ohalee, Inc. will contact the consumers and
notify them the full refund policy.

For additional information, contact Ohalee toll-free at (866) 867-5976
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit their Web site:
http://www.ohalee.com


PHH CORP: Md. Court Partially Dismisses Suit Over $1.8B Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland partially dismissed a
consolidated class action opposing a sale of PHH Corp. to General Electric
Capital Corp., and The Blackstone Group.

Following the announcement of the $1.8 billion buyout in March 2007, two
purported class actions were filed against the Company and each member of its
Board of Directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, the
first of these actions also named GE and Blackstone.

The plaintiffs seek to represent an alleged class consisting of all persons
(other than the Company’s officers and Directors and their affiliates)
holding the Company’s Common stock.

In support of their request for injunctive and other relief, the plaintiffs
allege that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in approving the transaction.

On April 5, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the first filed complaint.  
On April 10, 2007, the claims against Blackstone were dismissed without
prejudice.

On May 11, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases into one action.  On
July 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  This
pleading did not name GE or Blackstone as defendants.  It essentially
repeated the allegations previously made against the members of the company's
Board of Directors and added allegations that the disclosures made in the
preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on June 18, 2007 omitted
certain material facts.

On Aug. 7, 2007, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint on
the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims could only be asserted derivatively,
whereas the plaintiffs were seeking to assert their claims directly.  

The Court gave the plaintiffs the option of having the dismissal be with
prejudice and without leave to amend, in which event they would be able to
file a notice of appeal, or without prejudice and with leave to amend, in
which event they would be able to serve a demand on the company's Board of
Directors or file a pleading in which they attempt to demonstrate that demand
would have been futile.

PHH Corp. -- http://www.phh.com-- is an outsource provider of mortgage and  
fleet management services.  The Company operates in three segments: Mortgage
Production, Mortgage Servicing and Fleet Management Services.  


PHH CORP: Continues to Faces Several N.J Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHH Corp. is still facing several purported securities fraud class actions
that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In March and April 2006, several class actions were filed against the
company, its chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock during certain time periods beginning
March 15, 2005 in one case and May 12, 2005 in the other cases and ending
March 1, 2006.  

They allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The company provided no new 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 first identified complaint is "Monica Salim, et al. v. PHH Corp., et al.,
Case No. 06-CV-01302," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

          Baron & Budd, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX, 75219
          Phone: 1800-946-9646
          E-mail: info@baronandbudd.com

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610.668.7987
          Fax: 610-660-0450
          E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

          Federman & Sherwood
          120 North Robinson, Suite 2720
          Oklahoma City, OK, 73102
          Phone: 405-235-1560
          E-mail: wfederman@aol.com

               - and -

          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, PA, 19046
          Phone: 215.886.1900
          E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


PLEXUS CORP: Faces Wis. Suits Over England Plant Closure
--------------------------------------------------------
Two securities fraud class actions were filed against Plexus Corp. and
company officers and/or directors:

       -- Dean A. Foate,
       -- F. Gordon Bitter, and
       -- John L. Nussbaum

in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on June 25
and June 29, 2007 .

The suits allege securities law violations and seek unspecified damages
relating generally to the Company’s July 26, 2006 announcement of its fiscal
fourth quarter earnings outlook and that the manufacturing facility in
Maldon, England would be closed.

Plexus Corp. -- http://www.plexus.com-- provides a range of product  
realization services to original equipment manufacturers and other technology
companies in the wireline/networking, wireless infrastructure, medical,
industrial/commercial, and defense/security/aerospace industries with a focus
on complex and global fulfillment solutions, high-technology manufacturing
and test services, and high-reliability products.  

It participates in the electronics manufacturing services industry.  Plexus
offers its customers the ability to outsource all stages of product
realization, including development and design, materials procurement and
management, prototyping and new product introduction, testing, manufacturing,
product configuration, direct order fulfillment, logistics and test/repair.


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Faces Suit in Ore. Over Patient Data Theft
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action against Providence Health System in connection with the theft
of computer discs and tapes with records of 365,000 patients is pending in
Multnomah County Circuit Court (Ore.), it emerged in a report by the
Associated Press.

Steven Shields, who was a Providence information systems analyst, lost 10
computer discs and data tapes at his van in the driveway of his Milwaukie
home in 2005.

The records, some going back 20 years, contained information such as Social
Security numbers and medical information. The records were stored without
protective encryption.

Providence had agreed to pay more than $95,000 to the state Department of
Justice to settle its investigation, but admitted no violations.  It also
promised two years of credit protection to everyone whose records were stolen
and agreed to pay patient claims for direct financial losses that may result
from the theft.


QC HOLDINGS: Settles Lawsuit by Loan Applicant in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. has settled a lawsuit filed by an Arizona borrower alleging
violation of the Arizona Deferred Presentment Companies Statute.

