CAR_Public/070912.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, September 12, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 181

                            Headlines


AMVAC CHEMICAL: Feb. 2009 Trial Slated for DBCP Damage Lawsuit
AMVAC CHEMICAL: Certification Briefing Ongoing in Pollution Suit
ARTISTIC DRYWALLS: Settles Lawsuit by Former Workers for $635T
AUSTRALIA: Horse Breeders to Sue Over Flu Outbreak Compensation
CABOT CORP: Settles Carbon Black Lawsuit, Faces Several Others

CANADA: Suit Against Government Over Jaw Implant Certified
CARRIER CORP: Notices in High-Efficiency Furnaces Suit Out
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Sued in N.Y. Over Steam Pipe Explosion
DEAN FOODS: Dairy Farmers File Antitrust Complaints in Tenn.
EDISON MISSION: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. Price-Fixing Lawsuits

PALL CORP: Class Period in N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Expanded
RIZUTTI FARMS: Sued by Asparagus, Cherry Harvest Workers
SEPRACOR INC: $52M Mass. Securities Fraud Suits Settlement OK’d
SILICON IMAGE: Seeks Dismissal of Cal. Securities Complaint
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Former Agent Denied Class Status for Suit

STIRRINGS LLC: Recalls Possbily Contaminated Mojito Garnish
STONE ENERGY: Ruling on Motion to Junk Securities Suits Pending
TD AMERITRADE: Seeks Nixing of Suit Over Alleged Privacy Breach
TELIK INC: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y. Calif.
TWEEN BRANDS: Class Period in O. Securities Fraud Suit Expanded

TYSON FRESH: Appeals Ruling in Boxed Beef Cutout Prices Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Several Employee-Related Litigation
UNITED STATES: Foreign Spouses Sue Over Residency Claim Delays
VALERO ENERGY: Kans. Suit Over Fuel Temperature Consolidated
VIRGINIA: Property Owners File New Lawsuit Over Jet Noise


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN HOME: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit
CHINA SUNERGY: KGS Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit
HEELYS INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Tex.
JONES SODA: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


AMVAC CHEMICAL: Feb. 2009 Trial Slated for DBCP Damage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Feb. 16, 2009 trial is slated for a purported class action filed against
AMVAC Chemical Corp. by banana workers who were exposed to 1,2-Dibromo-3-
Chloropropane (DBCP).

In October 1997, Amvac was served with two identical suits filed in:

     * the Circuit Court, First Circuit, State of Hawaii, and
     * the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii

entitled, “Patrickson, et al. v. Dole Food Co., et. al.”

The suits allege damages sustained from injuries caused by plaintiffs’
exposure to DBCP while applying the product in their native countries.

The 10 named plaintiffs are citizens of four countries—Guatemala, Costa Rica,
Panama, and Ecuador.  Punitive damages are sought against each defendant.

The plaintiffs were banana workers and allege that they were exposed to DBCP
in their native countries from 1959 through at least 1997.

The case was also filed as a class action on behalf of other workers so
exposed in these four countries.  The plaintiffs allege sterility and other
injuries.

On Sept. 12, 2006, the court transferred venue from Maui County to Oahu.  On
February 16, 2007, the case was assigned to a judge in Oahu.  

Preliminary issues are class certification and/or the addition of class
members as individual defendants.  Written discovery to defendants was
conducted on venue-related issues.  

The court held a status conference on April 16, 2007 and tentatively set the
case for trial for Feb. 16, 2009.  The plaintiffs were requested to file a
preliminary motion for class certification but have not done so to date,
according to American Vanguard's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

American Vanguard Corp. -- http://www.american-vanguard.com-- operates as a  
holding company.  The Company conducts its business through its subsidiaries,
including AMVAC Chemical Corp.  AMVAC is a specialty chemical manufacturer,
which develops and markets products for agricultural and commercial uses.  


AMVAC CHEMICAL: Certification Briefing Ongoing in Pollution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action “McLendon et al. v. Philip Services
Corp. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01770-CAP,” are briefing the court on the
subject of class certification in the case.

On July 19, 2006, AMVAC Chemical Corp.’s registered agent was served with a
complaint entitled, “Latrice McLendon, et al. v. Philip Service Corp. etc. et
al.”  The suit was filed in the Superior State Court of Fulton County, State
of Georgia (No. 2006CN119863) but was subsequently removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:06-CV-1770-
CAP).

The purported class of plaintiffs seeks damages, including punitive damages,
in an unspecified amount for personal injuries and diminution in property
value allegedly arising from the airborne release of propyl mercaptan and
ethoprop from a waste treatment facility operated by PSC Recovery Services in
Fairburn, Georgia.

Plaintiffs, residents living in the vicinity of the PSC plant, allege
trespass, nuisance and negligence on behalf of defendants in handling,
storing and treating waste, which was generated by AMVAC’s Axis, Alabama
facility.

The parties have completed class certification discovery and are in the midst
of briefing the court on the subject of class certification.

American Vanguard reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 9, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “McLendon et al. v. Philip Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-01770-CAP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia under Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Charles M. Goetz, Jr., Esq.
         Goetz Allen & Zahler
         2859 Paces Ferry Road, Overlook III, Suite 1740
         Atlanta, GA 30339
         Phone: 770-431-1000
         E-mail: cmgoetz@goetz-zahler.com

Representing the company is:

         Cari K. Dawson, Esq.
         Alston & Bird LLP
         1201 West Peachtree Street, One Atlantic Center
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
         Phone: 404-881-7000
         E-mail: cari.dawson@alston.com


ARTISTIC DRYWALLS: Settles Lawsuit by Former Workers for $635T
--------------------------------------------------------------
Artistic Drywall Textures of Snohomish County (Wash.) will pay up to $635,000
to settle a class action brought by former workers seeking back pay from the
company, The Seattle Times reports.

Most settlements will be less than $3,000 per worker, depending on the
project and number of hours worked, the report said.  About 640 current and
former workers of Artistic Drywall are eligible for back pay under the
settlement.  Artistic Drywall has not admitted wrongdoing.

The suit was filed in 2006 and was granted class certification.  It was
backed by the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District
Council 5, in Seattle.  The union has recruited Latino construction workers
and helped them file labor claims against drywall contractors.

The contractor's attorney is:

          Michael J. Killeen, Esq.
          Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
          Suite 2200, 1201 Third Avenue
          Seattle, Washington 98101-3045
          (King Co.)
          Phone: 206-622-3150
          Fax: 206-757-7700

Representing two former workers are:

          David N. Mark, Esq.
          601 Skinner Bldg
          1326 5th Ave
          Seattle, WA 98101-2604
          Phone:  (206) 340-1840
          Fax: (206) 340-1846


AUSTRALIA: Horse Breeders to Sue Over Flu Outbreak Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Breeders affected by the outbreak of equine influenza in New South Wales and
Queensland are planning to launch a class action against the federal
government, reports say.

The breeders say the government’s $110 million compensation package is
inadequate.  The compensation package does not allow for breeders to claim
for lost income caused by the inability to service horses due to the
outbreak, according to Racing and Sports Pty Ltd.

The flu outbreak has stopped racing in New South Wales indefinitely and has
restricted the movement of horses in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria.

PKF Chartered Accountants and Business Advisers and commercial law firm
Clinch Neville Long Letherbarrow say they have been inundated with inquiries
about the financial implications of the equine influenza outbreak, according
to NEWS.com.au.

PKF partner Jonathan Karlovsky said the repercussions of the outbreak will
cost the economy billions of dollars, according to the report.


CABOT CORP: Settles Carbon Black Lawsuit, Faces Several Others
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corp. has settled a federal antitrust class action in relation to
carbon black, but it still continues to face several similar lawsuits,
according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

                          Federal Action

Cabot Corp., Phelps Dodge Corp., Colombian Chemicals Co., Degussa Enginerred
Carbons, LP, Degussa AG and Degussa Corp. are named defendants in an
antitrust class action pending in U.S. Federal District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs in the federal case allege that the Defendants conspired to
fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for carbon black sold in the United
States during a specified period.

Based on settlement discussions with the plaintiffs in this federal action,
Cabot recorded a reserve of $10 million associated with this action in its
March 31, 2007 consolidated financial statements.

The reserve was unchanged as of June 30, 2007.  In June 2007, Cabot agreed to
settle the federal class action for $10 million.

The settlement received preliminary approval from the federal court in July
2007 and Cabot made a $10 million settlement payment, which is being held in
escrow pending final court approval of the settlement.

A hearing regarding final approval is scheduled for September 2007.

                         State Actions

Cabot and the other Defendants are also the named Defendants in class action
antitrust lawsuits pending in several state courts brought by purported
classes of indirect purchasers of carbon black and in a single federal case
brought by a party that did not join the federal class action.

The plaintiffs in the state cases assert violations under the applicable
state laws for conduct that is similar to what was alleged in the federal
case.

Cabot Corp. -- http://www.cabot-corp.com-- is a global specialty chemicals  
and performance materials company.  The Company's principal products are
rubber blacks, performance products, inkjet colorants, fumed metal oxides,
aerogels, tantalum and related products, and cesium formate drilling fluids.  
Cabot and its affiliates have manufacturing facilities in the United States
and more than 20 other countries.  

It operates in four business segments: the Carbon Black Business, the Metal
Oxides Business, the Supermetals Business and the Specialty Fluids Business.  
In addition, Cabot also manages its businesses on a regional basis and is
organized into five business regions: North America, South America, Europe,
Asia Pacific and China.


CANADA: Suit Against Government Over Jaw Implant Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
An Ontario Superior judge certified as class action a suit filed against the
federal government over jaw implants Vitek TMJ, Kirk Makin of Globe and Mail
(Canada) reports.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, John Legge, said that despite being warned that
the jaw implants could break down, Health Canada failed to issue warnings or
take action to get the devices off the market.  The device was later
withdrawn after numerous calls.

According to Mr. Makin, the lawsuit specifically alleges that the Health
Canada employees negligently approved the Vitek TMJ implants under the Food
and Drugs Act, and that they failed to warn doctors and patients of potential
risks.

The case is the first suit involving faulty medical device to be allowed
against Health Canada regulators, the report noted.  It was given a go-ahead
by Mr. Justice Maurice Cullity who dismissed the federal government’s
arguments that allowing the suit to continue would expose government
regulators to a flood of litigations in the future.

According to the Mr. Makin, Judge Cullity noted in his ruling that, should
the case go to trial, it could be possible for the plaintiffs to argue that
Health Canada's inaction "could only have encouraged the importer/distributor
to believe that it could ignore its statutory obligations. ..."

Mr. Makin also reported that majority of the plaintiffs in the class action
are women who had the implants because they had been clenching their jaws in
a way that caused them muscle pain.  The lead plaintiff in the case is
Kathryn Taylor.

The implants were manufactured in the U.S. and marketed under the trademark
Proplast.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John Legge, Esq.
          Legge & Legge
          65 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 800
          Toronto, Ontario
          Canada
          M4T 2Y3
          Web site: http://leggeandlegge.com/
          Phone: (416) 923-1776 x 224
          Fax: (416) 925-5344
          E-mail: jlegge@leggeandlegge.com


CARRIER CORP: Notices in High-Efficiency Furnaces Suit Out
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington began on Sept.
10 a statewide notification program for Washington residents who own or owned
a high efficiency furnace made by Carrier Corp. after January 1, 1989.

In 2005, homeowners in the State of Washington filed a suit alleging that in
the mid-1980s Carrier stopped using stainless steel secondary heat exchangers
in favor of cheaper polypropylene-laminated mild steel.   

Carrier switched to the cheaper product despite the fact that the industry
standard was (and still is) to use stainless steel parts to prevent
corrosion.

Plaintiffs allege that the polypropylene separates from the steel and
degrades due to the high temperatures in the furnace, exposing the underlying
mild steel to acidic condensate.  In some cases the corrosion proceeds to the
point of actually perforating the outside wall of the heat exchanger.

Carrier allegedly never disclosed to consumers that the new heat exchangers
are not as robust as ones manufactured from stainless steel or that their
furnaces would not as long as consumers typically expect.  

The case was filed on behalf of tens of thousands of Washington individuals
and entities who purchased Carrier, Bryant and Payne high-efficiency furnaces
since January 1, 1989.  

High-efficiency condensing (or 90%) furnaces maximize efficiency by employing
a second heat exchanger to extract more heat from the hot gases through
condensation.  These furnaces are typically more expensive than non-
condensing (or 80%) furnaces.  

The complaint charges that the polypropylene degrades and disintegrates due
to the high temperatures in the furnace.  When the polypropylene separates
from the steel, it exposes the underlying mild steel to acidic condensate.  
In some cases, the corrosion proceeds to the point of actually perforating
the outside wall of the heat exchanger.  

Early this year, Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington ordered that a case filed by current and past
Washington State owners of high-efficiency furnaces manufactured by Carrier
Corp. may proceed as a class action (Class Action Reporter, May 2, 2007).

The notices are a result of the Court establishing or "certifying," the class
action about whether Carrier disclosed defects in the secondary heat
exchangers of its high efficiency furnaces.

Deadline to file for exclusion is on December 10, 2007.

The Court has not decided whether the Class or Carrier is right. The lawyers
for the Class will have to prove their claims at a trial set to begin on
February 11, 2008.

The Court appointed the law firms of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC of Seattle,
Washington and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP of New York, New
York to represent the Class as Counsel.

The suit is "Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School et al. v.  
Carrier Corp., Case No. 3:05-cv-05437-RBL," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Western District of Washington under  
Judge Ronald B. Leighton.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.   
          Nancy A. Pacharzina, Esq.   
          Tousley Brain Stephens
          1700 Seventh Ave, STE 2200  
          Seattle, WA 98101-1332  
          Phone: 206-682-5600  
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  npacharzina@tousley.com

          - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.   
          Paulina do Amaral, Esq.
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
          780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-2024  
          Phone: 212-355-9500  
          Fax: 212-355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
                  pdomaral@lchb.com

Representing defendants are:

          Bart L. Kessel, Esq.  
          Tucker Ellis & West
          1000 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 1800  
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2475  
          Phone: 213-430-3388  
          Fax: 213-430-3409
          E-mail: bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com

          Mark L. Levine
          Brian Swanson  
          Michael J. Valaik
          Andrew Polovin  
          Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott
          Courthouse Place
          54 W Hubbard St., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60610  
          Phone: 312-494-4400  
          E-mail: mark.levine@bartlit-beck.com
                  brian.swanson@bartlit-beck.com
                  michael.valaik@bartlit-beck.com
                  andrew.polovin@bartlit-beck.com

          - and -

          John Michael Silk
          Dennis Smith  
          Wilson Smith Cochran & Dickerson
          1700 Financial Center
          1215 4th Ave., Ste 1700
          Seattle, WA 98161-1007  
          Phone: 206-623-4100  
          Fax: 206-623-9273
          E-mail: silk@wscd.com
                  smithd@wscd.com


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Sued in N.Y. Over Steam Pipe Explosion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP commenced a class action in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York on behalf of a class of
all businesses that were forced to close in the wake of the July 18, 2007
steam pipe explosion at the intersection of 41st Street and Lexington Avenue
in Manhattan.

The complaint alleges that defendant did not maintain the steam pipe system
in accordance with appropriate safety standards and did not take
precautionary steps to ensure an explosion would not occur.

On July 18, 2007, New York City experienced an unusually heavy rainstorm.
After the storm, defendant conducted a visual check for vapor rising from the
site of the Main, at 41st Street and Lexington Avenue.

Defendant's inspection team reported no cause for concern. Just a few hours
later, at 5:56 p.m., the Main exploded. The explosion sent water, steam and
debris -- including asbestos -- as high as 12 stories into the air.

In the aftermath of the explosion, a "frozen zone" was created and many
businesses were forced to close. Plaintiff lost the use of its offices for a
significant period and suffered a severe loss of its current and future
expected revenues. Plaintiff was unable to operate its business as a result
of its inability to access its office space.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all businesses that were
forced to close in the wake of the steam pipe explosion.

For more information, contact:

          Karen E. Fisch, Esq.
          Orin Kurtz, Esq.
          Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701


DEAN FOODS: Dairy Farmers File Antitrust Complaints in Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Co. faces two purported antitrust class-action complaints filed on
July 5, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

They allege generally that the company and others in the milk industry worked
together to limit the price Southeastern dairy farmers are paid for their raw
milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing
facilities.

Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and beverage  
company.  The Company has two segments: the Dairy Group and WhiteWave Foods
Company.  The Dairy Group manufactures and sells its products under a variety
of local and regional brand names and under private labels.  Its WhiteWave
Foods Co. develops, manufactures, markets and sells a variety of nationally
branded soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such as Silk soymilk and
cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy products, International Delight
coffee creamers, LAND O’LAKES creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel’s
Organic dairy products.


EDISON MISSION: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. Price-Fixing Lawsuits  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc., a subsidiary of Edison Mission
Energy, is seeking the dismissal of two purported price-fixing class actions
pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

                      Wexler Litigation

On April 4, 2007, EMMT was served with a complaint filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, by Saul R. Wexler, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated electric ratepayers in Illinois, against
Commonwealth Edison, Ameren, and all of the successful participants in the
Illinois auction, including EMMT.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants, including EMMT, colluded and
conspired to manipulate the auction results by price-fixing.  It seeks
unspecified damages.  

On April 26, 2007, the defendants transferred the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  On June 4, 2007, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the case, which remains pending.

                      Schafer Litigation

On March 30, 2007, David Schafer, Tim Perry, Pat Martin and Michael Murray,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated electric
ratepayers in Illinois, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, against Commonwealth Edison, Ameren, and all of the
successful participants in the Illinois auction, including EMMT.

EMMT has not been formally served in the case.  The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants, including EMMT, colluded and conspired to manipulate the auction
results by price-fixing.  It seeks unspecified damages.

On April 26, 2007, the defendants transferred the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  On June 4, 2007, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the case, which remains pending.

Edison Mission Energy (EME) -- http://www.edison.com/-- is an independent  
power producer engaged in the business of developing, acquiring, owning or
leasing, operating and selling energy and capacity from independent power
generation facilities.  EME also conducts hedging and energy trading
activities in power markets open to competition.


PALL CORP: Class Period in N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Expanded
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class period for the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against Pall Corp. has been extended to include
May 22, 2007 through August 8, 2007.

Filed on Aug. 14, the suit was originally commenced on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Pall Corp. (NYSE:PLL) between April 20, 2007 and
August 2, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 16, 2007).

The complaint charges Pall and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Exchange Act. The Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and markets filtration, purification, and separation products
and integrated systems solutions worldwide.

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

     (i) that Pall was materially overstating its financial
         results by understating its tax liability for taxes.
         Pall has publicly reported that it could owe more than
         $130 million in taxes, exclusive of interest or
         penalties, and that its financial statements for fiscal
         years 1999 through 2006 and for each of the fiscal
         quarters ended October 31, 2006, January 31, 2007, and
         April 30, 2007 "should no longer be relied upon and
         that a restatement of some or all of those financial
         statements will be required";

    (ii) that the Company's reported effective tax rate was
         materially inaccurate as the Company was materially
         understating its tax liability as it has now admitted;
         and

   (iii) based on the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP
         and were, therefore, materially false and misleading.

On July 19, 2007, after the markets closed, Pall announced that the Audit
Committee of its Board of Directors had commenced an inquiry into a possible
material understatement of U.S. income tax payments and of its provision for
income taxes in certain prior periods beginning with fiscal year ended July
31, 1999.

In response to this announcement, the price of Pall common stock declined
from $48.78 per share to $41.11 per share, over 15%, on unusually high
trading volume. Then, on August 2, 2007, Pall announced that its financial
statements for fiscal years 1999 through 2006 and for each of the fiscal
quarters ended October 31, 2006, January 31, 2007, and April 30, 2007 "should
no longer be relied upon and that a restatement of some or all of those
financial statements will be required."

Furthermore, Pall reported that the Company could owe up to $130 million in
back taxes not including interest and penalties. Upon this news, shares of
the Company's stock fell $1.21 per share, or 3%, to close at $39.90 per
share, on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Pall between April 20, 2007 and
August 2, 2007, inclusive.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 15, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          K. Lynn Nunn
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Email to: kln@federmanlaw.com
          Website: http://www.federmanlaw.com


RIZUTTI FARMS: Sued by Asparagus, Cherry Harvest Workers
--------------------------------------------------------
Rizutti Farms is facing a class action filed by farmworkers in federal court
in Yakima (Wash.) accusing it breaking labor laws, Tri-City Herald
(Kennewick, WA) reports.

David Sandoval and Raul Coria allege the company keeps written wage
information from workers and fails to provide adequate and licensed housing
to employees.  It also allegedly did not pay workers agreed upon wages and
promised bonuses, and failed to give workers written details of the job, the
report stated citing attorneys for the workers.

They filed the suit on behalf of about 200 other asparagus and cherry harvest
workers who were employed during harvests from 2005 to 2007.

Rizutti Farms attorney Ryan Edgley of Yakima dismisses the allegations.  He
said it was driven by a wage protest last year when 100 asparagus pickers
walked off the job.  But regarding the housing claims, Mr. Edgley said there
was no licensing because there had been no inspection, according to the
report.

The suit is “Sandoval et al. v. Rizzuti Farms Ltd. et al.,
Case Number 2:2007cv03076,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District Court of Washington under Judge Edward F. Shea.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Tami Nida Arntzen, Esq.
          Columbia Legal Services
          600 Larson Building
          6 South Second Street
          Yakima, WA 98901
          Phone: (509) 575-5593
                 (800) 631-1323


SEPRACOR INC: $52M Mass. Securities Fraud Suits Settlement OK’d
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morris E. Lasker of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts has granted final approval to a $52.5 million settlement of two
separate but related securities class actions filed against Sepracor Inc., a
Massachusetts-based pharmaceutical company.

The company and several of its officers were named as defendants in several
class action complaints, which have been filed on behalf of certain persons
who purchased the company's common stock and/or debt securities during
different time periods, beginning on various dates, the earliest being May
17, 1999, and all ending on March 6, 2002.

These complaints allege violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Primarily, they allege that the defendants made certain materially false and
misleading statements relating to the testing, safety and likelihood of
approval of tecastemizole by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In both the debt purchasers' action and equity purchasers' action, the court
has granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  

In late February 2006, two corrected and amended consolidated complaints were
filed, one on behalf of the purchasers of the company common stock and the
other on behalf of the purchasers of the company's debt securities.

The amended complaints were for:

      -- "In re: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
         02-12235-MEL," (Debt Purchasers Action); and

      -- "In re: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
         02-12338-MEL," (Equity Purchasers Action).

The cases were brought on behalf of all persons and entities who either
purchased any of the 5%, 5.75% or 7% convertible debt securities of the
company, or purchased the common stock or call options or who sold put
options of the company on the open market, between May 17, 1999 and March 6,
2002.

These corrected and amended consolidated complaints reiterate the allegations
contained in the previously filed complaints.
The parties are engaged in discovery.

On April 20, 2007, the company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, or
MOU, regarding the cases.

Under the terms of the MOU, the company has agreed with counsel for the lead
plaintiffs to pay or cause to be paid $52.5 million in settlement of the
class actions (Class Action Reporter, Jun 22, 2007).

Of this amount, the company expects to pay $34.0 million, and the company
expects that its insurance carriers will pay the remaining $18.5 million.

In consideration of this settlement payment, counsel for the lead plaintiffs
has agreed that the settlement will include a dismissal of the class actions
with prejudice and a release of claims by the plaintiffs.

Lead plaintiff's attorney for the debt class, Sherrie R. Savett of Berger &
Montague, noted that "the settlement is excellent for the classes. If we had
gone to trial, there would have been a battle of conflicting medical and
scientific experts given the multitude of complex scientific issues
surrounding the development of Sepracor's new drug candidate. Additionally,
economic experts would have quarreled about the proper measure of damages to
the two classes caused by Sepracor's failure to obtain approval for its
highly touted antihistamine drug."

For more details, contact:

         Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Notice Administrator
         P.O. Box 9000 #6372
         Merrick, New York 11566-9000
         Phone: (800) 916-5305

          - and -

         Joshua C. Schumacher
         Berger & Montague, P.C.
         Phone: 215 875-3055
         E-mail: jschumacher@bm.net
         Website: http://www.bergermontague.com


SILICON IMAGE: Seeks Dismissal of Cal. Securities Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Image, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a fourth consolidated amended
securities fraud complaint filed against it in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

Commenced on Jan. 31, 2005, the lawsuit, "Curry v. Silicon Image, Inc., Steve
Tirado, and Robert Gargus," alleged that the company and certain of its
officers and directors made alleged misstatements of material facts and
violated certain provisions of Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The case was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from
Oct. 19, 2004 to Jan. 24, 2005.

On April 27, 2005, the court issued an order appointing lead plaintiff and
approving the selection of lead counsel.  On July 27, 2005, plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended complaint.   The consolidated amended complaint no
longer named Mr. Gargus as an individual defendant, but added Dr. David Lee
as an individual defendant.

The consolidated amended complaint also expanded the class period from June
25, 2004 to April 22, 2005.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on Sept. 26, 2005.  

Plaintiffs subsequently received leave to file, and did file, a second
consolidated amended complaint on Dec. 8, 2005.  The
second consolidated amended complaint extends the end of the class period
from April 22, 2005 to Oct. 13, 2005 and adds additional factual allegations
under the same causes of action against the company, Mr. Tirado and Dr. Lee.  
The complaint also adds a new plaintiff, James D. Smallwood.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended
complaint on Feb. 9, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’
motion to dismiss on April 10, 2006 and defendants filed a reply to
plaintiffs’ opposition on May 19, 2006.

On June 21, 2006 the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint with leave to amend.  

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third consolidated amended complaint (by the
court established deadline of July 21, 2006.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on Sept. 1,
2006 and subsequent pleadings by the parties followed in November and
December of 2006 and January of 2007.

On Feb. 23, 2007, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint with leave to amend.  

Plaintiffs filed a fourth consolidated amended complaint on March 30, 2007.  
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint on May 25,
2007.

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

The suit is "In Re Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00456-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Maxine M.
Chesney.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Aaron H. Darsky Esq.
         Schubert & Reed, LLP
         Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-788-4220
         Fax: 415-788-0161
         E-mail: adarsky@schubert-reed.com

         Merrick Scott Rayle, Esq.
         Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP
         212 Wood Street
         Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3227
         Phone: 831-333-0309
         Fax: 831-333-0325
         E-mail: mrayle@lshllp.com

              - and -

         Richard A. Speirs, Esq.
         Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
         41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
         New York, NY 10010
         Phone: 212-223-3900

Representing the defendants is:

         Emmett C. Stanton, Esq.
         Fenwick & West, LLP
         Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street
         Mountain View, CA 94041-2008
         Phone: 650-988-8500
         Fax: 650-938-5200
         E-mail: estanton@fenwick.com


SKYWEST AIRLINES: Former Agent Denied Class Status for Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California refused to
grant a motion by a former SkyWest Airlines Inc. customer service agent to
convert a complaint she filed against the company into a class action, Paul
Beebe of The Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Tiffany Blackwell complained that because of flight delays, she did not
always receive meal breaks and sometimes didn't receive breaks within the
first five hours of work.  Ms. Blackwell also said she was required to work
schedules that resulted in unpaid overtime and had wages deducted from her
paychecks to pay for travel benefits without her authorization.

She wants that whatever ruling she gets from her suit should also apply to
about 4,000 SkyWest agents at 25 airports in California.

In an Aug. 30 ruling, Judge Dana Sabraw said Ms. Blackwell failed "to
convince this court that there is a clear justification for handling the
dispute on a representative [class-action] basis rather than on an individual
basis."  She left open the possibility that Ms. Blackwell could continue her
suit against SkyWest.

The suit is “Blackwell v. Skywest Airlines Inc., et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00307-DMS-AJB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern California
under Judge Dana M. Sabraw with referral to Anthony J. Battaglia.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          John P. Dorigan, Esq.
          Law Office of John P. Dorigan
          82237 Odlum Dr.
          Indio, CA 922201
          Phone: (760) 342-8074
          E-mail: jpdorigan@aol.com

          -- and –-

          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          Law Offices of Kevin T Barnes
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard
          Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: (323)549-9100
          Fax: (323)549-0101
          E-mail: lander@kbarnes.com

Representing the defendant is:  
  
          Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
          Winston and Strawn
          333 South Grand Avenue
          38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Phone: (213)615-1700
          Fax: (213)615-1750
          E-mail: asommerf@winston.com


STIRRINGS LLC: Recalls Possbily Contaminated Mojito Garnish
------------------------------------------------------------
Stirrings LLC, of Fall River, Massachusetts is recalling its 3.5 oz packages
of Rimmer Brand Mojito Cocktail Garnish (UPC# 80999 00046) with the best by
codes 10/27/08, 10/30/08, 11/23/08, 12/01/08, 12/04/08 and 01/03/09 printed
on the side of the tin.

The recall may involve approximately 5,000 cases of its Rimmer Brand Mojito
Cocktail Garnish supplied by Van de Vries Spice Corporation, formerly
Atlantic Quality Spice, of Edison, N.J. because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella. Although Stirrings LLC's tests of finished
product samples were negative for the presence of Salmonella, parsley powder,
one of several ingredients supplied by Van de Vries Spice, tested positive
for Salmonella.

The presence of Salmonella can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail, or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the
bloodstream and producing more serious illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e. infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

Rimmer Brand Mojito Cocktail Garnish was distributed nationwide through
distributors, retail stores, internet sales and cocktail establishments.

Immediately after Van de Vries brought to Stirrings attention that a parsley
powder used in a single lot of Mojito Rimmer product potentially could
contain Salmonella based on FDA testing, Stirrings retained expert
laboratories, primarily Shuster Laboratories of Canton, Massachusetts to test
samples of its Mojito Rimmer product for Salmonella. Testing of 24 samples
drawn from the Van de Vries lot of Mojito Rimmer failed to reveal the
presence of Salmonella in the Mojito Rimmer product.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Stirrings CEO Paul Nardone explained, "We have removed parsley powder from
our Rimmer Cocktail Garnish formula. This ingredient represents less than one
half of one percent of the blend and was used primarily as a natural
colorant." Nardone further stated, "We have initiated a recall as a
precaution and assurance to our customers that we stand behind our product
quality 100%."

Consumers who have purchased Rimmer Brand Mojito Cocktail Garnish with the
best by codes noted above are asked to return it to the place of purchase for
a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the Company toll-free at
866-648-8239.


STONE ENERGY: Ruling on Motion to Junk Securities Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana has yet to rule
on a motion seeking for a dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against Stone Energy Corp. and several of its officers.

On or around Nov. 30, 2005, George Porch filed a putative class action
against the company, David H. Welch, Kenneth H. Beer, D. Peter Canty and
James H. Prince.  Three similar complaints were filed thereafter.  All are
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

All complaints asserted a putative class period commencing on June 17, 2005
and ending on Oct. 6, 2005.  All complaints contended that, during the
putative class period, defendants, among other things, misstated or failed to
disclose:

      -- that Stone had materially overstated Stone's financial
         results by overvaluing its oil reserves through
         improper and aggressive reserve methodologies;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         company's proved reserves, assets and future net cash
         flows were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On March 17, 2006, these purported class actions were consolidated into "In
re: Stone Energy Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-02088," with El
Paso Firemen & Policemen's Pension Fund designated as lead plaintiff.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on or about June
14, 2006.  The consolidated complaint alleges claims similar to those
described above and expands the putative class period to commence on May 2,
2001 and to end on March 10, 2006.

On Sept. 13, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed motions
seeking a dismissal of that action.  The motion has since been fully briefed
by the parties, but -- as of the company's filing of its Aug. 8, 2007 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007 -- has not been decided by the court.

The suit is "In re: Stone Energy Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-
02088," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana under Judge Tucker L. Melancon with referral Mildred E. Methvin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
          Kahn Gauthier Law Group
          650 Poydras St., Ste. 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-648-1850
          Fax: 504-455-1498
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com

               - and -

          Mitchell J. Hoffman, Esq.
          Lowe Stein, et al.
          701 Poydras St., Ste. 3600
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Phone: 504-581-2450
          Fax: 504-581-2461
          E-mail: mhoffman@lshah.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Walter B. Stuart, IV, Esq.
          Vinson & Elkins
          666 5th Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10103
          Phone: 212-237-0000
          Fax: 212-237-0100
          E-mail: wstuart@velaw.com

               - and -

          Amy E. Allums, Esq.
          Johnson Gray McNamara
          P.O. Box 51165
          Lafayette, LA 70505
          Phone: 337-412-6003
          Fax: 337-412-6037
          E-mail: aea@jgmclaw.com


TD AMERITRADE: Seeks Nixing of Suit Over Alleged Privacy Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade, Inc. is seeking for a dismissal of a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
accusing the company of illegally selling email addresses to spammers.

Named plaintiff Matthew Elvey alleges TD Ameritrade provides spammers with
its accountholders' private email addresses, which sent and continue and to
send unsolicited commercial email (particularly email promoting certain penny
stocks or stock spam) to these private email addresses.

The exposure of its accountholders' email addresses allegedly violated and
breached TD Ameritrade's privacy policy (Class Action Reporter June 6,
2007). .

Mr. Elvey brings this class action on behalf of two classes:

     -- TD AmeriTrade accountholders residing in California
        (California Resident Class); and

     -- Internet access services which received spam sent to TD
        AmeriTrade accountholder's email addresses which is
        traceable to TD AmeriTrade's breach of its privacy
        policy (CAN SPAM Class).

The complaint alleges that TD AmeriTrade's provision of its accountholder's
email addresses not only facilitated the transmission of spam to its
accountholder's email addresses, it did so in violation of express
representations in it privacy policy that it would not share its
accountholder's personal information with third parties.  

On behalf of the California Resident Class, Mr. Elvey seeks injunctive relief
under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, equitable relief under
California's Unfair Competition Law, and damages and equitable relief for
breach of fiduciary duty.

Further, TD AmeriTrade's provision of its accountholder's emails facilitated
and initiated the transmission of various stock spam to their Internet
facilities, in violation of the CAN SPAM Act of 2003.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether TD AmeriTrade expose or provided email
         addresses of the California Resident Class members to
         spammers;

     (b) whether such exposure violated TD AmeriTrade's Privacy
         Statement;

     (c) whether such exposure was intentional or unintentional
         on TD AmeriTrade's part;

     (d) whether TD AmeriTrade's Privacy Statement represented
         that TD AmeriTrade's services have characteristics,
         uses and benefits, or quantities which they do not
         have, in violation of Cal. Civ. Code Section
         1770(a)(14);

     (e) whether TD AmeriTrade's Privacy Statement represented
         that TD AmeriTrade's services confer or involves
         rights, remedies, obligations which they do not confer
         or involve, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
         Section 17200;

     (f) whether, in light of the exposure and provision of
         California Resident Class members' email addresses to
         spammers, TD AmeriTrade's Privacy Statement was
         deceptive under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200;

     (g) whether TD AmeriTrade owed California Class members
         fiduciary duty as their broker;

     (h) whether TD AmeriTrade owed the California class members
         a fiduciary duty by dint of its collection of personal
         information under the Privacy Statement;

     (i) whether TD AmeriTrade breached such fiduciary duties
         through the violation of its Privacy Statement;

     (j) whether TD AmeriTrade failed to fully and accurately
         disclose the exposure and provision of California
         Resident Class members' email addresses to spammers and
         any underlying security breach;

     (k) whether, in light of Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.82, TD
         AmeriTrade's failure to disclose any security breach
         violated its fiduciary duties to the California
         Resident Class members;

     (l) whether, in light of its fiduciary duties, TD
         AmeriTrade's failure to disclose any security brach
         violated its fiduciary duties to the California
         Resident Class members;

     (m) whether TD AmeriTrade violated the CLRA;

     (n) whether TD AmeriTrade violated the UCL; and

     (o) whether plaintiff and the California Resident Class are
         entitled to relief, and the nature of such relief.

Plaintiff prays that court enter judgment and orders in their favor and
against defendants as follows:

     -- certifying the action as a class action and designating
        plaintiff and his counsel as representatives of the
        California Resident Class, the CAN SPAM Class;

     -- with respect to Counts I, II, and III, equitable relief
        for the California Resident Class, including an order
        for accounting, an order enjoining the misconduct
        alleged, restitution of property gained by this
        misconduct and disgorgement of profits obtained while
        the breach of fiduciary duty was on going, such as
        commissions on trades;

     -- with respect to Count III, damages in an amount to be
        determined at trial for the California Resident Class;

     -- with respect to Count IV, an injunction against further
        violations of CAN SPAM, statutory damages for each
        Traced Spam to each CAN SPAM class member, and
        reasonable costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees
        under the CAN SPAM Act, for the CAN SPAM Class;

     -- awarding pre- and post-judgment interest; and

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

On July 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction.  

On July 18, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’
amended complaint, 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.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?209f

The suit is “Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-02852-BZ,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Bernard Zimmerman.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb
          2757 Leonis Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90058
          Phone: (323) 585-8696
          Fax: (323) 585-8198
          E-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 920-3072
          Fax: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kolaw.com

          - and -

          Ethan Mark Preston, Esq.
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 920-3072
          Fax: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: ep@eplaw.us


TELIK INC: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Telik, Inc. faces several securities fraud class actions in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of
California.

Beginning on June 6, 2007, a series of putative securities class actions were
commenced against Telik, Inc. and certain of our current officers, one of
whom is also a director.

The complaints filed in the Southern District of New York also named as
defendants the underwriters for the company’s November 2003 and/or January
2005 stock offerings.  

Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California subsequently voluntarily
dismissed their complaints without prejudice.  

All of the complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the issuance of allegedly
false and misleading statements about the company’s business and prospects,
including the efficacy, safety and likelihood of success of the company's
drug TELCYTA.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief for purchasers of
the company’s common stock during the period between March 27, 2003 and June
4, 2007, including purchasers in the stock offerings.

The case is at an early stage, no discovery has occurred and no trial date
has been set, 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.

Telik, Inc. -- http://www.telik.com-- is a biopharmaceutical company, which  
discovers, develops and commercializes small molecule drugs to treat
diseases.  The Company discovered its product candidates using its drug
discovery technology, Target-Related Affinity Profiling.  

The Company’s TELCYTA is a small molecule cancer drug product candidate
designed to be activated in cancer cells.  The product candidate binds to
glutathione S-transferase P1-1, or GST P1-1, a protein that is elevated in
many human cancers, such as ovarian, non-small cell lung, colorectal, breast
and other types of cancer.  


TWEEN BRANDS: Class Period in O. Securities Fraud Suit Expanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class period for a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired
securities of Tween Brands, Inc. (NYSE:TWB) has been extended to include May
23, 2007 through August 21, 2007.

Filed on August 24, 2007, the suit was originally commenced on behalf of a
class of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of Tween Brands,
Inc. (NYSE:TWB) from June
8, 2007 through August 21, 2007, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2007).

In May 2007, the company announced positive earnings guidance for the second
quarter 2007 of $0.13 to $0.16 per share which the Company deemed
conservative, and earnings for fiscal 2007 of $2.15 to $2.25. The company
also announced a resumption of the Company's share repurchase program up to
$150 million over a two year period beginning May 29, 2007. The market
reacted favorably to this share repurchase plan and other positive statements
by rising 2.9%.

On June 8, 2007 Chief Executive Michael Rayden sold over 68,000 shares for
proceeds of over $2.8 million. On June 11, 2007 Rayden sold over 82,000
additional shares for proceeds of over 3.3 million.

As alleged in the Complaint, Tween Brands' financial performance was not as
robust as expected, and was not meeting the guidance previously announced in
May. While the Company had purchased approximately 1.6 million of its own
shares in the first quarter of 2007, based on the information currently
available, it purchased only approximately 40,000 of its own shares in the
second quarter, indicating that there was no confidence in the guidance
previously disseminated.

None of the adverse facts were disclosed until August 22, 2007, when the
Company revealed that the Company's financial performance during the second
quarter had been weak, plagued by a decline in retail traffic, lower store
transactions and other factors which appear to have been apparent during the
quarter. The Company announced that quarterly earnings would be only $0.07
per share. The Company was also forced to revise downward its prior guidance
for fiscal 2007. On this wholly unexpected news the price of Tween Brand
stock dropped $11.00 from $38.59 to $27.59 and has not substantially
recovered.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tween Brands securities during the Class Period.

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

For more information, contact:

          K. Lynn Nunn
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Email to: kln@federmanlaw.com
          Website: http://www.federmanlaw.com


TYSON FRESH: Appeals Ruling in Boxed Beef Cutout Prices Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., a subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc., is appealing to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit a judgment handed down in
the purported class action, "Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al. (1:02-cv-
01027-CBK)."

In July 2002, certain cattle producers filed the suit, “Herman Schumacher, et
al. vs. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., et al.,” in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Dakota, seeking certification of a class of cattle
producers.

Plaintiffs claimed that in 2001, during the first six weeks the U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture began its mandatory price reporting program, defendants knowingly
used the inaccurate boxed beef cutout prices (cutout prices are determined by
the USDA through a formula that averages the prices of the various box beef
cuts reported by all packers) calculated and published by the USDA to
negotiate the purchase of fed cattle from plaintiffs at prices substantially
lower than would have been economically justified had plaintiffs known the
accurate higher cutout prices.

Plaintiffs contend defendants’ conduct constituted an unfair or deceptive
practice or was engaged in for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating
or controlling prices in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), 7
U.S.C. Section 192.

The Tyson Fresh stated that during the period in question the beef packers
correctly reported beef sales information to the USDA and Tyson Fresh
believes it acted appropriately in its dealings with cattle producers.

Trial in this matter commenced on March 31, 2006, and a jury verdict was
returned against TFM and two of the other three defendants.

The jury verdict against Tyson Fresh was for $4,000,000, but this amount was
based on all sales and not just those of the class.  Tyson Fresh, together
with the other defendants, filed a motion in the District Court seeking
judgment as a matter of law.  That motion was denied.  

On Feb. 15, 2007, the District Court entered judgment against Tyson Fresh and
the other defendants.  On March 12, 2007, TFM filed its Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 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 "Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al. (1:02-cv-01027-CBK),"
filed in the U.S. District Court of South Dakota under Judge Charles B.
Kornmann.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Elizabeth J. Anderson, Esq.
          David F. Herr, Esq.
          Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand
          3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. 7th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
          Phone: (612)672-8200
          Fax: (612) 672-8397

Representing the defendants are:

          William H. Baumgartner, Jr., Esq.
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312)853-7000
          Fax: (312)853-7036
          E-mail: wbaumgartner@sidley.com
               
               - and -

          Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq.
          McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO
          1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700 First Natl. Tower
          Omaha, NE 68102-1627
          Phone: (402)341-3070
          Fax: (402)341-0216
          E-mail: pbrookhouser@mnmk.com


UNITED PARCEL: Faces Several Employee-Related Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. faces a number of lawsuits filed in state and
federal courts containing various class-action allegations under state wage-
and-hour laws, 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.

                         Marlo Litigation

In one of these cases, “Marlo v. UPS,” which has been certified as a class
action in a California federal court, plaintiffs allege that they improperly
were denied overtime.  They are seeking penalties for missed meal and rest
periods, and interest and attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of 1,200 full-time supervisors.  The
court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS on all claims and plaintiffs
have appealed.

                         Cornn Litigation

In another case, “Cornn v. UPS,” which has been certified as a class action
in a California federal court, plaintiffs allege that they were improperly
denied wages and/or overtime and meal and rest periods.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of approximately 23,600 drivers and
seek back wages, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees.

UPS settled this matter in full for a total payment of $87 million in the
second quarter of 2007.  

The settlement had no impact on the company's 2007 operating results as it
was accrued for previously during the third quarter of 2006.

                        Hohider Litigation

In another case, “Hohider v. UPS,” which in July 2007 was certified as a
class action in a Pennsylvania federal court, plaintiffs have challenged
certain aspects of the Company’s interactive process for assessing requests
for reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of over 35,000 current and former
employees.  They are seeking backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as attorneys’ fees.

In August 2007, the Company filed a Petition with the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals to hear the appeal of the trial court’s recent certification order.

United Parcel Service, Inc. -- http://www.ups.com/-- is a package delivery  
and supply chain management company.  The primary business of the Company
includes time-definite delivery of packages and documents.  Other services of
UPS include supply chain solutions, such as freight forwarding, customs
brokerage, fulfillment, returns, financial transactions, repairs and less-
than-truckload (LTL) transportation services.  


UNITED STATES: Foreign Spouses Sue Over Residency Claim Delays
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Homeland Security is facing a class-action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging its
erroneous legal standard has stripped numerous foreign spouses of U.S.
citizens of their right to legal residency, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This action arises under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), 8
U.S.C. Section 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) and 8 U.S.C. Section 1255.

A citizen may apply for adjustment of status for a non-citizen spouse as an
immediate relative. A non-citizen spouse may apply if he or she has been
married to a citizen for two years or more and the citizen spouse dies.

If the citizen dies before the second anniversary of the marriage, the non-
citizen is no longer considered a spouse, and thus loses all rights.  Because
the department is not punctual in processing their claims, numerous spouses
had lost the right to become legal residents under this system.

Plaintiffs seek writ of mandamus and an injunction.

The suit is "Carolyn Robb Hootkins et al. v. Michael Chertoff et al. Case No.
CV07-05696 CAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Brent W. Renison
          Parrilli Renison LLC
          5285 SW Meadows Rd., Ste 175
          Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
          Phone: (503) 597-7190
          Fax: (503) 726-0730
          E-mail: brent@entrylaw.com

          - and -

          Alan R. Diamante
          Law Office of Alan R. Diamante
          523 W. Sixth Street, Ste. 210
          Los Angeles, California 90014
          Phone: (213) 943-4555
          Fax: (213) 943-4553
          E-mail: diamantelaw@aol.com


VALERO ENERGY: Kans. Suit Over Fuel Temperature Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Valero Energy Corp. faces a consolidated consumer class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas in relation to fuel temperature.

The complaints, filed in federal courts in several states, allege that
because fuel volume increases with fuel temperature, the defendants have
violated state consumer protection laws by failing to adjust the volume of
fuel when the fuel temperature exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

The complaints seek to certify classes of retail consumers who purchased fuel
in various locations. They seek an order compelling the installation of
temperature correction devices as well as associated monetary relief.

In June 2007, the federal lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict
litigation case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Multi-
District Litigation Docket No. 1840, In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation).

As of Aug. 1, 2007, the company along with several other companies in the
retail petroleum marketing business, was named in 17 consumer class actions
in relation to fuel temperature.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and operates 18  
refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba that produce refined
products, such as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending,
gasoline meeting the specifications of the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel, and
oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


VIRGINIA: Property Owners File New Lawsuit Over Jet Noise
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for a group of property owners around Oceana Naval Air Station in
Virginia Beach and Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing Field in Chesapeake have
filed a class action over jet noise in the area, The Virginian-Pilot, The
(Norfolk, VA) reports.

The suit was filed in U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington on behalf of
plaintiffs who claim that loud F/A-18 Navy Hornets have lowered the value of
their homes and negatively affected their everyday lives.  Damages are
estimated at $500 million, according to the report.

A second complaint, representing 1,375 property owners, was also filed in the
same court, seeking what is estimated $50 million in damages.  It was filed
as a "safety" suit in case the first suit is not certified, said plaintiffs'
lawyer Martin Wolf.  At the same time, it will enable at least some property
owners to pursue a claim before the statue of limitations for overflight
takings' lawsuits expires.  

Federal law requires that property owners who want to sue the United States
in overflight takings' lawsuits bring their claims within six years of first
suffering harm.

In May, more than 2,000 property owners in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake
reached a $34.4 million agreement to settle a similar suit.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jack E. Ferrebee, Esq.
          Hofheimer/Ferrebee,P.C.
          1060 Laskin Road
          Suite 12B
          Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451
          (Independent City)
          Phone: 757-425-5200
          Fax: 757-425-6100
          Web site: http://www.virginiadivorceattorney.com


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 26-28, 2007
MEALEY'S NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION SUPERCONFERENCE: EMERGING ISSUES, TRIAL
SKILLS, INSURANCE, MEDICINE,

BANKRUPTCY AND FINANCIAL & RISK MANAGEMENT
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 8-9, 2007
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

November 8-9, 2007
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT SECURITIES, TAX,
ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE

ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

September 1-30, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND TORT CASES IN
TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 13, 2007
MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN HOME: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (OTC:
AHMIQ.PK) between July 26, 2006 and July 27, 2007 inclusive. Also included
are those who purchased American Home shares in the April 30, 2007 secondary
public offering.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Statements issued by the defendants
during the Class Period were materially false and misleading when made
because defendants failed to disclose that:

     (a) the Company lacked the requisite internal controls and
         therefore would need to write down its loan and
         security portfolios,

     (b) the Company's projections were based upon defective
         assumptions,

     (c) the Company was particularly vulnerable to the housing
         market decline and experiencing an increasing level of
         loan delinquencies; and

     (d) given the subprime mortgage market's collapse, the
         Company had no reasonable basis to make its projections
         and previously declare dividends it would be unable to
         pay.

On July 30, 2007, trading in the Company's shares was halted pending a
Company announcement. On July 31, 2007, American Home disclosed that it would
be unable to borrow on its credit facility and had hired advisors to consider
its options, including the sale of its assets. The Company stated that it had
over the past three weeks paid "very significant" margin calls.

When trading resumed, the Company's common stock plummeted, closing at $1.04
a share, a 90% decline from its closing price on July 27, 2007. On August 6,
2007, the Company announced that it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection.

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

For more information, contact:

          David R. Kromm, Esq.
          Jayne Nykolyn
          Zwerling Schachter
          Phone: 1-800-721-3900
          E-mail: dkromm@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com


CHINA SUNERGY: KGS Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC has filed the first class action against China
Sunergy Co. Ltd. (NASDAQ: CSUN) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of China Sunergy in connection with the Company's IPO on or about May
17, 2007, or who purchased shares thereafter in the open market.

China Sunergy, certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's
underwriters are charged with including, or allowing the inclusion of,
materially false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in violation of the Securities
Act of 1933.

Particularly, the Complaint charges that China Sunergy raised over $107.52
million through the issuance of 9.775 million shares, despite the
Registration Statement's false and misleading statements that the Company:

     (1) was a "leading manufacturer of solar cell products, as
         measured by production capacity" that was experiencing
         remarkable revenue growth; and

     (2) had secured a sufficient supply of polysilicon, a raw
         material necessary to the continued production of its
         solar cell products.

Yet at the time of the IPO and unbeknownst to shareholders, the Registration
Statement failed to disclose that China Sunergy was already having difficulty
obtaining a sufficient supply of polysilicon, which foreseeably would have a
near-term adverse impact on earnings.

On July 3, 2007, only weeks after the IPO, China Sunergy issued a press
release announcing preliminary results for 2Q:07 well below guidance, and
claimed that it could suddenly not obtain critical raw materials necessary
for production and its revenue goals. The Company's press release stated
that "the relatively tight supply of polysilicon affected the quality,
quantity and delivery of wafers and drove up overall wafer prices in the spot
market, resulting in increased pressure on China Sunergy's margins."

On this news, shares of China Sunergy fell nearly 25% in a single trading
day, from a high of $14.90 on July 2, 2007, to a close of $11.28 the
following day, on exceedingly high volume of 3.659 million shares. As the
impact of China Sunergy's belated disclosures resonated in the market, shares
of the Company continued to decline, to about $7.50 per share by August 23,
2007. Shares fell significantly lower days later, to below $5.00 per share --
on news that the Company's CFO was resigning -- after China Sunergy revealed
a loss of at least $.14 per share for 2Q:07. In all, China Sunergy shares
fell from $16.70 per share from the highs following the IPO, to a low of
below $5.00 per share -- all within approximately 10 weeks.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 9, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn
          Managing Partner
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com
          Website: http://www.kgscounsel.com


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Health Management Associates between January 17, 2007 and
July 30, 2007, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

During this time period, certain company insiders sold over 900,000 shares of
HMA stock for gross proceeds in excess of $17 million.

The complaint charges HMA, William J. Schoen, Joseph V. Vumbacco and Robert
E. Farnham with violations of Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Exchange Act,
by issuing materially false and misleading statements. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing a deterioration in
         its collection of accounts receivable from uninsured
         patients;

     (2) that the Company was significantly under-reserving for
         bad debt expense;

     (3) that the Company would be forced to dramatically
         increase its provision for bad debt expense going
         forward, which would severely impact the Company's net
         earnings in subsequent quarters;

     (4) that the Company's financial statements were materially
         misleading;

     (5) that the Company's materially misleading financial
         statements enabled the Company to effectuate a major
         recapitalization which was otherwise unattainable;

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

     (7) that the Company's statements about its financial well-
         being, earnings and guidance were lacking in a
         reasonable basis when made.

On July 31, 2007, HMA announced that their 2nd quarter net income dropped 85%
and the Company cut in half expected earnings for the full year. On this
unexpected news, the price of HMA stock dropped almost 25% to close at $8.06
on July 31, 2007 and has declined further.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the
common stock of HMA between January 17, 2007 and July 30, 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 1, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:

          Susan R. Gross, Esq.
          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600
          E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
                  debbie@bernardmgross.com
          Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


HEELYS INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased the stock of Heelys, Inc. (Nasdaq:HLYS)
issued pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Heelys in connection with the
Company's December 2006 initial public stock offering.

The Complaint charges, among others, Heelys and certain of the Company's
executive officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business
and prospects caused Heelys stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors. Heelys designs, markets and distributes
footwear with a removable wheel which allows wearers to switch from walking
or running to skating by shifting weight to their heels.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and
failed to disclose that the Registration Statement filed by defendants in
connection with the IPO was misleading in that, among other things, it
represented that Heelys had a viable, well-established business plan and that
the Company's revenue growth and resulting profits were based on sound
business and stable sales practices. Moreover, the Registration Statement
failed to disclose the staggering number of injuries suffered by Heelys users
in the months leading up to the IPO.

When the truth about the dangers associated with use of Heelys reached the
market on August 8, 2007, ratings of the Company's common stock were slashed
and Heelys' stock price plummeted to less than $13 per share, thereby
damaging investors who acquired Heelys stock pursuant or traceable to the
IPO.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

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

          Lionel Z. Glancy
          Michael Goldberg
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Website: http://www.glancylaw.com


JONES SODA: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a class action on behalf of investors,
against the chief executive and other executives of the Jones Soda Co.

The complaint stems from investigations into allegation contained in the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer that certain officers and directors of Jones Soda
disposed of "nearly all their shares of the company stock" in what was
called "a highly unusual move" by securities experts "during a wave of
positive publicity that kept the stock high."

Subsequently two other class action lawsuits have been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf
of purchasers of Jones Soda Company ("Jones Soda") common stock during the
period between March 9, 2007 and August 2, 2007.

Attorney Steve Berman filed the complaint on behalf of lead plaintiff, Lael
Banner, and all purchasers (other than defendants). The suit also represents
all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased Jones Soda Corporation
common stock between November 1, 2006, and August 2, 2007.

The complaint generally charges that Jones Soda and the executives made
misleading statements about an expansion into major retailers, such as Wal-
Mart, Kroger, Safeway and Kmart, with a new 12-ounce canned soda and a major
marketing campaign.

The "continued bullish statements" caused the stock price to surpass $32 a
share April 16, which more than doubled the company's market value, the suit
says. But Aug. 2, the company reported significantly lower-than-expected
canned soda sales and said it had difficulty getting the new products on
retailers' shelves before the Memorial Day holiday, the suit said. The
problems also caused the company to embargo an advertising campaign, and
it "essentially bumbled the launch of Jones Soda 12-ounce cans," the suit
says. The stock price, following two quarters of poor earnings results, has
fallen 67 percent since hitting the record high in mid-April.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman or Reed R. Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro LLP
          Phone: 888/381-2889
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com


THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP commenced a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of
all persons who purchased or acquired securities of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.
between April 19, 2007 and August 14, 2007 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price of Thornburg Mortgage
securities. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among
others:

     (a) that the Company was facing increasing margin calls;
     
     (b) that its available leverage had significantly
         diminished;

     (c) that its financial situation had deteriorated to the
         point where it must sell certain assets; and,

     (d) that as a result of the foregoing the Company reported
         overstated financial results.

On August 14, 2007, Thornburg Mortgage announced that its Board of Directors
had rescheduled the payment date of the Company's second quarter common
dividend of $0.68 per share to September 17, 2007 and that the Company was
unable to fund its mortgage assets in the commercial paper and the asset-
backed securities markets. On August 20, 2007, the Company announced that it
was forced to sell $20.5 billion of its top-rated mortgage backed securities
to boost its liquidity. The Company had been unable to repay nearly $8.4
billion of commercial paper outstanding as of June 30, 2007 because buyers of
the paper demanded terms and covenants that the Company was either unwilling
or unable to satisfy.

In reaction to these shocking disclosures, Thornburg Mortgage's stock dropped
from $21.23 per share on August 9, 2007 to $14.28 on August 13, 2007 to $7.61
on August 14, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Thornburg Mortgage securities during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 22, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Susan Lee
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 (Toll Free)
          E-mail: slee@abbeyspanier.com or
                  nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.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  * * *