Originally, the suit was filed by an Arizona customer in
Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, alleging that a loan granted to him
violated the Statute.  The plaintiff asserted various other claims based in
tort, contract and violations of state law.

The Company removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to compel
arbitration.  The Company and the customer have reached an oral agreement to
settle the case for an immaterial amount.  

The Company expects this case to be dismissed with prejudice in the third
quarter, 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.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term  
consumer loans, known as payday loans.  


QC HOLDINGS: Mo. Court Mulls Arbitration Bid in Customers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri has yet to rule on QC
Holdings, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration in a purported class action
filed against it over unsecured loans.

The suit was filed on Oct. 13, 2006 by one of the company's Missouri
customers as a purported class action.

It alleges violations of the Missouri statute pertaining to unsecured loans
under $500 and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and a declaratory judgment that the
arbitration agreement with the plaintiff is not enforceable on a variety of
theories.

The Company has not filed an answer, but has moved to compel arbitration of
this matter.  Plaintiff secured the right to have discovery regarding the
Company’s arbitration provision, however, prior to the court’s ruling on the
Company’s motion.

The court heard oral arguments on the Company’s motion in June 2007.  The
Company is awaiting the court’s ruling on the Company’s motion to compel
arbitration, 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.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term  
consumer loans, known as payday loans.  


QC HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. continues to face a putative consumer fraud class action
filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, 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.

On Feb. 8, 2005, the Company, two of its subsidiaries, including its
subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr. Don Early, the Company’s
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, were sued in Superior
Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina in a putative class action filed
by James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline, who were customers of a
Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the Company provided certain services
in connection with the bank’s origination of payday loans in North Carolina,
prior to the closing of the Company’s North Carolina branches in fourth
quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various North Carolina laws,
including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, the North Carolina Check
Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade
practices statute and the state usury statute, in connection with payday
loans made by the bank to the two plaintiffs through the Company’s retail
locations in North Carolina.

It alleges that the Company made the payday loans to the plaintiffs in
violation of various state statutes, and that if the Company is not viewed as
the “actual lenders or makers” of the payday loans, its services to the bank
that made the loans violated various North Carolina statutes.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified monetary
damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under specified North Carolina
statutes.

Plaintiffs have not sued the bank in this matter and have specifically stated
in the complaint that plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state
banks to enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates as the
bank’s home state may permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal
law.  This case is in the preliminary stages.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term  
consumer loans, known as payday loans.  As of Dec. 31, 2006, it operated 613
branches, with locations in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

The Company also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.  QC Holdings operates
primarily through its wholly owned subsidiaries, QC Financial Services, Inc
and QC Services, Inc.  QC Financial Services, Inc. is the 100% owner of QC
Financial Services of California, Inc., Financial Services of North Carolina,
Inc., QC Financial Services of Texas, Inc., Express Check Advance of South
Carolina, LLC, QC Advance, Inc., Cash Title Loans, Inc. and QC Properties,
LLC.  On Dec. 1, 2006, it acquired Express Check Advance of South Carolina,
LLC.


RAIT FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAIT Financial Trust faces a purported securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 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.

The complaint, which is seeking class certification, was filed on Aug. 1,
2007 against RAIT Financial Trust, certain of its officers and trustees and
the lead underwriters involved in its public offering of common shares in
January 2007.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired RAIT securities between Jan. 10, 2007 and July 31, 2007.
This action purports to assert claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiff alleges that, during the class period, RAIT did not adequately
disclose that RAIT had provided TruPS to American Home Mortgage Investment
Corp., or AHM, that the payment by AHM under the TruPS was supposedly in
jeopardy and that RAIT did not adequately reserve for the risk of nonpayment
by AHM.

The plaintiff further alleges that, as a result, certain of RAIT’s
statements, including statements in the registration statement, prospectus
and prospectus supplement for RAIT’s January 2007 offering, were materially
false and misleading.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

RAIT Financial Trust – http://www.raitft.com/-- formerly RAIT Investment  
Trust, is a specialty finance company that provides a set of debt financing
options to the real estate industry.  It originates and invests in real
estate-related assets that are underwritten through an integrated investment
process.  


SANOFI-AVENTIS US: New Plaintiffs Named in Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three former employees of Sanofi-Aventis U.S. joined a sexual discrimination
and harassment lawsuit filed against the company earlier this year, AFP
reports.

The original suit was filed by Karen Bellifemine, a female sales
representative at the Bridgewater, New Jersey-based firm.  It was filed in
U.S. District Court in Manhattan on March 14.  It is seeking more than $300
million in compensation for alleged discrimination against female employees
in terms of promotion and pay.  

Ms. Bellifemine started working at Sanofi-Aventis U.S. in 1995 and is still
employed there.  Those who joined the suit are Zeoli, Michelle Popa and Sue
Sullivan, who said they resigned in 2006-2007.

A motion for class certification on behalf of approximately 6,000 women will
be filed in the next few months once statistics of the alleged wrongdoing
were gathered, said a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Steven Wittels of Sanford
Wittels & Heisler LLP.  

Mr. Wittels said "each woman is entitled to up to approximately 500,000
dollars in damages for compensatory back and future wages and punitive
damages," making the $300 million demand modest in comparison.

Sanofi-Aventis US said in a statement the women's allegations are not true.

The suit is docketed 1:2007cv02207 in the New York Southern District Court.  
Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David W. Sanford, Esq.
          Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP
          1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 310
          Washington, District of Columbia 20009
          Phone: 202-742-7777
          Fax: 202-742-7776


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Auditor, Underwriters Settle Suit for $19M
----------------------------------------------------------------
The former auditor of cheese company Suprema Specialties, as well as several
former company board members and underwriters, signed a memorandum of
understanding to pay $19 million to settle a class action in relation to the
collapse of the company, Greg Saitz of Star-Ledger reports.

The settling parties are BDO Seidman, former board members Rudolph Acosta
Jr., Paul Desocio and Barry Rutcofsky, and underwriters Janney Montgomery
Scott, Pacific Growth Equities and Roth Capital Partners.

Suprema is accused of inflating sales by $560 million in the seven years
before its collapse by entering into a series of fake transactions with its
major customers, boosting sales, and allowing Suprema to borrow more and more
money from lenders.  The fraud also helped it sell some $41 million in stock
to investors during a November 2001 stock offering.

Suprema's top two executives, co-founder Mark Cocchiola and finance chief
Steven Venechanos, who were convicted on dozens of criminal counts, remain
defendants in the class action, according to the report.


TOYS R US: Recalls Coloring Cases that Exceed Lead Standard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us Inc., of Wayne, New Jersey, in cooperation with U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 27,000 Imaginarium wooden
coloring cases.

The company said the printed ink on the outer packaging of the wood case
contains lead. Also, some of the black watercolor paint contains excessive
levels of lead, which violates the federal lead paint standard.

No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the Imaginarium brand 213 Piece Wooden Coloring Case
which includes crayons, pastels, colored pencils, fiber pens, paintbrush,
pencil, water colors, palette, white paint, ruler and pencil sharpener in a
light tan wooden carrying case. The case measures about 14 inches high by 19
inches wide.

These recalled wooden coloring cases were manufactured in China and are being
sold by Toys "R" Us stores nationwide and toysrus.com from October 2006
through August 2007 for about $20.

Pictures of recalled wooden coloring cases:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07299a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07299b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the products away from children and
return the item to the nearest Toys "R" Us store for store credit.

For more information, contact Toys "R" Us at (800) TOYSRUS/869-7787 between 9
a.m. and 9 p.m. ET Monday through Saturday, and between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. on
Sunday, or visit the company’s Web site: http://www.toysrus.com


* Bryan Cave Hires Senior Associate for U.K. Practice
------------------------------------------------------
U.S. law firm Bryan Cave has hired Olswang senior associate Irina Tymczyszyn
as senior associate in the firm’s commercial litigation team in the U.K., The
Lawyer.com reports.

Bryan Cave claims it is the first class action firm in the U.K.  Its London
managing partner said the firm's U.K. offering is anticipated to grow by 70
per cent in the coming year to 50 fee-earners.

Bryan Cave -- http://www.bryancave.com/-- has 15 offices around the world,  
including Milan and Hamburg.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN MORTGAGE: Murray Frank Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has 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. (OTC: AHMIQ.PK) 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
          E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com


QIAO XING: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Qiao Xing Universal Telephone Inc.
during the period June 30, 2004 through July 16, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges Qiao Xing and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income for the years ended December 31, 2003, December
         31, 2004, and December 31, 2005;

     (2) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         reporting controls; and

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 8, 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
          Email: info@murrayfrank.com


TWEEN BRANDS: Schiffrin Barroway Files O. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP files a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all
purchasers of securities of Tween Brands, Inc. from May 23, 2007 through
August 21, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Tween and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Tween Brands and its
subsidiaries operate as a specialty retailer for "tween girls," aged 7 to 14
years, in the United States.

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

     (1) that consumer demand had materially declined for the
         Company's products;

     (2) that the Company was facing significantly increased
         expenses in the form of higher rent and marketing
         costs;

     (3) that two States had shifted their sales tax holidays
         from July to August, which would materially impact the
         Company's financial results for the quarter due to the
         Company's concentration in those States;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its future business operations and
         prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis when made.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 23, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


                            *********



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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *